Protect brownfield or ex-industrial sites

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

‘Brownfield sites’ are previous industrial or commercial sites that have been abandoned and are available for reuse. These sites may be targeted for redevelopment in urban areas. Some sites can support a high diversity of wildlife making them important sites for biodiversity and conservation. High insect numbers can provide important foraging habitat for bats, and derelict buildings may provide roosting opportunities.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of protecting brownfield or ex-industrial sites on bat populations. The study as in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Richness/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.

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

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

A study in 1997–1998 in an urban wildlife refuge on the grounds of a former weapons manufacturing facility near Denver, USA (Everette et al 2001) found that five bat species were recorded at the site. Three tree-roosting species and two species known to roost in buildings were captured or recorded, with big brown bats Eptesicus fuscus making up 86% of the captures. In total, 176 bats were captured, and 955 bat passes were recorded. Big brown bats commuted further from roosts in buildings within surrounding urban areas to the refuge (9–19 km) than typically reported for the species elsewhere (1–2 km). The manufacturing facility was active until 1985 and was designated as a wildlife refuge in 1992. The refuge covered 6,900 ha of grassland, woodland, and wetlands within an urban area. At 18 locations within the refuge, bats were captured with mist nets on a total of 53 nights between May and August in 1997 and 1998. Twelve big brown bats were captured and radio-tagged in 1998. At each of eight locations within the refuge, bat detectors recorded bat activity for 90 minutes on 3–4 nights in June–August 1997.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Everette A.L., O'Shea T.J., Ellison L.E., Stone L.A. & McCance J.L. (2001) Bat use of a high-plains urban wildlife refuge. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29, 967-973.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bat Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Create or restore bat foraging habitat in urban areas Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link
Change timing of building work Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link