10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ecological impact assessments fail to reduce risk of bat casualties at wind farms

      , , , ,
      Current Biology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Demand for renewable energy is rising exponentially. While this has benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there may be costs to biodiversity [1]. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are the main tool used across the world to predict the overall positive and negative effects of renewable energy developments before planning consent is given, and the Ecological Impact Assessments (EcIAs) within them assess their species-specific effects. Given that EIAs are undertaken globally, are extremely expensive, and are enshrined in legislation, their place in evidence-based decision making deserves evaluation. Here we assess how well EIAs of wind-farm developments protect bats. We found they do not predict the risks to bats accurately, and even in those cases where high risk was correctly identified, the mitigation deployed did not avert the risk. Given that the primary purpose of an EIA is to make planning decisions evidence-based, our results indicate that EIA mitigation strategies used to date have been ineffective in protecting bats. In the future, greater emphasis should be placed on assessing the actual impacts post-construction and on developing effective mitigation strategies.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Current Biology
          Current Biology
          Elsevier BV
          09609822
          November 2016
          November 2016
          : 26
          : 21
          : R1135-R1136
          Article
          10.1016/j.cub.2016.10.003
          27825446
          06778450-383a-4a9b-97c8-8695ed249b71
          © 2016

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article