Version classiqueVersion mobile

What Works in Conservation 2021

William Junior Sutherland
Lynn V. Dicks
Silviu O. Petrovan
et al.

2. Bat conservation

2. Bat conservation

Anna Berthinussen, Olivia C. Richardson et John D. Altringham

Texte intégral

1 Expert assessors

2 Levente Barti, Myotis Bat Conservation Group, Romania

3 Manisha Bhardwaj, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

4 Johnny De Jong, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

5 Jasja Dekker, Jasja Dekker Dierecologie, Netherlands

6 Brock Fenton, University of Western Ontario, Canada

7 Winifred Frick, Bat Conservation International, United States

8 Anita Glover, Vincent Wildlife Trust, United Kingdom

9 Alice Hughes, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, China, P.R.

10 Csaba Jere, Romanian Bat Protection Association, Romania

11 Julia Lins Luz, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

12 Christoph Meyer, University of Salford, United Kingdom

13 Silviu Petrovan, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

14 Guido Reiter, Austrian Coordination Centre for Bat Conservation & Research, Austria

15 Luisa Rodrigues, Institute for Nature Conservation and Forests, Portugal

16 Danilo Russo, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy

17 Uttam Saikia, Zoological Survey of India, India

18 Mbeng Donatus Waghiiwimbom, University of Maroua, Cameroon

19 Carol Williams, Bat Conservation Trust, United Kingdom

20 Scope of assessment: for native wild bat species across the world.

21 Assessed: 2021. For previous assessments and expert panels please check What Works in Conservation 2020.

22 Effectiveness measure is the median % score for effectiveness.

23 Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence for effectiveness, determined by the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

24 Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects to the group of species of concern.


Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search