Exclude bats from roosts during building work

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

45%
Certainty

23%
Harms

17%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This intervention involves excluding bats from roosts within buildings during building work. Although this may prevent injury or death as a direct result of the building work itself, it is important to consider both the short-term and long-term impacts of exclusion on the survival and productivity of bat populations.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during building work on bat populations. The study was in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UKfound that excluding bats from roosts within buildings did not change roost switching frequency, core foraging areas or foraging preferences of soprano pipistrelle colonies.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, before-and-after study in 2012–2013 of five buildings across England, UK (Stone et al 2015) found that excluding bats from roosts within buildings resulted in no difference in roost switching frequency, core foraging areas or foraging preferences of soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus colonies. All five bat colonies established in alternative roosts within three days of exclusion in other buildings within 1.5 km of the original roost. Bats switched roosts at a similar frequency before (average every 2.1 days) and after exclusion (average 2 days). Bats also foraged in similar sized core areas (before: average 44 ha; after: average 47 ha), travelled similar distances to foraging sites (before: average 1.5 km, after: average 1.5 km), and had the same foraging habitat preferences (data reported as statistical model results) before and after exclusion. Exclusion experiments were carried out in the spring of 2012 and 2013. Temporary one-way exclusion measures were installed at roost exits. The five sites had 150–300 bats present before exclusion, and four sites were known maternity roosts. Bats were radio-tracked for up to 4 h after sunset for 4–7 days before and after exclusion.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Stone E, Newson S.E, Browne W.J, Harris S., Jones G & Zeale M.R.K (2015) Managing conflict between bats and humans: The response of soprano pipistrelles (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) to exclusion from roosts in houses. PLoS ONE, 10, e0131825.

Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2021) Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bat Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Install sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas occupied by humans within developments Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Plant gardens with night-scented flowers Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Change timing of building work Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link