# Developing a GIS Model for Identifying Bear Corridors with Open-Source Data: The Romanian Context
## 4 Discussion
In the case of the second green bridge chosen, located between the towns of Branisca and Breeta Muresana, the overlap is highlighted by its design and construction at the border of a forest and the creation of a link with a pasture area characterized, from a morphometric point of view, by small slopes, having the character of a plateau, a fact that favors the movement of the bear population (Figure 12). Another important aspect is the realization of the connectivity analysis that can be implemented by making the data transparent regarding the number of bears or their density within the hunting grounds, with the main aim of establishing, with greater precision, the areas where it is necessary to create ecological corridors because of the development of major territorial transport infrastructures. This aspect belongs to the Romanian Ministry of the Environment, and data on large carnivores in general are not made public, although they are centralized annually. The only public data that could be accessed are those related to approvals regarding the harvesting of bear/wolf specimens and wildlife species killed by accident. Among the animals killed by accident, including the brown bear, in 2021 there were 72 specimens killed (Figure 13), of which 45 were involved in car accidents, mostly in Mures and Sibiu counties; 27 specimens were hit by a train, mostly in Brasov and Harghita counties. As expected, the expansion of built-up areas (Figure 8) and the practice of tourism in the natural environment affect bear behavior, as well as species distribution and its integrity [46]. Mountainous and forested areas in the vicinity of rural and urban areas are used by bears for travel and increase the chances that interactions with humans will be more frequent [47]. Figure 12: Model validation of a Green Bridge over highway A1 section Deva-Lugoj. Figure 13: Number of bears killed on the transport infrastructure. The habitat areas avoided are those that do not offer optimal conditions for survival, as those are heavily anthropized areas where a conflict with humans is very likely to occur. At the opposite pole of very favorable habitats, these are evidently the non-habitat areas that do not meet the ecological needs of the brown bear. Even if there have been increasingly frequent occurrences lately in those areas unsuitable for survival and strongly evaded, these are isolated cases and it is specific to bears with an abnormal behavior, those habituated bears that are accustomed to the presence of humans [48]. Following the result obtained, it is highlighted that, in Romania, there are enough habitats left in a natural state. The fact that Romania is a developing country must be taken into account. The development path must consider the survival needs of wildlife and ensure connectivity between the most favorable habitats. The analysis carried out on a large regional scale can be and is the basis for the identification of territorial hotspots similar to local problem areas such as those found on the Deva-Lugoi alignment, Prahova Valley and Oltului Valley, and the Ballor Tusnad area, which can later be developed from the point of view of the research through analysis on a large topographical scale, including the development of the methodology that allows consideration other databases representing the enabling and restricting ecological factors for the bear population movement. The necessary datasets that should be included for a more thorough analysis at the regional level are tourist infrastructure (ski slopes, cable car transport infrastructure, mountain huts, tourist routes), objects of consolidation of the transport infrastructure (walls and support nets, gabions, parapets, deep ditches), agricultural activities (animal husbandry, orchards, apiaries, grazing), additional feeding points, and, last but not least, waste management for the studied area.