Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Divert bats to safe crossing points over or under roads/railways with plantings or fencing

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of diverting bats using an artificial hedgerow on bat populations. The study was in Switzerland.




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 controlled, before-and-after study in 2003 of a bat roost in an agricultural area of Giswil, Switzerland (Britschgi et al. 2004) found that more lesser horseshoe bats Rhinolophus hipposideros exiting from the roost from one side flew in a particular direction after an artificial hedgerow was installed. The number of bats flying in a particular direction increased after an artificial hedgerow had been installed for over two weeks (before: average 3% of bats; after: 10% of bats). Bats flying along the artificial hedgerow were found to emerge earlier from the roost and return later than bats using other flight routes and were out of the roost for longer (up to 4 minutes more). The artificial hedgerow (1 m wide x 1.5–2 m high x 200 m long) consisted of native hedgerow plants in containers. It was placed through open farmland to connect the bat roost with a foraging habitat within forest. The experiment was split into phases of 4–5 nights, with one phase each for before and after control periods, and 6 experimental phases with the artificial hedgerow in place. Bat activity was monitored with bat detectors and infrared video cameras for >50 minutes at sunset and sunrise for 39 nights in July–September 2003.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Bat Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bat Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

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, 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 the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust