Action: Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats

Key messages

Read our guidance on Key messages before continuing

We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats or human behaviours directly beneficial to bats.

‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.

Background information and definitions

Raising awareness amongst policymakers of the need for bat conservation may result in improved legal protection of bats and bat habitats.

Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2019) Bat Conservation. Pages 67-140 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Overall Effectiveness Category: No evidence found (no assessment)
Effectiveness: not assessed
Certainty: not assessed
Harms: not assessed

Where has this evidence come from?

Bat Conservation
View all

Click here to see the list of journals searched for this synopsis, and here to see all the journals searched for all synopses.

Source countries

Related Actions

Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats
Educate the public to improve perception of bats to improve behaviour towards bats
Educate farmers, local communities and pest controllers to reduce indiscriminate culling of vampire bats

Related Actions

Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats
Educate the public to improve perception of bats to improve behaviour towards bats
Educate farmers, local communities and pest controllers to reduce indiscriminate culling of vampire bats

Download reference details

This option allows you to download the individual studies which make up this action.

Please select your preferred method below.

Text (full) Text (references only) RIS

Submit additional evidence

Thank you for considering submitting additional evidence about this intervention. Ideally we would like all submitted evidence to have been published in peer-reviewed literature. However, we do welcome evidence of any nature.

Please be aware that given the volume of work we have we cannot guarantee a response to every submission.

Fields with * are required.

Name *

Affiliation *

Email *

Message *

Attach files You may submit up to three additional files

File 1

File 2

File 3

Verification Code

Effectiveness

An assessment by independent experts of the effectiveness of this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = not effective, 100% = highly effective). This score is based on the direction and size of the effects reported in each study. Actions with high scores typically have large, desirable effects on the target species/habitat in each study. There is some variation between actions, e.g. 100% effectiveness in adding underpasses under roads for bat conservation will likely have different impacts to 100% effectiveness in restoring marsh habitat. The effectiveness score does not consider the quantity or quality of studies; a single, poorly designed study could generate a high effectiveness score. The effectiveness score is combined with the certainty and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Harms

An assessment by independent experts of the harms of this action to the target group of species/habitat, based on the summarized evidence (0% = none, 100% = major undesirable effects). Undesirable effects on other groups of species/habitats are not considered in this score. The harms score is combined with the effectiveness and certainty scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Certainty

An assessment by independent experts of the certainty of the evidence for this action based on the summarized evidence (0% = no evidence, 100% = high quality evidence). How certain can we be that the effectiveness score applies to all targets of the intervention (e.g. all birds for an action in the bird synopsis)? This score is based on the number, quality and coverage (species, habitats, geographical locations) of studies. Actions with high scores are supported by lots of well-designed studies with a broad coverage relative to the scope of the intervention. However, the definition of "lots" and "well-designed" will vary between interventions and synopses depending on the breadth of the subject. The certainty score is combined with the effectiveness and harms scores to determine the overall effectiveness category (for more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79).

Overall Effectiveness Category

The overall effectiveness category is determined using effectiveness, certainty and harms scores generated by a structured assessment process with multiple rounds of anonymous scoring and commenting (a modified Delphi method). In this assessment, independent subject experts (listed for each synopsis) interpret the summarized evidence using standardised instructions. For more details see https://www.conservationevidence.com/content/page/79.

Action: Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats

Key messages

Please cite as:

Related Actions

Download reference details

Submit additional evidence

Effectiveness

Harms

Certainty

Overall Effectiveness Category

1 Select a category

2 Refine category

3 View actions

What concerns you?