-
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51 (2015) 10–22
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /e ia r
How to mitigate impacts of wind farms on bats? A review of
potentialconservation measures in the European context
Filipa Peste a,b,⁎, Anabela Paula c, Luís P. da Silva a,b,d,
Joana Bernardino e, Pedro Pereira e, Miguel Mascarenhas c,Hugo
Costa e, José Vieira f, Carlos Bastos f, Carlos Fonseca a,b, Maria
João Ramos Pereira a,g,h
a Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), Portugalb
Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Portugalc Bioinsight -
Ambiente e Biodiversidade, Lda. Lisboa, Portugald MARE and CEF,
Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugale Bio3
- Estudos e Projectos em Biologia e Recursos Naturais, Lda. Almada,
Portugalf Department of Electronics, Telecommunications and
Informatics / IEETA, University of Aveiro, Portugalg PPGBAN,
Department of Zoology, Institute of Biosciences, Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazilh PPGEC, Federal University of Mato
Grosso do Sul, Brazil
⁎ Corresponding author at: Centre for EnvironmentalDepartment of
Biology, University of Aveiro, Campus dPortugal. Tel.: +351
234247138.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.11.0010195-9255/© 2014
Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 17 July 2014Received in revised form 5
November 2014Accepted 26 November 2014Available online xxxx
Keywords:Wind farmsImpactsBatsMitigation
hierarchyOffsets/compensation measures
Wind energy is growing worldwide as a source of power
generation. Bat assemblages may be negatively affectedbywind farms
due to the fatality of a significant number of individuals after
collidingwith themoving turbines orexperiencing barotrauma. The
implementation ofwind farms should follow standard procedures to
prevent suchnegative impacts: avoid, reduce and offset, in what is
known as the mitigation hierarchy. According to thisapproach
avoiding impacts is the priority, followed by the minimisation of
the identified impacts, and finally,when residual negative impacts
still remain, those must be offset or at least compensated. This
paper presentsa review on conservation measures for bats and
presents some guidelines within the compensation scenario,focusing
on negative impacts that remain after avoidance and minimisation
measures. The conservationstrategies presented aim at the
improvement of the ecological conditions for the bat assemblage as
a whole.While developed under the European context, the proposed
measures are potentially applicable elsewhere,taking into
consideration the specificity of each region in terms of bat
assemblages present, landscape featuresand policy context regarding
nature and biodiversity conservation and management. An analysis of
potentialopportunities and constraints arising from the
implementation of offset/compensation programmes and gapsin the
current knowledge is also considered.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
In the last 20 years, wind energy became the fastest growing
sourceof power generation in theworld and it is expected to
continue growingin Europe, North America and in the developing
markets of China andIndia. There is also a growing trend in Latin
America, new Asian andEastern European markets and in some African
countries (Ledec et al.,2011; WWEA, 2013), though in the past three
years, due to the globaleconomic crisis, the rate of growth has
slowed down (WWEA, 2013).
In Europe, during the last 30 years, wind energy has grown
from100 MW to over 100,000 MW (EWEA, 2012). Among European
coun-tries, Germany, Spain, Italy, France, UK and Portugal have
shown an
and Marine Studies (CESAM) &e Santiago, 3810-193,
Aveiro,
t (F. Peste).
extraordinary growth in wind energy in the last decade
(WWEA,2013). In fact, energy produced from renewable sources is a
priority inthe European Union (EU) agenda, especially after the
implementationof the Renewable Energy Directive in 2009
(2009/28/EC) and subse-quent amending acts. This directive
establishes mandatory targets for2020, imposing a 20% share of
energy from renewable sources by2020 in all member states. As a
consequence, several member stateshave seriously invested in the
development of wind energy, as a crucialway to attain this
goal.
This goal shift towards a more sustainable production of energy
toreduce the emission of greenhouse gases is certainly desirable,
but thedevelopment of wind energy facilities does not come free of
risk ofnegative impacts on biodiversity (Voigt et al., 2012), as
well as noiseand visual impacts for local human communities (Leung
andYang, 2012).
Among vertebrates, bats are pointed out as one of the most
affectedgroups (Arnett et al., 2011; Barclay et al., 2007; Johnson
et al., 2003;Rydell et al., 2010). In the last few years, the
concern about the negativeimpact of wind farms on bat assemblages
has significantly increased
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.eiar.2014.11.001&domain=pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.11.001mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.11.001http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01959255www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar
-
11F. Peste et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51
(2015) 10–22
among the scientific community. Since the implementation of the
firstwind farms in Europe and the USA, it was assumed that bats
could beaffected by collision with the moving turbines. However,
this grouponly became a research focus when bat fatalities were
documented aspotentially higher than bird fatalities (Cryan and
Barclay, 2009;Rodrigues et al., 2008; Rydell et al., 2010).
Bat fatalities result from direct collision or from
barotrauma,i.e., experiencing rapid pressure changes that cause
severe internalorgan damage, especially in the lungs (Baerwald et
al., 2008; Grodskyet al., 2011; Rollins et al., 2012). Bat fatality
rates show significant vari-ation among sites and years and
although there are general recommen-dations from EUROBATS for the
monitoring and estimation of fatalities(e.g. Rodrigues et al.,
2008), the lack of standardised methods to esti-mate these rates
hinders comparisons (EUROBATS, 2012). Nonetheless,significant
fatality rates have been recorded in both theUSA and Europe.In a
review of the patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities
inNorth America (USA and Canada), Arnett et al. (2008) present
asmany as 69.6 bat fatalities per turbine per year. In Europe
although aglobal study has not been done yet, it is known that
fatality rates varylargely among sites and high numbers were also
reported especiallyfrom Hohe Eck wind farm in southern Germany,
where rates of 41.1bat fatalities per turbine per year occurred
(Rydell et al., 2010).
In the European Union all wind energy developments that are
likelyto have a significant impact on environment should be
subjected to anenvironmental impact assessment (EIA) (Article 2,
Directive 85/337/EEC). That is the formalised procedure that
ensures that the likelyeffects of a new wind farm on the
environment are fully understood(Jay et al., 2007) and taken into
account before the proposed project isgiven development consent.
For that reason they are a good decision-making tool on project
viability (Rajvanshi, 2008; McKenney andKiesecker, 2010) and should
identify and, if possible, quantify impactson biodiversity, confirm
the need for mitigation and set out the mitiga-tion required for
the identified impacts (BBOP, 2009a; Marshall, 2001).The negative
impacts are mitigated through the implementation ofmeasures that
aim at the reduction of those impacts to the pointwhere they have
no adverse effects (BBOP, 2012a). Within the EUthere are
regulations that consider population effects and also regula-tions
focusing on individual specimens of species that are
strictlyprotected. Ultimately, both focus on negative effects that
will occur atthe population level, though considering that, in
threatened species,these effects are more severe, so even a reduced
number of fatalities isof great concern.
Mitigation involves any process, activity or action designed to
avoid,reduce or compensate those significant adverse impacts
(Marshall,2001). The mitigation measures are categorised according
to theirgoals and following the mitigation hierarchy: (a) avoid,
(b) reduce/moderate/minimise, (c) offset/compensate (Fig. 1) (BBOP,
2012d;Darbi et al., 2009; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010). This
hierarchy im-plies that avoidance strategies have priority over
remedial solutions(Marshall, 2001) and that those impacts that
cannot be avoided orminimised must be addressed through
biodiversity offsets or
Reduce, Moderate, Minimise
Avoid
Offset & Compensate
Fig. 1.Mitigation hierarchy (adapted from
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010).
compensatory measures (BBOP, 2009a;
PricewaterhouseCoopers,2010). Strictly following the mitigation
hierarchy, it is important to un-derline that offsets or
compensatory measures are the “last resort” andmust not provide a
justification for proceeding with projects for whichthe residual
impacts on biodiversity are unacceptable. This means thatthe “no
go” option has to be considered seriously and applied in caseswhere
the destruction of unique habitats, or irreversible loss
wouldotherwise occur (BBOP, 2012c; Bishop, 2006).
The last step of themitigation hierarchy, the offset or
compensation,has been acquiring importance and popularity among
conservationists(McKenney and Kiesecker, 2010; Kiesecker et al.,
2010). The clarifica-tion between those two concepts has been under
discussion in recentyears, and Biodiversity Offsets were defined by
BBOP as “measurableconservation outcomes resulting from actions
designed to compensatesignificant residual adverse impacts on
biodiversity, after appropriateprevention and mitigation measures
have been taken”. The offsetmeasures should “achieve no net loss
and preferably a net gain of biodi-versity taking into account
species composition, habitat structure,ecosystem function and
people's use and cultural values associatedwith biodiversity”
(BBOP, 2013; ten Kate et al., 2011). To demonstrateno net loss or a
net gain, conservation action outcomes must demon-strate that
biodiversity conserved is sufficient and of the same kind asthe
biodiversity lost or degraded due to the project's impacts, and
thatbiodiversity persistence is not compromised, or if possible
enhanced(BBOP, 2013; ten Kate et al., 2011). For compensation,
there is no cleardefinition set by BBOP, and the edge between these
two concepts ismainly related with the capacity of a project to
demonstrate that theconservation outcomes are enough to guarantee
“no net loss or a netgain” (BBOP, 2013; ten Kate et al., 2011).
Offsets are a relatively recent field of investigation (Hayes
andMorrison-Saunders, 2007), and the Business and Biodiversity
OffsetsProgramme has developed and introduced the Standards on
Biodiversi-ty Offsets. These standards are based on 10 principles
that provide aframework for the design and implementation of
biodiversity offsetsand to verify its success (BBOP, 2009a): (1)
adherence to mitigationhierarchy, (2) limits to what can be offset,
(3) landscape context,(4) no net loss, (5) additional conservation
outcomes, (6) stakeholderparticipation, (7) equity, (8) long-term
outcomes, (9) transparencyand (10) science and traditional
knowledge.
The compliance with these principles helps to ensure that
adequateoffset programmes are created and implemented. However,
there areseveral conservation programmes that, for a variety of
reasons, aresimply unable to follow all these principles, which is
more evident inthe case of principle 4 — no net loss/a net gain.
For some projects it isnot possible to prove no net loss because i)
pre-impact data is lackingand it is impossible to know what was
lost as a result of the project,and/or ii) gains achievable by the
conservation actions are not easilyquantified. If so, the programme
in question should not be consideredas an offset but as a
compensation programme. Fig. 2 illustrates thecontinuum from a very
basic form of compensation to the type ofcompensation that is a
full offset and may realistically be expected toachieve no net loss
or even a net gain.
Despite the recommendation to follow the mitigation
hierarchy,monitoring programmes in several Europeanwind farms have
revealedthat, in some situations, significant impact over bat
populations may beoccurring (EUROBATS, 2013). So, it is essential
to guarantee that, foreach wind energy facility, the mitigation
hierarchy is followed fromthe beginning and that this sensitive
group is taken into account in allsteps. In that context, the
implementation of the mitigation hierarchyshould start during the
planning and design phase, in order to avoidany important area,
such as breeding, hibernating areas and/or foraginghabitats of
threatened bat species (EC, 2010). However, identifyingpotential
impacts during the planning phase may be a difficult task,unless it
is made in extreme circumstances with easily predictableimpacts or
in the predictable absence of impacts (e.g. near an importantroost
or at a hostile, windy and cold site). Furthermore, in some
cases
-
Fig. 2. Compensation-offset spectrum (from BBOP, 2012d).
12 F. Peste et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51
(2015) 10–22
the real effects are only indentified during the monitoring of
the post-construction phase (e.g. Hein et al., 2013). So, an
adaptive managementapproach should be followed in order to
reconsider the mitigationhierarchy during the construction and/or
exploration phase based onmonitoring results, to continually
improve its performance (BBOP,2009c). For unavoidable impacts,
minimisation measures for bat popu-lations usually include on-site
efforts to remedy the effects of short-term damage. Research on
this subject has been significantly increasingin the last few
years, especially on ultrasound emissions as a way todeter bats
from approaching wind turbines (Arnett et al., 2013; Hornet al.,
2008; Johnson et al., 2012; Spanjer, 2006; Szewczak and
Arnett,2006a, b, 2007). Radar emissions also seem to negatively
affect bat ac-tivity (Nicholls and Racey, 2007, 2009). However, to
our knowledge,until now, no device was successfully developed or
commercialised.Nevertheless, as bat mortality rates seem to be
higher during lowwind nights (Amorim et al., 2012; Kerns et al.,
2005; Rydell et al.,2010) the most effective mitigation measure
seems to be the increaseof wind turbine cut-in speed (the velocity
at which turbines start pro-ducing electricity) and changes in
blade feathering (altering the angleof the blade preventing it from
rotating on low wind situations). Thismeasure has been proven to
reduce bat fatalities from 30% to 90%(Arnett et al., 2008, 2011;
Baerwald et al., 2009).
If an adverse effect on the assemblage of bats cannot be
definitelyeliminated or even reduced to acceptable levels through
the above-mentioned measures and thus residual adverse effects on
biodiversitystill remain, offset or compensatory measures should
then be considered(BBOP, 2009a; Darbi et al., 2009;
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010). The ac-ceptable levels of impact
referred above may vary between Europeanmember states: in some
countries the death of any individual bat of aprotected species is
strictly forbidden, while in others a reduced numberof fatalities
is tolerated and evaluated on a case by case basis. However,despite
that recommendation, to our knowledge and to date, no offsetor
compensatorymeasures have been taken in Europe aimed at
batmor-tality compensation (personal information obtained through
inquiriesdone to the focal points of the EUROBATS Intersessional
WorkingGroup on Bats and Wind Farms). It should be underlined,
however, thatthe avoidance ofmortalitymust always be thefirst
optionwhile compen-sation/offset of the acceptable impacts that
remain after the implementa-tion of the mitigation hierarchy should
be seen as the last resort.
The lack of such measures is probably related to the lack of
baselineknowledge on bat populations (e.g. Walters et al., 2012)
making it hardto assess the population affected, and especially
difficult withmigratingspecies (Voigt et al., 2012). Actual
knowledge on bat migration andmigratory paths is still scarce (e.g.
Popa-Lisseanu and Voigt, 2009).European bat species are classified
into three migratory categories ac-cording to the distances
recorded — long distance (N500 km), regional(100–500 km), and
sedentary (b50 km); however, not all populationsof known migratory
species perform complete migrations and somemay even be sedentary
along the range of occurrence of the species(Fleming and Eby,
2003).
In this paper we reviewed a set of conservation measures that
maybe applied and assessed in the context of compensation or
offsettingthe impacts of wind farms on bat populations, in
particularly sedentaryor non-migrant species. Although these
measures were analysed underthe European land-use and policy
context and considering the ecologi-cal requirements of the bat
species that show higher mortality rates atEuropean wind farms, the
guidelines presented here are surely appro-priate elsewhere. This
review should be seen as a first approach to thesubject, as in some
cases the potential of the presented measures ismostly theoretical,
and it is crucial to investigate in more detail theirefficiency in
different populations and regions.
Review methodology and scope
Using a broad range of monitoring reports and other official
docu-ments published between 2003 and 2013 we gathered information
onthe species, number of fatalities per species and seasonal trends
in fatal-ities in European wind farms.
To our knowledge, no publication has addressed specific
compensa-tory measures for bats at European wind farms, so we
investigated awide range of studies describing bat activity
patterns, taking intoaccount macro-, meso- and micro-scale habitat
features, such as land-scape characteristics, habitat,
forestry/agricultural regime, vegetationstructure, and water and
prey availability.
Based on the review of i) the ecological requirements of the
mostaffected bat species, ii) the main threats to bat populations,
and iii)conservation strategies focused on bat populations, we
identified sever-al measures that could be used to compensate wind
farm impact on batassemblages. We focused on forest management
actions to be imple-mented mostly in the surrounding area of the
wind farms but distantenough to avoid the attraction of bats into
their area of influence, sothat by any means, preventing an
increase in fatalities numbers.
Bat mortality in European wind farms
Presently only a few countries have published guidelines for
themonitoring of bat fatalities at wind farms in the context of
EIA(EUROBATS, 2013). In most countries, this monitoring is
mandatoryonly in some situations and according to the potential
impacts of thewind farm in question. Even when monitoring schemes
are in place,the results of those surveys are often not available
or open to reviewor public access (Rydell et al., 2010), which
makes the evaluation ofthe patterns of bat fatalities in European
wind farms quite difficult.
The IntersessionalWorking Group onWind Turbines and Bat
Popula-tions (EUROBATS) has, however, compiled information on this
subject inthe European context. Between 2003 and 2012, 5139 dead
bats weredetected, either located accidentally or during
post-construction moni-toring studies. The report underlines that
these numbers by no meansreflect the real extent of bat fatalities
at wind farms, even because many
-
13F. Peste et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51
(2015) 10–22
infrastructures are not consistently monitored. However, these
dataprobably represent the overall tendency in Europe (EUROBATS,
2013).
Themajority of the fatalities occurred in Germany, Spain, France
andPortugal, but again this may be a consequence of the
monitoringschemes being carried out in each country. Between 2003
and 2012,wind turbines in Europe killed at least 27 species, of
which the mostaffected were Pipistrellus pipistrellus (965
fatalities), Nyctalus noctula(704), P. pipistrellus/Pipistrellus
pygmaeus (597), Pipistrellus nathusii(593) and Nyctalus leisleri
(383). These are all Least Concern (LC)species according to the
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, althoughthe conservation
status varies among the European countries. For exam-ple, in those
four countries, P. pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus are consideredleast
concern species, except in Germany where P. pygmaeus is
datadeficient; N. noctula is considered rare in Spain, near
threatened inFrance, least concern in Germany and data deficient in
Portugal; andP. nathusii is considered near threatened in France
and least concern inGermany. These differences in regional or
national conservation statusof bat species imply that some measures
may be priority in someareas but not in others, and that
compensatory programmes, even iffollowing the general guidelines
presented in this paper and elsewhere(e.g. Boye andDietz, 2005;
Entwistle et al., 2001;Meschede et al., 2001),should be designed
according to the regional and temporal context inwhich they are to
be implemented.
Ecological requirements of the most affected species
Table 1 summarises the ecological requirements of the five bat
spe-ciesmost affected bywind energy facilities in Europe.
Information abouttheir distribution, preferred foraging habitats,
flight paths, and preyitems, as well as breeding and hibernation
requirements is presented.
Those species that are rare or more threatened regionally, such
asN. noctula, N. leisleri, and P. nathusii depend on wetlands and
matureforests of deciduous trees to forage or roost, indicating
that the destruc-tion or degradation of these areas through
cutting, replacement byproduction forests, or forest fires, poses a
negative impact for them.
Potential offset and compensatory measures
In this work we bring together several measures that may be
imple-mented to compensate the residual adverse effects of wind
farms on batpopulations. These measures are intended for the
improvement ofecological conditions towards the increase of the
carrying capacity forbat assemblages, specifically for breeding and
roosting conditions andthe increase of prey availability and
accessibility. These actions aremainly thought to be implemented in
the surrounding area of windpower infrastructures but far enough to
avoid the attraction of batsinto the wind farm area of influence.
Therefore, measures related withroost and food availability have
potentially larger scope andwill benefitboth sedentary andmigratory
species; otherswill mostly benefit seden-tary populations that use
the vicinity of wind farms all year around.Whenever there is
bibliographic support of an increase in bat numbersor bat activity,
references are presented.
As explained above bat populations are poorly known, and
presentseveral sampling constraints. For instance, for migratory
bat species itis difficult to understandwhich populations are being
affected and eval-uating the effects of the presented measures for
those species is anextremely difficult task. Despite the referred,
improving bats' ecologicalrequirements in habitats that present
limitations will certainly benefitthose populations, at least at a
local level. So, it is urgent to start studyingthis topic, as it
could be an important tool tomitigate residual impacts ofhuman
infrastructures on bat populations.
Management of autochthonous forests
Most native European forests are extremely important for a
widespectrum of bat species, especially ancient forests, as opposed
to even-
aged andmono-specific plantation forests, due to their higher
structuralcomplexity. Bats usually prefer those habitats to forage
and roost(Rainho, 2007; Ruczyński et al., 2010; Russ and
Montgomery, 2002;Russo and Jones, 2003; Waters et al., 1999),
though the specific struc-ture of each forest is closely linked to
the array of bat species present(Ford et al., 2005).
The maintenance and preservation of the existing conditions
inmature autochthonous forests and the acceleration of the
ecologicalsuccession of younger formations are crucial for bat
conservation.In mature forests, bats often use large trees and
snags as roosts(Crampton and Barclay, 1998; Hutson et al., 2001;
Kunz and Lumsden,2003; Russo et al., 2004). Simple actions, such
the preservation ofolder trees with cavities and well developed
branches, and the non-removal of standing or fallen dead trees
should be adopted. Theseactions are mostly relevant for the
protection of tree-roosting batspecies, and in the context of those
more negatively affected by windfarms in Europe, particularly N.
noctula and N. leisleri. Still, besidesproviding roosts for bats,
these structures contribute to the enhance-ment of insect abundance
and diversity, increasing the availability ofpotential prey for
bats (Dietz and Pir, 2009; Guldin et al., 2007; Russoand Jones,
2003). However, in some forest types, branch thinning
mayoccasionally be necessary in order to create flight corridors
for batswith less manoeuvrable flights (e.g. Guldin et al., 2007;
Loeb andO'Keefe, 2006; Obrist et al., 2011), creating vertical
heterogeneity andpromoting the creation of niches that may be used
by different species(Collins and Jones, 2009; Plank et al., 2012).
Branch thinning may alsocontribute towards healthier tree
development.
Well-developed riparian galleries usually harbour great plant
diver-sity and are frequently used as foraging grounds bymanybats,
includingspecies most affected by wind turbines in Europe (Table
1). Ripariangalleries act as a shield from the wind and are
simultaneously home togreat diversity and abundance of arthropods
(Peng et al., 1992; Russoand Jones, 2003;Warren et al., 2000), thus
management actions aimingthe preservation or the restoration of
those sites are fundamental. Inmany areas these actions must
include the removal of exotic invasiveplants, because they override
autochthonous vegetation, together withthe plantation of native
species (Guil and Moreno-Opo, 2007;Marchante et al., 2005). Changes
in trophic structures have alreadybeen shown for spiders in
response to invasive plants (Petillon et al.,2005). Some exotic
plants, like Australian acacias, which are amongthe most
significant invaders worldwide (Richardson and Rejmánek,2011), have
an aggressive invasive behaviour forming dense foreststands. These
dense stands block the development of native species(Marchante et
al., 2005), may change river-flow (Richardson et al.,2007) and fire
regimes (Kull et al., 2011), andmay also preclude the ac-cess of
foraging bats to these areas due to high clutter. For
thewaterlineitself, management actions should promote additional
heterogeneity ofthewater flow. The creation of backwater areas that
endorse vegetationaccumulation favours i) species directly affected
by wind farms asP. pipistrellus (Warren et al., 2000), ii) species
least affected that huntin smooth water such as Myotis daubentonii
(Warren et al., 2000), andiii) species apparently not affected by
wind farms such as Myotiscapaccinii, considered vulnerable by IUCN
(Biscardi et al., 2007), whichmay result in an additional positive
outcome in a compensatory schemefor awind farm. Promoting rapid
areas that allowwater oxygenation fa-vours breeding sites for
several species of arthropods, potentially in-creasing prey
availability for bat species (Capinera, 2010; Entwistleet al.,
2001).
In traditional agro-forestry European ecosystems such as
Montadosor Dehesas (extensive silvo-pastoral agro-forestry systems
consistingof grasslands with a tree cover of holm oak Quercus
rotundifolia orcork oak Quercus suber) and extensive olive groves
(Olea europaea) inthe Mediterranean, and woodland pastures in
Central and NorthernEurope, management actions should aim at the
maintenance of typicalextensive farming, promoting the complexity
of the vertical structureof the vegetation. Rotational grazing,
fruit harvesting, branch thinning
-
Table 1Ecological requirements of the five most affected bat
species by wind farms in Europe.
Species Common pipistrelle Pipistrelluspipistrellus
Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrelluspygmaeus
Nathusius' pipistrellePipistrellus nathusii
Leisler's bat Nyctalu leisleri Common noctule Nyctalus
noctula
Distribution Distributed through Europe up to
southernScandinavia and Baltic countries. Occurringalso in some
parts of Northwest Africa andSouthwest Asia to Central and Eastern
Asia.P. pipistrellus is one of the most commonspecies in many areas
of its distributionrange.(1, 2, 3)
All over Europe from Scotland andsouthern Scandinavia to Iberia
andTurkey, but records are missing fromsome regions like the
northern Balkansand southernmost Italy.(1, 4)
P. nathusii is a migratoryspecies.Occurs in Eastern, Central
andSouthern Europe.(1, 3, 5, 6)
Distributed all over E rope, but absentfrom Scandinavia, Es nia
and NorthernRussia. Missing in so hern Italy, Sicilyand Crete.
Ranging to outh-western Asiaand also present in N rth-western
Africa.(1, 5, 7)
All over Europe except for Ireland,Scotland, northern
Scandinavia andSouthern parts of Greece and Italy.Mostly absent
from the MediterraneanIslands. Ranging to Asia to southernSiberia,
north Vietnam, Myanmar, andTaiwan.(1, 3, 5, 8)
Foragingpreferentialhabitat
Hunts in several habitats, although morecommon in wetlands and
urban areas.(3, 9, 10, 11)
Hunts in several habitats from forestareas to wetlands,
agricultural and urbanareas. Riparian areas and ponds withtrees or
hedgerows in their marginsseem to be preferred, especially
duringthe breeding season.(9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Frequently found in riparianhabitats and wetlands. Hunts4–15 m
above ground, onpaths and woodland edges,also over water.(3, 9, 11,
13, 14, 15)
Forest species, uses p eferentiallydeciduous forests, bu can
also be foundon resinous forests a urban parks,hunting above tree t
s; forest roads andopen areas are also u d to hunt. Feedingareas
seem to chang ccording toseason, age, sex and ographical area.(11,
16, 17)
Mostly a forest species, hunts in openareas in forest and also
frequent inlarge urban parks and gardens,frequently using
artificial illuminatedareas as feeding grounds.(3, 11, 13, 17,
18)
Usual commutingroutes
Linear landscape elements such ashedgerows, forest edges and
tree lines butalso open spaces.(11, 19, 20, 21)
Linear landscape elements such ashedgerows, forest edges and
tree linesbut also open spaces.(11, 20, 21)
Follows landscape structures,as forest edges, hedges, roadsor
forest aisles, but also acrossopen fields.(11, 14, 20)
Little is known, but s ms to fly abovetree tops directly an ast
to the feedinggrounds, reaching up o 40 km/h.(11, 16, 20)
Fast flying species, known to travel asfar as 20 km to reach
preferred foraginggrounds, although individuals inmaternity
colonies predominantlyforage within 2 km of the roost.(11, 20)
Diet Mosquitoes and other small flying insects.(17, 22, 23)
Mostly Diptera.(23, 24)
Small to medium flyinginsects. Mostly Chironomidae.(14, 22,
24)
Lepidoptera, Diptera nd Coleoptera.(16, 17, 22, 24)
Large sized insects as crickets andColeoptera. But also small-
tomedium-size prey as Trichoptera,Diptera and Lepidoptera.(17, 22,
24, 25)
Breeding andhibernation
Uses virtually all kinds of natural andartificial structures as
roosts, though notcommom in caves. Hibernates and breeds incolonies
that can reach thousands ofindividuals.(3, 11, 17, 20)
Uses virtually all kinds of natural andartificial structures as
roosts. Hibernatesand breeds in colonies that can reachthousands of
individuals.(11, 20, 24)
Roosts in trees, bat boxes andsometimes in buildings.Hibernates
in crevices, cliffs,buildings, and caves.(5, 11, 15, 14, 20,
26)
Seldom uses anthrop genic structures asshelter, choosing pre
rably tree cavitiesas roosts. Migratory ecies hibernates
inrelatively large grou , also aggregatingin the roosts during e
breeding season.(11, 16, 17, 20)
Roosts and hibernates in trees, crevicesin rocks, buildings and
bridges incolonies that can reach thousands ofindividuals during
hibernation.(3, 7, 11, 17, 20, 21)
Migration category Most populations are considered sedentary,but
there is evidence of long distancemigratory behaviour.(3, 27)
Evidence of long distance migratorybehaviour.(26, 27)
Long distance.(5, 27)
Long distance.(5, 27)
Long distance.(5, 27)
References (1) Dietz and von Helversen, 2004; (2) Hutson et al.,
2008a; (3) Macdonald and Barrett, 1993; (4) Hutson et al, 2008b;
(5) Mitchell-Jones et al., 99; (6) Hutson et al, 2008c; (7) Hutson
et al., 2008d; (8)Csorba et al., 2008; (9) Vaughan et al, 1997;
(10) Glendell and Vaughan, 2002; (11) Boye and Dietz, 2005; (12)
Davidson-Watts and Jones, 2005; 3) Pocora and Pocora, 2011; (14)
Flaquer et al., 2009; (15)Flaquer et al., 2005; (16) Shiel et al,
1999; (17) Mayle, 1990; (18) Rydell, 1992; (19) Verboom and
Huitema, 1997; (20) BCT, 2007; (21) Downs a Racey, 2006; (22)
Vaughan, 1997; (23) Barlow, 1997; (24)Blanco, 1998; (25) Gloor et
al., 1995; (26) Gelhaus and Zahn, 2010; (27)Popa-Lisseanu and
Voigt, 2009
14F.Peste
etal./EnvironmentalIm
pactAssessm
entReview
51(2015)
10–22
s
utoutSo
rtndopsee age
eed ft
a
ofesppsth
19(1nd
-
15F. Peste et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51
(2015) 10–22
and the creation of small clearings generate potential flight
corridors forbat specieswith lowmanoeuvrable flight asN. leisleri
andN. noctula andmedium manoeuvrable flight as P. pipistrellus and
P. nathusii (Obristet al., 2011). It will also enable access to
food resources located on theground or in herbaceous vegetation
which may benefit gleaning bats,e.g. genus Myotis and Plecotus
(Rainho et al., 2010). Additionally, theseactions also may
represent additional conservation outcomes whilecontributing to the
reduction of vegetative surface fuels, which is espe-cially
relevant in Southern Europe, where intensive and highly
destruc-tive summer fires are frequent (Guil and Moreno-Opo, 2007).
Suchactions, designed for bat population management that
simultaneouslyreduce the risk of fire, represent examples of
actionsmeeting BBOP rec-ommendations on how to involve stakeholders
in mitigation by show-ing how they can benefit with actions
dedicated to biodiversitymanagement and conservation.
Vegetation homogeneity may result in low availability of food
re-sources for some bat species (Dodd et al., 2008). So, it may be
necessaryto create small clearings or agricultural plots, while
avoiding pesticidetreatments, in the surroundings of the wind
energy facilities, allowingsome diversification within the
landscape and creating the conditionsfor greater diversity in food
items (Wickramasinghe et al., 2004). Thisis particularly evident in
Southwest Mediterranean where many windfarms are located at
hilltops of mountainous areas, and where vast ex-panses of
scrubland are common (Chauchard et al., 2007; GallegoFernández et
al., 2004). In fact, the creation of clearings, and the subse-quent
development of shoots and young plants, and vegetation
hetero-geneitymay increase both the accessibility (Rainho et al.,
2010) and theavailability of food items to arthropods that
constitute the diet of allEuropean bats.
The studies referred above focused mainly on the evaluation of
batactivity in different management scenarios. This means that
there isstill a lack of studies specifically designed to evaluate
if those measureshave promising results in bat population
increase.
Diversification of forest and agriculture monocultures
The diversification of agriculture and forest monocultures is
closelyassociated with the measure described above. In Europe,
intensive pro-duction forests are characterised by large areas
covered with monocul-tures of the Pinaceae or Eucalyptus spp.,
regarded as areas of poorquality in terms of food and roost
availability for bats (Ciechanowski,2005; Kusch and Schotte, 2007;
Rebelo and Rainho, 2009; Salvo et al.,2009). These areas may also
present higher susceptibility to fires thannative forests (Moreira
et al., 2009) so active management for firerestriction is
essential, including the creation of shaded fuelbreak stripswhere
fuel reduction occurs through the cutting and removing of
vege-tation (Agee et al., 2000; Asociación Columbares, 2009; Guil
andMoreno-Opo, 2007) and controlled grazing (Ruiz-Mirazo et al.,
2011).In specific cases, prescribed burns may also be considered as
theypromote fuel discontinuity and simultaneously maintain areas of
vege-tation regeneration, representing a significant decrease in
fire occur-rence (Montiel and Kraus, 2010); this is a high-risk
activity and allprecautionary measures should be implemented in
conformity withestablished security and legislation rules.
Prescribed burning andthinning have already been proved to benefit
bats inhabiting forestpine stands in North America (Loeb and
Waldrop, 2008).
Because different species of bats use forests in different
conditions,the creation of spatial heterogeneity is desirable in
those areas andcan be attained by the creation of clearings within
the forest. This willimprove the area as feeding ground and will
contribute to the regener-ation of autochthonous understory
vegetation (Guldin et al., 2007). Inareas where this regeneration
is difficult, the plantation of autochtho-nous deciduous trees and
shrubs should be considered, in a long-termmanagement perspective.
At the same time, particularly dense under-story areas may be
managed through grazing. It should be underlinedthat there is no
generic habitat for forest-dwelling bats and different
habitats will favour different species (Guldin et al., 2007), so
the select-ed measures must consider the species most negatively
affected bywind farms in each region.
In intensively explored forests, clear cuttings in large areas
arecommon, and this may represent the sudden loss of important
foragingand roosting grounds for bats (Borkin et al., 2011; Hutson
et al., 2001;Russo et al., 2010). Allowing some stands to grow
older may attenuatesuch impacts, while increasing spatial
heterogeneity and the potentialdevelopment of roosting sites in
cavities of bulkier older trees (Russoet al., 2010). The
installation of bat-boxes in younger forests shouldalso be taken
into consideration (Ciechanowski, 2005) and is specificallyrelevant
for species of the genusNyctalus that present significant
fatalitynumbers in European wind farms.
In areas of intensive agriculture, the planting of live fences
andnative trees and shrubs provides additional refuge and breeding
habitatfor many bat species. In systems like Bocage (a habitat
typically com-posed of very small parcels of land separated by
hedgerows and ditchesfound in western Portugal and France), shrubs
and trees alternate withagricultural fields promoting greater
floristic diversity, which potential-ly supports greater faunal
diversity (Guil and Moreno-Opo, 2007;Haddad et al., 2001; Knops et
al., 1999).
Preservation of existing roosts
The occurrence ofwildlife populations is limited by the
availability ofrefuge and successful breeding places. As referred
above, mature treesare prime roosts for forest bats all year long,
and may be especially rele-vant during the maternity season (Betts,
1998; Carter and Feldhamer,2005). So, the maintenance of old trees
and snags, prime locationswhile natural shelters for forest bats,
must also be provided (e.g.Ruczyński et al., 2010).
Roosts used by bats in the vicinity of wind farms, whether of
naturalor of anthropogenic origin, may be improved or protected to
optimiseroosting conditions. It is well known that bats that roost
in caves,mines and buildings are particularly vulnerable to
anthropogenic dis-tress (Agosta, 2002; Hutson et al., 2001), and
tend to abandon roostswhen these are frequently disturbed (Thomas,
1995). Indeed, severalimportant bat roosts are known to have been
lost when caves wereopened to the public as show caves or used for
sporting activities toooften (Ransome and Hutson, 1999).
Restricting human access to roosts,either underground, crevices or
trees may be recommended in somecases. For example, setting
adequately designed gates or fences in theentrances of caves
andminesmay reduce human disturbance of impor-tant roosts
(Rodrigues, 1996; Tuttle, 1977). Certainly, neglecting thistype of
maintenance or distress limitation may lead to the loss of
localpopulations (Limpens et al., 2000; Ransome and Hutson,
1999).
The preservation of old buildings, bridges and other
anthropogenicstructures that are often used as roosts not only by
Pipistrellus species,but also by species of the genus Nyctalus,
among others (e.g. Amorimet al., 2013; BCT, 2012) is also a key
issue to bat conservation, and canassume an important role in the
wind farm context. Special attentionshould also be given to
building restoration and demolishing, as distur-bances made in
critical times of maternity and hibernation may causesevere
mortality in bat populations (Ransome and Hutson, 1999;Sherwin et
al., 2000). Monitoring of any changes is important sinceaccess
points to roosts used by bats may be blocked, as for example
bynesting birds, or even destroyed by minor modifications (e.g.
BCT,2006; Kelleher andMarnell, 2006; Mitchell-Jones, 2004;Waring,
2011).
Provision of new roosts
Native mature forests had been showing a significant decrease
inEurope in the last three decades (Gibbs and Greig, 1997; Jung,
2009;Luisi et al., 1993; Oleksyn and Przybyl, 1987; Santos and
Martins,1993; Siwkcki and Ufnalski, 1998; Sonesson and Drobyshev,
2010;Szepesi, 1997; Thomas et al., 2002). As a consequence, many
forest-
-
16 F. Peste et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51
(2015) 10–22
dwelling bats have lost their natural roosting habitats. Even
bat speciesadapted to artificial structures (e.g. walls and stone
houses, bridges,fences) had been losing potential roosts, as these
structures fell into dis-use and were gradually abandoned,
presenting risk of collapse, or wereentirely destroyed.
The creation of new artificial sites, such as bat-boxes built
with long-lasting materials (e.g. maritime plywood), is then of
crucial importancefor European bats, and should be implemented in
areas where theavailability of natural roosts is low (Flaquer et
al., 2006). In fact,Ciechanowski (2005) showed that the occupation
of artificial roostsby P. nathusii and Plecotus aurituswas
significantly higher in pinemono-cultures than in deciduous
forests, because in the latter the availabilityof natural roosts is
much higher. The design and bat box placement-schemes should
respect the ecological requirements and preferencesof the
target-species. For instance, N. leisleri and N. noctula, two ofthe
most affected species by wind farms in Europe, are quite
selectivein their choice of natural roosts, preferring high-located
cavities(ca. 19 m above the ground), in more open surroundings,
with smallerentrances, that are consistently dry, and at a safe
distance frommartens(Ruczyński and Bogdanowicz, 2005). While N.
noctula seems to prefercavities with wider inside cross section and
with only one entrance,N. leisleri prefers cavities with more than
one entrance (Ruczyńskiand Bogdanowicz, 2005). N. leisleri also
seems to prefer roosts withentrances clear from dense vegetation,
in areas close to water linesand low tree density (Spada et al.,
2008).
Although bat boxes have been used for replacement of lost
refuges,or even for the purpose of providing new roosts or even as
way offacilitating studies about bat ecology, being one of the most
adoptedconservation measures, few studies have addressed the
effectivenessof these structures (Arnett and Hayes, 2000;
Brittingham andWilliams, 2000; Flaquer et al., 2006; White, 2004).
Occupancy rates ofbat boxes seem to vary with factors such as
geographic location, typeof box and sunlight exposure
(Mitchell-Jones, 2004). Studies in theUnited States suggest
increasing occupancy rates along the years,which vary with the
placement site of the box: trees — 20%, poles —52%, and buildings—
64% (Kiser and Kiser, 2004). In any case, the occu-pation of bat
boxes by batsmay take awhile, so theymay needmonitor-ing for
several years to assess their effectiveness.
Creation of ponds
Bats constitute a groupwith unique natural history traits, such
as theability to fly and echolocate that make them particularly
susceptible toenergy and water availability (Adams, 2010; Arlettaz
et al., 2001;Barclay, 1994; Barclay and Harder, 2003). In fact,
water availability rep-resents a limiting factor to the occurrence
and foraging habitat selectionby many bats (Adams and Hayes, 2008;
Rainho and Palmeirim, 2011,2013), especially during the summer in
drier regions of Europe. Howev-er, global climate change will
result in increasing average annualtemperatures and in a
significant decrease in precipitation. So, water-limited
environments are expected to increase worldwide (IPCC,2008). By
creating small ponds, water may be available for bats allyear long.
Ideally, to ensure the sustainability of these ponds in thelong
term, and to avoid the cost of artificially supplying water,
thesestructures should be placed in areas where rainfall naturally
accumu-lates, and/or take advantage of the proximity of other
sources of watersuch as wells and fountains. Still, in times of
severe water scarcity,ponds could be supplied artificially. A few
studies provide supportfor the importance of artificial water
sources for bats. For example,heliponds created for fire
suppression in North American pine standswere considered important
for bats to forage and drink (Vindigniet al., 2009); a similar
trend was found for retention-ponds created inagricultural
landscapes (Sirami et al., 2013; Stahlschmidt et al., 2012).
In addition to providing water for bats and other wildlife,
ponds arefundamental systems for the emergence and development of
someinsect taxa (Cayrou and Céréghino, 2005) that can compose the
diet of
bats. Allowing and promoting the development of autochthonous
vege-tation in the margins of the ponds not only provide favourable
foragingand shelter habitat for other animal groups (Biggs et al.,
1994; Oertliet al., 2002), but also promote the development of
diverse insect assem-blages, while simultaneously offering bats,
and other taxa for thatmatter, protection against natural predators
(Gee et al., 1997). Pondcharacteristics may determine which bat
species are privileged. Thereis evidence that ponds located in open
areas may benefit specieswith low flight manoeuvrability (e.g.
Nyctalus spp. and Eptesicus spp.Ciechanowski, 2002), while those
integrated with connectivity ele-ments such as treelines may favour
species that follow linear landscapefeatures (e.g. Pipistrellus
spp. Downs andRacey, 2006). A comprehensivecompilation of pond
designs is available from the project Million
Ponds(www.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/projects/million-ponds/).
Hopefullythe information gathered during the project, and
elsewhere, willincrease the scientific knowledge about the most
successful designsand benefited species.
Selecting suitable conservationmeasures for wind farm
offset/com-pensation programmes
The selection of a specific conservation measure for a given
windfarm requires a baseline study. This study should contain
informationon the most affected species, but also on the
ecological, social and eco-nomical scenarios of the directly
affected areas and of the borderingareas. Only then it will be
possible to adequately identify the mostsuitable measures for the
particular residual effect to be compensated.
In Table 2we present, for each conservationmeasure detailed
above,the most suitable areas for implementation, the bat species
expected tobenefit the most, with special emphasis on those showing
higher fatal-ity rates at Europeanwind farms, the expected
outcomes, an estimate ofhow long it may take for a visible
offset/compensation effect, and aqualitative estimate on the
implementation cost.
Bat conservation and wind energy in Europe:
opportunities,challenges and constraints
Despite the global financial crisis since 2008, the
cumulativeinstalled wind power capacity worldwide had, by May 2013,
reached282 GW, and is still increasing at a rapid pace (WWEA,
2013). Europeis among the most dynamic markets, with Germany,
Spain, Italy,France, UK and Portugal at the top of the installed
capacity (WWEA,2013). This means that the minimisation and
compensation of negativeimpacts on European biodiversity associated
with wind power infra-structures is crucial to reconciling the
production of clean energy withnature and biodiversity conservation
and management, under thelight of sustainable development.
Either directly associated with the offset or compensation of
thedirect impacts of wind farm facilities or with the mitigation of
otherindirect impacts of anthropogenic origin, most of the
measuressuggested in this paper entail management actions
undertaken inprivate land that may not be, and often are not, owned
by wind farmdevelopers. This is surely one of themajor constraints
in the applicationof many of the proposed measures: the need for
partnerships betweenprivate managers, where there is little space
for the intervention orfacilitation by government authorities with
responsibility in the evalua-tion of the process of environmental
impact assessment and of follow-upmonitoring programmes. Indeed,
more than half of European forestsare privately owned (Schmithüsen
and Hirsch, 2010), and more than50% of Europe's land surface is
classified as agricultural land (CorineLand Cover, 2013). In this
scenario, conflicts of interest may arise be-tween human economic
activities and nature and biodiversity conser-vation in the same
land (Breitenmoser, 1998).
The establishment of i) local or regional reserves and/or ii)
agree-ments with landowners or managers may be essential to
defineregimens of sustainable land-uses. The definition and
implementation
http://www.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/projects/million-ponds/
-
Table 2Offset/compensatory measures for bat populations affected
by residual adverse effects of wind farms, including suitable areas
for implementation, target species, expected outcomes, estimated
time period for the outcomes to show visible effects(short-,
medium-, long-term), and qualitative estimate of the implementation
cost of each measure (low, medium, high).
Offset/compensatory measure Most suitable area Target bat
species Expected outcomes Estimated time for visible effects
Associated costs
Management of Autochthonous ForestPreservation of older trees
withcavities
Patches and forests of autochthonousspeciesRiparian
galleries
Especially N. leisleri and N. noctula Preservation of existing
roostsIncrease in food availability
Short-term Low
Non-removal of standing or fallendead trees
All bat species but especially N. leisleriand N. noctula
Increase in food availabilityEnhancement of roost formation
Short-/long-term Low
Branch thinning Pipistrellus sp. Creation of flight
corridorsEnhancement of vertical heterogeneityHealthier tree
development
Short-term Medium
Maintenance of riparian galleries All bat species Creation of
flight corridorsEnhancement of vertical heterogeneityIncrease in
food availabilityEnhancement of foraging areas
Short-/medium-term Low/medium
Waterline management Watercourses All species but especially P.
nathusii Increase in food availabilityEnhancement of foraging
areas
Short-/medium-term Medium/high
Maintenance of the extensiveexploitation of
traditionalagro-forestry European ecosystems
Montados/DehesasOlive grovesWoodland pastures
All bat species Creation of flight corridorsEnhancement of
vertical heterogeneityReduction of the occurrence of large
firesIncrease in food availability
Short-/medium-term Low/medium
Creating small clearings oragricultural plots
Scrubland areas All bat species Enhancement of spatial
heterogeneityEnhancement of foraging areasIncrease in food
availability
Short-/medium-term Medium
Diversification of Forest and Agriculture MonoculturesCreation
of clearings within theforest, grazing and uneven stands
Production forests All bat species Enhancement of spatial
heterogeneityEnhancement of vertical heterogeneityEnhancement of
foraging areasIncrease in food availability
Short-/medium-term Medium
Plantation of live fences and nativetrees and shrubs
Areas of intensive agriculture All bats species, especially from
genusPipistrellus
Enhancement of spatial heterogeneityEnhancement of foraging
areasIncrease in food availabilityIncrease in roost
availabilityEnhancement of connectivity elements
Long-term Medium/high
Preservation of Existing RoostsMaintenance of old trees and
snags Forested areas Especially N. leisleri and N. noctula
Maintenance of roost availability Short-term LowMaintaining roost
suitability Caves, buildings, bridges and other
artificial structures in the vicinity of thewind farm
All bat species Maintenance of roost availability
Short/long-term Low/medium
Provision of New RoostsInstalling bat-boxes Production forests
and agriculture areas All bat species Increase in roost
availability Short-/medium-term MediumCreation of Ponds Areas of
water scarcity All bat species, especially P. nathusii Increase in
water availability
Increase in food availabilityEnhancement of foraging areas
Short-/medium-term Medium/high
17F.Peste
etal./EnvironmentalIm
pactAssessm
entReview
51(2015)
10–22
-
18 F. Peste et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51
(2015) 10–22
of such regimens must contemplate the effective participation of
stake-holders, and should be well sustained by scientific,
technical and eventraditional knowledge so as to avoid conflicts
that may, ultimately,become an additional source of threat for
wildlife.
In the European Union, the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and
theHabitats Directive (92/43/EEC) are the two fundamental pillars
of na-ture conservation legislation. These directives use a twin
track approachfor habitat and species protection and allowed the
creation of an EU-wide network of protected areas, known as Natura
2000, that coversabout 20% of the European territory. The Habitats
Directive, in Article6(4), sets out the legal mechanism to protect
Natura 2000 sites fromdamaging plans or projectswhich, in theory,
should only proceed if con-sidered to be of overridingpublic
interest,withno available alternatives,guaranteeing effective
compensatory measures, and ensuring that theoverall coherence of
the Natura 2000 network is maintained (Dodd,2007). However, the
directive has serious implementation problems;presently, as the
network-designation process reaches its conclusion,the challenge
lies in achieving effective management in each site(Pullin et al.,
2009), because there is still a large gap between the desig-nation
of the Natura 2000 sites and the effective implementation of
con-servationmeasures in these sites (e.g. Apostolopoulou and
Pantis, 2009).
Additionally, several important areas for wildlife are still
lackingany kind of protection policy/mechanism (Araújo et al.,
2007;Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2004; Maiorano et al., 2007;
Sánchez-Fernándezet al., 2008). Because these areas potentially
represent good foragingand roosting spots for bats they should be
safeguarded, especiallyduring the critical periods of the
life-cycle of bats. Despite theirimportance, due to small size or
spatial discontinuity, many ofthese areas do not fulfil the
necessary requirements to be estab-lished as formal protected areas
by national or European legislation.Nevertheless they could benefit
from the creation of local or regionalconservation regimens,
established by local governments or non-governmental organisations.
When managed properly, public accessto these areas may be
critically important to gaining public supportfor the
classification of such local and regional conservation sites(Bauer
et al., 2009). Moreover, public access together with environ-mental
education and eco-tourism schemes, may promote publicperception of
and support for the conservation of biodiversity(Blangy and Mehta,
2006; Eagles et al., 2002; Kiss, 2004).
Alternatively, or in complement, the establishment of
agreementswith landowners and/or managers, restricting the timing
of potentiallydisturbing activities may reduce or even completely
circumvent batdisturbance during critical periods. Still, some
agriculture and forestry ac-tivities like cork removal, honey
extraction, crop harvest, among others,have temporal specificities,
so an agreement between conservation ob-jectives and the
requirements of the production systemmust be pursued.
Therefore, other non-ecological factors determining the
practicalfeasibility of successful offsetting should be analysed
under social, cul-tural, technical, legal and financial headings
(BBOP, 2012c). In fact, theproposed offset/compensatory measures
should take into account thesocial dimension and attempt to
accomplish benefits for local communi-ties and owners, in order to
engage stakeholders in the implementationof the offset/compensation
actions. Often, the involvement of differentindividuals, groups
and/or associations may be necessary to ensurebiodiversity offset
fairness; the success of the offset/compensationprogrammes may also
be dependent on reimbursements to indigenouspeople, local
communities and other directly affected stakeholders(BBOP,
2009b).
Environmental education and raising awareness of communities
andlocal stakeholders is a key issue in wildlife conservation in
areas withhuman occupation. In fact, successful wildlife management
is oftendependent on the level of engagement of the people living
in or nearbyconservation areas. Participative sessions should be
promoted for thesecommunities, especially involving land managers,
hunters, loggers,either individually or in the form of associations
and NGOs. Freeworkshops on themes such as gardening management,
organic farming,
andwaste disposal are desirable, as these activities are
directly related tothe creation of suitable conditions for native
plants and the associated in-sect fauna (Asociación Columbares,
2009; Guil and Moreno-Opo, 2007).
In the European Union, the potential conflict between
humaneconomic activities and biodiversity conservation may also be
reducedby the effective implementation of agro-environmental
schemes fore-seen by the EU rural development policy. These
measures are indirectoffsets, i.e., agreements with individuals to
cede the right to convertland cover for profit (Quintero and
Mathur, 2011). More specifically,these schemes foresee payments to
farmers who voluntarily sub-scribe to commitments related to
environmental protection (http://ec.europa.eu). Agro-environmental
measures are compulsory for themember-states (Council Regulation on
Rural Development 1698/2005/EC) but there have been significant
cuts in the budget for rural develop-ment in many European
countries which have to co-fund those agro-environmental schemes —
thus creating an additional constraint tothe application of many of
the proposed measures.
The European landscape entails an additionalmanagement
problem,as a significant percentage of privately owned rural areas
are in the formof small-scale household land parcels and farms
(Bowler, 1985; Riddelland Rembold, 2000; van Dijk, 2003, 2007). So,
even if a farmer and/ormanager comply with some kind of
environmental scheme aimed atbat conservation, or other component
of biodiversity, this does not nec-essarilymean that the
neighbouring landwill follow. In some cases, thismay result in a
very small area dedicated to the implementation of thecompensatory
measures, which is frequently ineffective in attainingthe
conservation objectives proposed.
According to the Business and Biodiversity Offsets
Programme(BBOP, 2012b), offsets/compensatory programmes that
achieve ‘netgain’ through additional conservation actions could
contribute to batconservation. Additionally, a fraction of the
revenues generated by pro-jects with negative impacts may be
dedicated to co-fund agro-environmental schemes (Quintero and
Mathur, 2011). For example, inPortugal this kind of financing
towards conservation is already consid-ered through the creation of
offset funds for nature and biodiversityconservation that result
not only from the state budget but also fromen-vironmental
compensation revenues of major private infrastructureprojects.
Another example comes from the USA where a kind of recla-mation
fund, paid by the promoters of hydroelectric and oil
infrastruc-tures, is in place to be used whenever damages to the
environmentand biodiversity occur (Cole, 2011).
Another important aspect of offset and compensatory programmesis
that they should be based on adaptive management
incorporatingmonitoring and evaluations, with the objective of
securing outcomesthat last at least as long as the project
associated impacts and preferablyin perpetuity (Principle 8; BBOP,
2012b). Based on that, mandatoryprogrammes on i) bat mortality
monitoring at wind farms, ii) the as-sessment of the
offset/compensatory measure implementation and iii)the monitoring
of effectiveness and success of the implemented mea-sures, should
be the rule in European countries (Baber, 2012; BBOP,2012b;
Quintero and Mathur, 2011I). In fact, even if a continued or
pe-riodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the implemented
compensatorymeasures is legally foreseen in some European countries
– though oftenonly for specific projects and if included in the
infrastructure permitconditions – no country seems to be actually
implementing this obliga-tion (personal information obtained
through inquiries done to the focalpoints of the EUROBATS
Intersessional Working Group on Bats andWind Farms). This
evaluation of the implementation of the offset/com-pensatory
measures, especially those based on the improvement of
theecological conditions for bats, is essential to effectively
assess theirbenefit to bat conservation.
Concluding remarks
Our review indicates that, in theory, the residual impacts
thatremain after avoidance and minimisation may potentially be
offset or
http://ec.europa.euhttp://ec.europa.eu
-
19F. Peste et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51
(2015) 10–22
at least compensated through the implementation of
conservationmeasures that improve the ecological conditions for the
bat speciesmost affected by wind farms. The majority of the
proposed measuresfocus especially on the enhancement of habitat
heterogeneity at localand landscape scales. For instance the
maintenance of native forestsand the management of production
forest should promote an increasein the availability of roosting
and feeding grounds, including theimprovement of foraging
microhabitats.
The creation of natural reserves, the establishment of
agreementsand partnerships with local owners, and the development
of environ-mental education sessions for local communities may also
contributetowards the achievement of no net loss and in some cases
a net gainfor bat populations.
To our knowledge, the measures we propose here have not
beenpreviously used in offset/compensation programmes for bat
popula-tions affected by wind farm facilities, and their efficiency
was not thor-oughly assessed. This is certainly the next step in
this area of research.Additionally, the application of the measures
we suggest should beconsistently adapted to each wind farm,
considering all the localspecificities – in particular the local
bat assemblage and landscapeconfiguration – ensuring a monitoring
scheme capable of detectingundesirable unexpected effects.
Based on our review, we found important knowledge gaps in:i)
methodologies to accurately assess bat fatalities atwind farms,
causesand fatality rates; ii) local and regional specificities
concerning themostaffected species, and on the ecology of those
species; iii) the outcomesof management schemes specifically
dedicated to bat populations, thatcan be used as a basis to develop
additional and complementarymeasures to those here presented.
Role of the funding source
The work developed in this manuscript is part of the
projectR&D project, CENTRO-07-0202-FEDER-011541 Wind &
Biodiversity,co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund
(FEDER),under the Regional Operational Programme of Center (Mais
Centro).This work was co-supported by European Funds through
COMPETEand by National Funds through the Portuguese Science
Foundation(FCT) within project PEst-C/MAR/LA0017/2013.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the focal points of the
EUROBATSIntersessional Working Group on Bats and Wind Farms for
theirkind and quick response to the inquiry on the implementation
ofcompensatory measures in European countries.
References
Adams RA. Bat reproduction declines when conditions mimic
climate change projectionsfor western North America. Ecology
2010;91(8):2437–45.
Adams RA, Hayes MA. Water availability and successful lactation
by bats as related toclimate change in arid regions of western
North America. J Anim Ecol 2008;77:1115–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01447.x.
Agee J, Bahro B, FinneyM, Omi P, Sapsis D, Skinner C, et al. The
use of shaded fuelbreaks inlandscape fire management. For Ecol
Manag 2000;127:55–66.
Agosta SJ. Habitat use, diet and roost selection by the big
brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) inNorth America: a case for conserving
an abundant species. Mamm Rev 2002;32(3):179–98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2907.2002.00103.x.
Amorim F, Rebelo H, Rodrigues L. Factors influencing bat
activity and mortality at a windfarm in the Mediterranean Region.
Acta Chiropterol 2012;14(2):439–57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3161/150811012X661756.
Amorim F, Alves P, Rebelo H. Bridges over the troubled
conservation of Iberian bats.Barbastella 2013;6(1):3–12.
Apostolopoulou E, Pantis JD. Conceptual gaps in the national
strategy for the implementationof the European Natura 2000
conservation policy in Greece. Biol Conserv 2009;142:221–37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.021.
AraújoMB, Lobo JM, Moreno JC. The effectiveness of Iberian
protected areas in conservingterrestrial biodiversity. Conserv Biol
2007;21(6):1423–32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00827.x.
Arlettaz R, Christe P, Lugon A, Perrin N, Vogel P. Food
availability dictates the timing ofparturition in insectivorous
mouse-eared bats. Oikos 2001;95(1):105–11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950112.x.
Arnett E, Hayes J. Bat use of roosting boxes installed under
flat-bottom bridges in westernOregon. Wildl Soc Bull
2000;28(4):890–4.
Arnett EB, Brown WK, Erickson WP, Fiedler JK, Hamilton BL, Henry
TH, et al. Patterns ofbat fatalities at wind energy facilities in
North America. J Wildl Manag 2008;72(1):61–78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2007-221.
Arnett EB, Huso MM, Schirmacher MR, Hayes JP. Altering turbine
speed reduces batmortality at wind-energy facilities. Front Ecol
Environ 2011;9(4):209–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/100103.
Arnett EB, Hein C, Schirmacher M, Huso MMP, Szewczak J.
Evaluating the effectiveness ofan ultrasonic acoustic deterrent for
reducing bat fatalities at wind turbines. PLoS ONE2013;8(6):e65794.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065794.
Asociación Columbares. Manual de buenas prácticas ambientales
para la zona de especialprotección para las aves de monte El Valle
Y Sierras de Altaona Y Escalona (Murcia).Spanish: Asociación
Columbares y Fundacion Biodiversidad; 2009 [24 p.].
Baber M. The role of monitoring and compliance in securing
better biodiversity outcomesthrough offsetting arrangements. Report
for the Department of conservation. Tonkin& Taylor; 2012.
36p.
Baerwald EF, D'Amours GH, Klug BJ, Barclay RMR. Barotrauma is a
significant cause of batfatalities at wind turbines. Curr Biol
2008;18(16):695–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.06.029.
Baerwald EF, Edworthy J, Holder M, Barclay RMR. A large-scale
mitigation experiment toreduce bat fatalities at wind energy
facilities. J Wildl Manag
2009;73(7):1077–81.http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2008-233.
Barclay R. Constraints on reproduction by flying vertebrates:
energy and calcium. Am Nat1994;144(6):1021–31.
Barclay RMR, Harder LD. Life histories of bats: life in the slow
lane. In: Kunz TH, FentonMB, editors. Bat Ecology. University of
Chicago; 2003. p. 209–56.
Barclay RMR, Baerwald EF, Gruver JC. Variation in bat and bird
fatalities at wind energyfacilities: assessing the effects of rotor
size and tower height. Can J Zool 2007;85(3):381–7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/Z07-011.
Barlow K. The diets of two phonic types of the bat Pipistrellus
pipistrellus in Britain. J Zool1997;243:597–609.
Bauer N, Wallner A, Hunziker M. The change of European
landscapes: human-naturerelationships, public attitudes towards
rewilding, and the implications for landscapemanagement in
Switzerland. J Environ Manag 2009;90:2910–20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.021.
BBOP. The relationship between biodiversity offsets and impact
assessment: a BBOPResource Paper. Washington, D.C.: Business and
Biodiversity Offsets Programme(BBOP); 2009a
BBOP. Biodiversity offset cost-benefit handbook.Washington,
D.C.: Business and BiodiversityOffsets Programme (BBOP); 2009b
BBOP. Biodiversity offset implementation handbook. Washington,
D.C.: Business andBiodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP); 2009c
BBOP. Glossary. Washington, D.C.: Business and Biodiversity
Offsets Programme (BBOP);2012a
BBOP. Biodiversity offset design handbook—updated. Washington,
D.C.: Business andBiodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP); 2012b
[Available from:
http://bbop.for-est-trends.org/guidelines/Updated_ODH.pdf].
BBOP. Resource paper: limits to what can be offset. Washington,
D.C.: Business andBiodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP); 2012c
BBOP. Standard on biodiversity offsets. Washington, D.C.:
Business and BiodiversityOffsets Programme (BBOP); 2012d
BBOP. To no net loss and beyond - An overview of the Business
and Biodiversity OffsetsProgramme (BBOP). Washington, D.C.:
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme(BBOP); 2013
BCT. A review of the success of bat boxes in houses. Scottish
Natural Heritagecommissioned report No. 160 (ROAME No. F01AC310);
2006 [41p.].
BCT. Bat surveys — good practice guidelines. London: Bat
Conservation Trust; 2007.BCT. Bats and buildings. Bats and the
built environment series. Bat Conservation Trust;
2012.Betts BJ. Roosts used by maternity colonies of
silver-haired bats in northeastern Oregon. J
Mammal 1998;79(2):643–50.Biggs J, Corfield A, Walker D. New
approaches to the management of ponds. Br Wildl
1994;5(5):273–87. [Available from:
http://www.pondconservation.org.uk/re-sources/pond
conservation/documents/pdf/biggs et al, 1994 - new
approaches.pdf.].
Biscardi S, Russo D, Casciani V, Cesarini D, Mei M, Boitani L.
Foraging requirements of theendangered long-fingered bat: the
influence of micro-habitat structure, water qualityand prey type. J
Zool 2007;273(4):372–81.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00337.x.
Bishop J. Biodiversity offsets: introduction and context. The
role of biodiversity offsets inconservation. An open roundtable
discussion. CBD COP8. Curitiba, Brazil; 2006.
Blanco JC. Mamíferos de España: I: Insectívoros, Quirópteros,
Primates y Carnívoros de lasPenínsula Ibérica, Baleares y Canarias.
Barcelona: Geoplaneta; 1998 [Spanish].
Blangy S, Mehta H. Ecotourism and ecological restoration. J Nat
Conserv
2006;14:233–6.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2006.05.009.
Borkin KM, O'Donnell C, Parsons S. Bat colony size reduction
coincides with clear-fellharvest operations and high rates of roost
loss in plantation forest. Biodivers Conserv2011;20(14):3537–48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0144-7.
Bowler IR. Agriculture under the common agriculture policy: a
geography. ManchesterUniversity Press; 1985.
Boye P, Dietz M. Development of good practice guidelines for
woodland management forbats. English Nature Research Reports; 2005.
89 p.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0005http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01447.xhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0015http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2907.2002.00103.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3161/150811012X661756http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0025http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.021http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00827.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00827.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950112.xhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0050http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2007-221http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/100103http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065794http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0725http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0725http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0725http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9000http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9000http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9000http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.06.029http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.06.029http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2008-233http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0735http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0735http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/Z07-011http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0085http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.021http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0740http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0740http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0740http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0745http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0745http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0750http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0750http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0755http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0755http://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/Updated_ODH.pdfhttp://bbop.forest-trends.org/guidelines/Updated_ODH.pdfhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0765http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0765http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0770http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0770http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0775http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0775http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0780http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0785http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0785http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0095http://www.pondconservation.org.uk/resources/pondhttp://www.pondconservation.org.uk/resources/pondhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00337.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2007.00337.xhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0795http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0795http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9010http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2006.05.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0144-7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0195-9255(14)00129-2/rf9015
-
20 F. Peste et al. / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51
(2015) 10–22
Breitenmoser U. Large predators in the Alps: the fall and rise
of man's competitors. BiolConserv 1998;83(3):279–89.
Brittingham M, Williams L. Bat boxes as alternative roosts for
displaced bat maternitycolonies. Wildl Soc Bull
2000;28(1):197–207.
Capinera JL. Insects and wildlife: arthropods and their
relationships with wild vertebrateanimals. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010
[487 p.].
Carter TC, Feldhamer GA. Roost tree use by maternity colonies of
Indiana bats andnorthern long-eared bats in southern Illinois. For
Ecol Manag 2005;219(2–3):259–68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.049.
Cayrou J, Céréghino R. Life-cycle phenology of some aquatic
insects: implications for pondconservation. Aquat Conserv Mar
Freshwat Ecosyst 2005;15(6):559–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aqc.739.
Chauchard S, Carcaillet C, Guibal F. Patterns of land-use
abandonment controltree-recruitment and forest dynamics in
Mediterranean mountains. Ecosystems2007;10(6):936–48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9065-4.
Ciechanowski M. Community structure and activity of bats
(Chiroptera) over differentwater bodies. Mamm Biol Säugetierkd
2002;67:276–85.
Ciechanowski M. Utilization of artificial shelters by bats
(Chiroptera) in three differenttypes of forest. Folia Zool
2005;54:31–7.
Cole SG.Wind power compensation is not for the birds: an opinion
from an environmentaleconomist. Restor Ecol 2011;19(2):147–53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00771.x.
Collins J, Jones G. Differences in bat activity in relation to
bat detector height: implicationsfor bat surveys at proposed
windfarm sites. Acta Chiropterol
2009;11(2):343–50.http://dx.doi.org/10.3161/150811009X485576.
Corine Land Cover; 2013.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/corine-land-cover-2006-raster-2.
Acessed on March 2013.
Crampton LH, Barclay RMR. Selection of roosting and foraging
habitat stands by bats inAspen different-aged mixedwood stand.
Conserv Biol 1998;12(6):1347–58.
Cryan P, Barclay R. Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines:
hypotheses and predictions. JMammal 2009;90(6):1330–40.
Csorba G, Bates P, Stubbe M, Hutson AM, Aulagnier S,
Spitzenberger F. Nyctalus noctula.The IUCN red list of threatened
species; 2008. [Version 2012.2. bwww.iucnredlist.orgN. Downloaded
on 05 March 2013].
Darbi M, Ohlenburg H, Herberg A, Wende W, Skambracks D, Herbert
M. Internationalapproaches to compensation for impacts on
biological diversity. Final Report; 2009.p. 1–184.
Davidson-Watts I, Jones G. Differences in foraging behaviour
between Pipistrelluspipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) and Pipistrellus
pygmaeus (Leach, 1825). J Zool 2005;268(1):55–62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2005.00016.x.
Dietz M, Pir JB. Distribution and habitat selection ofMyotis
bechsteinii in Luxembourg:implications for forest management and
conservation. Folia Zool 2009;58(3):327–40.
Dietz C, von Helversen O. Illustrated identification key to the
bats of Europe. Electronicpublication version 1.0. Released
15.12.2004. Tuebingen & Erlangen (Germany);2004.
Dimitrakopoulos PG, Memtsas D, Troumbis AY. Questioning the
effectiveness of theNatura 2000 Special Areas of Conservation
strategy: the case of Crete. Glob EcolBiogeogr 2004;13:199–207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822X.2004.00086.x.
Dodd AM. EU Habitats Directive and habitat compensation —
spatial planning in Englandand implementing habitat compensation
under Article 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive[dissertation]. Oxford
Brookes University; 2007.
Dodd LE, Lacki MJ, Rieske LK. Variation in moth occurrence and
implications for foraginghabitat of Ozark big-eared bats. For Ecol
Manag 2008;255:3866–72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.03.034.
Downs NC, Racey PA. The use by bats of habitat features in mixed
farmland in Scotland.Acta Chiropterol 2006;8(1):169–85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3161/1733-5329(2006)8[169:TUBBOH]2.0.CO;2.
Eagles P, McCool S, Haynes C. Sustainable tourism in protected
areas. Guidelines forplanning and management. Gland and Cambridge:
IUCN; 2002 [183 pp.].
EC. EU guidance on wind energy development in accordance with
the EU naturelegislation. European Commission. Luxembourg: European
Commission; 2010.http://dx.doi.org/10.2779/98894. [116 p.].
Entwistle A, Harris S, Hutson A, Racey P, Walsh A, Gibson S, et
al. Habitat management forbats: a guide for land managers, land
owners and their advisors. Joint NatureConservation Committee: UK;
2001.
Eurobats. Report of the IWG on wind turbines and bat
populations. 17th Meeting of theAdvisory Committee, Dublin; 2012
[33 p.].
Eurobats. Progress report of the IWG onwind turbines and bat
populations. 18th Meetingof the Advisory Committee, Sofia; 2013 [30
p.].
EWEA. Thirty years growing together, annual report 2011. The
European Wind EnergyAssociation; 2012. [47 p.].
Flaquer C, Ruiz-Jarillo R, Torre I, Arrizabalaga A. First
resident population of Pipistrellusnathusii (Keyserling and
Blasius, 1839) in the Iberian Peninsula. Acta
Chiropterol2005;7(1):183–8.
Flaquer C, Torre I, Ruiz-Jarillo R. The value of bat-boxes in
the conservation of Pipistrelluspygmaeus in wetland rice paddies.
Biol Conserv 2006;128:223–30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.030.
Flaquer C, Puig-Montserrat X, Goiti U, Vidal F, Curcó A, Russo
D. Habitat selection inNathusius' pipistrelle (Pipistrellus
nathusi): the importance of wetlands. ActaChiropterol
2009;11(1):149–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.3161/150811009X465767.
Fleming TH, Eby P. Ecology of bat migration. In: Kunz H, Fenton
MB, editors. Bat ecology.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press;
2003. p. 156–208.
FordW,Menzel M, Rodrigue J, Menzel J, Johnson J. Relating bat
species presence to simplehabitat measures in a central Appalachian
forest. Biol Conserv
2005;126:528–39.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.07.003.
Gallego Fernández JB, Mora MRG, Novo FG. Vegetation dynamics of
Mediterraneanshrublands in former cultural landscape at Grazalema
Mountains, south Spain.Plant Ecol 2004;172:83–94.
Gee JHR, Smith BD, Lee KM. The ecological basis of freshwater
pond management forbiodiversity. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst
1997;7:91–104.
GelhausM, Zahn A. Roosting ecology, phenology and foraging
habitats of a nursery colonyof Pipistrellus nathusii in the
southwestern part of its reproduction range.
Vespertilio2010;13–14:93–102.
Gibbs JN, Greig BJW. Biotic and abiotic factors affecting the
dying back of pedunculate oakQuercus robur L. Forestry
1997;70(4):399–406.
Glendell M, Vaughan N. Foraging activity of bats in historic
landscape parks in relation tohabitat composition and park
management. Anim Conserv 2002;5(4):309–16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1367943002004067.
Gloor S, Stutz HB, Ziswiler V. Nutritional habits of the noctule
bat Nyctalus noctula(Shreber, 1774) in Switzerland. Myotis
1995;32–33:231–42.
Grodsky SM, Behr MJ, Gendler A, Drake D, Dieterle BD, Rudd RJ,
et al. Investigating thecauses of death for wind turbine-associated
bat fatalities. J Mammal 2011;92(5):917–25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-A-404.1.
Guil F, Moreno-Opo R. Catálogo de buenas prácticas para a
gestión del hábitat en RedNatura 2000: Bosque Y matorral
mediterráneos. Una propuesta de actuacionesfinanciables en Red
Natura 2000. Madrid: Obra Social Caja Madrid-Fundación CBD-Hábitat;
2007 [268 p. Spanish].
Guldin JM, EmminghamWH, Carter SA, Saugey DA. Silvicultural
practices andmanagementof habitat for bats. In: Lacki MJ, Hayes JP,
Kurta A, editors. Bats in forests: conservationand management.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007. p.
177–205.
Haddad NM, Tilman D, Haarstad J, Ritchie M, Knops JMH.
Contrasting effects of plantrichness and composition on insect
communities: a field experiment. Am Nat 2001;158(1):17–35.
Hayes N, Morrison-Saunders A. Effectiveness of environmental
offsets in environmentalimpact assessment: practitioner
perspectives from Western Australia. Impact AssessProj Apprais
2007;25(3):209–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/146155107X227126.
Hein C, Gruver J, Arnett E. Relating pre-construction bat
activity and post-construction batfatality to predict risk at wind
energy facilities: a synthesis. A report submitted to theNational
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Austin (Tx): Bat Conservation
International;2013. [Available from:
http://mhk.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Pre-
Post-construction Synthesis_FINAL REPORT.pdf.].
Horn JW, Arnett EB, Jensen M, Kunz TH. Testing the effectiveness
of an experimentalacoustic bat deterrent at the Maple Ridge wind
farm. The Bats and Wind EnergyCooperative and Bat Conservation
International: Austin (Tx); 2008 [Jun].
Hutson A, Mickleburgh S, Racey P. Microchiropteran bats: global
status survey andconservation action plan IUCN/SSC C. Gland and
Cambridge: IUCN; 2001. 258 p.
Hutson AM, Spitzenberger F, Aulagnier S, Coroiu I, Karataş A,
Juste J, et al. Pipistrelluspipistrellus. The IUCN red list of
threatened species; 2008a. [Version 2012.2. bwww.iucnredlist.orgN.
Downloaded on 05 March 2013].
Hutson AM, Spitzenberger F, Aulagnier S, Coroiu I, Karataş A,
Juste J, et al. Pipistrelluspygmaeus. The IUCN red list of
threatened species; 2008b. [Version 2012.2. bwww.iucnredlist.orgN.
Downloaded on 05 March 2013].
Hutson AM, Spitzenberger F, Juste J, Aulagnier S, Palmeirim J,
Karataş A, et al. Pipistrellusnathusii. The IUCN red list of
threatened species; 2008c. [Version 2014.2. bwww.iucnredlist.orgN.
Downloaded on 22 October 2014].
Hutson AM, Spitzenberger F, Aulagnier S, Juste J, Karataş A,
Palmeirim J, et al. Nyctalusleisleri. The IUCN red list of
threatened species; 2008d. [Version 2012.2. bwww.iucnredlist.orgN.
Downloaded on 05 March 2013].
IPCC. Climate change and water resources in systems and sectors.
In: Bates BC, KundzewiczZWJ, Wu S, Palutiko P, editors. Climate
change and water. Technical paper of the Inter-governmental Panel
on Climate ChangeGeneva: IPCC Secretariat; 2008. [53-76 p.].
Jay S, Jones C, Slinn P, Wood C. Environmental impact
assessment: retrospect andprospect. Environ Impact Assess Rev
2007;27(4):287–300.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2006.12.001.
Johnson G, Erickson WP, Strickland MD, Shepherd M, Shepherd D.
Mortality of bats at alarge-scale wind power development at Buffalo
Ridge. Minn Am Midl Nat 2003;150(307):332–42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2003)150[0332:MOBAAL]2.0.CO;2.
Johnson JB, Ford WM, Rodrigue JL, Edwards JW. Effects of
acoustic deterrents on foragingbats. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Res. NoteNRS-129; 2012
[5 p].
Jung T. Beech decline in Central Europe driven by the
interaction between Phytophthorainfections and climatic extremes.
For Pathol 2009;39(2):73–94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0329.2008.00566.x.
Kelleher C, Marnell F. Bat mitigation guidelines for Ireland.
Dublin, Ireland: National Parksand Wildlife Service, Department of
Environment, Heritage and Local Government;2006.
Kerns J, EricksonWP, Arnett EB. Bat and bird fatality at wind
energy facilities in Pennsylvaniaand West Virginia. In: Arnett EB,
editor. Relationships between bats and wind turbinesin Pennsylvania
and West Virginia: an assessment of fatality search
protocols,patterns of fatality and behavioural interactions with
wind turbines. Austin (Tx):Bat Conservation International; 2005. p.
24–95.
Kiesecker JM, Copeland H, Pocewicz A, McKenney B. Development by
design: blendinglandscape-level planning with the mitigation
hierarchy. Front Ecol Environ 2010;8(5):261–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090005.
Kiser M, Kiser S. A decade of bat house discovery. Bat House Res
2004;12(1):1–12.Kiss A. Is community-based ecotourism a good use of
biodiver