URL originale : https://books.openedition.org/obp/17427

2.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
p. 67-71
Texte intégral

Unknown effectiveness
Change timing of building work
1One study evaluated the effects of changing the timing of building work on bat populations. The study was in Ireland.
2COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
3POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
4BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
5Use (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that carrying out roofing work outside of the bat maternity season, along with retaining bat access points, resulted in a similar number of brown long-eared bats continuing to use a roost within an attic.
6Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50 %; certainty 12 %; harms 0 %).
7https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/950
Create alternative bat roosts within developments
8Eleven studies evaluated the effects of creating alternative bat roosts within developments on bat populations. Two studies were in the USA, and nine studies were in Europe.
9COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
10POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
11BEHAVIOUR (11 STUDIES)
12Use: (11 studies): Two replicated studies in the USA and UK found that bats did not use any of the alternative roosts provided in bat houses or a purpose-built bat wall after exclusion from buildings. Three studies (two replicated) in the USA and UK and one review in the UK found that bat boxes or bat lofts/barns were used by bats at 13–74 % of development sites, and bat lofts/ barns were used by maternity colonies at one of 19 development sites. Three of five before-and-after studies in Portugal, Ireland, Spain and the UK found that bat colonies used purpose-built roosts in higher or similar numbers after the original roosts were destroyed. The other two studies found that bats used purpose-built roosts in lower numbers than the original roost. One review in the UK found that new bat boxes/lofts built to replace destroyed roosts were four times less likely to be used by returning bats than roosts retained during development.
13Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45 %; certainty 35 %; harms 0 %).
14https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/949
Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban areas
15Three studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring bat foraging habitat in urban areas on bat populations. One study in the USA evaluated restored forest fragments, and two studies in the UK and USA evaluated green roofs.
16COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
17Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found no difference in species richness over green roofs and conventional unvegetated roofs.
18POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)
19Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found higher bat activity (relative abundance) in two of seven restored forest fragments in urban areas than in two unrestored forest fragments. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the UK found significantly greater bat activity over ‘biodiverse’ green roofs than conventional unvegetated roofs, but not over ‘sedum’ green roofs. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found greater bat activity for three of five bat species over green roofs than over conventional unvegetated roofs.
20BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
21Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 60 %; certainty 36 %; harms 0 %).
22https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/954
Exclude bats from roosts during building work
23One study evaluated the effects of excluding bats from roosts during building work on bat populations. The study was in the UK.
24COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
25POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
26BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)
27Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that excluding bats from roosts within buildings did not change roost switching frequency, core foraging areas or foraging preferences of soprano pipistrelle colonies.
28Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45 %; certainty 23 %; harms 17 %).
29https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1930
Legally protect bats during development
30Three studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bats by issuing licences during development on bat populations. The three studies were in the UK.
31COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
32POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
33BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
34Change in human behaviour (2 studies): One review in the UK found that the number of development licences for bats more than doubled over three years in Scotland. One review in the UK found that 81 % of licensees did not carry out post-development monitoring to assess whether bats used the roost structures installed.
35OTHER (2 STUDIES)
36Impact on bat roost sites (2 studies): One review in the UK found that licenced activities during building developments had a negative impact on bat roosts, with 68 % of roosts being destroyed. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that five of 28 compensation roosts provided under licence were used, and two by similar or greater numbers of bats after development. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 18 %; certainty 15 %; harms 2 %).
37https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1935
Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites
38One study evaluated the effects of protecting brownfield or ex-industrial sites on bat populations. The study was in the USA.
39COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)
40Richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the USA found that five bat species were recorded within a protected urban wildlife refuge on an abandoned manufacturing site.
41POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
42BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)
43Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 40 %; certainty 20 %; harms 0 %).
44https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/953
Relocate access points to bat roosts within developments
45Two 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.
46COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
47POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
48BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
49Use (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.
50Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 45 %; certainty 32 %; harms 10 %).
51https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/946
Retain existing bat roosts and access points within developments
52Two studies evaluated the effects of retaining existing bat roosts and access points within developments on bat populations. One study was in Ireland and one in the UK.
53COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
54POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)
55BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)
56Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found similar numbers of brown long-eared bats roosting within an attic after existing access points were retained during renovations. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that four of nine bat roosts retained within developments were used as maternity colonies, in two cases by similar or greater numbers of bats after development had taken place.
57Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 67 %; certainty 27 %; harms 0 %).
58https://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/947
No evidence found (no assessment)
59We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
- Educate homeowners about building and planning laws relating to bats to reduce disturbance to bat roosts
- Encourage homeowners to increase semi-natural habitat within gardens
- Encourage homeowners to plant gardens with night-scented flowers
- Install sound-proofing insulation between bat roosts and areas occupied by humans within developments
- Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas.

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
What Works in Conservation 2020
Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org
Référence numérique du chapitre
Format
Référence numérique du livre
Format
1 / 3