Action Synopsis: Bat Conservation About Actions

Restore bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of restoring bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites on bat populations. The study was in France.



  • Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gravel-sand pits had higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) 10 years after restoration than gravel-sand pit sites before or during quarrying.


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 replicated, site comparison study in 2009–2013 of 21 gravel-sand pit sites in France (Kerbiriou et al. 2018) found that restored gravel-sand pits had higher overall bat activity 10 years after restoration than gravel-sand pit sites before or during quarrying, but there was no difference for gravel-sand pits less than 10 years after restoration. Overall bat activity was higher at gravel-sand pits that had been restored more than 10 years previously (average 0.8 bat passes/six minute interval) than at gravel-sand pit sites before or during quarrying (both 0.3 bat passes). However, there was no significant difference between gravel-sand pits restored 5–10 years previously (0.5 bat passes) or less than five years previously (0.4 bat passes) and gravel-sand pit sites before or during quarrying. Twelve bat species were recorded in total (see original paper for data for individual species). Gravel-sand pit sites (average 4 ha) consisted of bare soil and were restored to water, wooded vegetation and meadows after quarrying ceased. At each of 21 sites, 1–5 points (18–37 points/treatment in total across all sites) were sampled with bat detectors during two visits/year in June–September 2009–2013.

    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