Action

Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Relocate access points to bat roosts within developments

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    45%
  • Certainty
    32%
  • Harms
    10%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of relocating access points to bat roosts within building developments on bat populations. One study was in Ireland and one in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)  

  • Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that fewer brown long-eared bats used a roost after the access points were relocated, and no bats were observed flying through them. One before-and-after study in the UK found that few lesser horseshoe bats used an alternative access point with a ‘bend’ design to re-enter a roost in a building development, but the number of bats using the roost increased after an access point with a ‘straight’ design was installed.

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

  1. A before-and-after study in 2004–2008 of one building renovation in Ireland (Aughney 2008) found that after relocating the access points to a bat roost within an attic during renovations, fewer brown long-eared bats Plecotus auritus used the roost and no bats were observed flying through the new access points. Before the renovations, 19 and eight brown long-eared bats were recorded exiting the roost through two original access points. After the renovations, no bats were observed exiting through two relocated access points and the number of droppings found inside the attic (<100) indicated that fewer bats were using the roost than before the renovations (number not reported). The building was a 19th century brick house. During renovation work, two bat access points consisting of angled slats (‘louvres’) were installed in the roof in different locations to the original bat access points. Renovations were completed in early 2007. Emergence counts were carried out once in June 2004 before the renovations, and once in August 2008 after the renovations. An internal inspection was carried out in October 2008.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A before-and-after study in 1993–2016 of one building development in the UK (Reason 2017) found that an alternative access point with a ‘straight’ design resulted in an increase in lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros using the basement of the building as a roost, but an access point with a ‘bend’ resulted in a decrease in bats re-entering the roost. Up to 35 bats were counted emerging from the roost prior to the installation of an alternative access point. After installation of the access point with a ‘bend’ in 2000, a similar number of bats exited the roost (data not reported), but only two were observed re-entering. In 2001, the access point was modified to a ‘straight’ design and the number of bats using the roost increased over a 15-year period (2002: 27 bats; 2016: 416 bats). The ‘bend’ design consisted of a 90° turn at the base of a short vertical shaft and was in place for 11 months. The ‘straight’ design consisted of a sloped chute enclosing the original flight route with a clear flight line into the roost. The building was a large manor house converted into a hotel in 2000–2001. Counts of emerging bats were carried out at least once/year between May and July in 1993–2000. Emergence and re-entry counts were carried out three times/year in 2000–2001. Biennial counts were carried out in July in 2002–2016.

    Study and other actions tested
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.

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bat Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bat Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust