Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Stop ignoring map uncertainty in biodiversity science and conservation policy

This article has been updated

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The importance of prediction uncertainty for avoiding poor conservation outcomes.

Change history

  • 25 May 2022

    In the version of this article initially published, the Supplementary Data file was corrupted, and has now been replaced.


  1. WEF. The Global Risk Report 2021 (World Economic Forum, 2021).

  2. IPBES. The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Unedited Draft Chapter 4: Plausible Futures of Nature, its Contributions to People and their Good Quality of Life (IPBES secretariat, 2019).

  3. Buisson, L., Thuiller, W., Casajus, N., Lek, S. & Grenouillet, G. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 1145–1157 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beale, C. M. & Lennon, J. J. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 367, 247–258 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Porfirio, L. L. et al. PLoS ONE 9, e113749 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Zurell, D. et al. Ecography 43, 1261–1277 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rocchini, D. et al. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35, 211–226 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. Ecol. Lett. 8, 993–1009 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barry, S. & Elith, J. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 413–423 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stoklosa, J., Daly, C., Foster, S. D., Ashcroft, M. B. & Warton, D. I. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 412–423 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hill, N. et al. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 1258–1272 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lucchesi, L., Kuhnert, P. & Wikle, C. J. Open Source Softw. 6, 2409 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Popov, V., Shah, P., Runting, R. K. & Rhodes, J. R. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 230–242 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Costa, B., Kendall, M. & McKagan, S. PLoS ONE 13, e0204569 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



J.J., P.K.D., N.A.H. and C.R.J. developed the initial manuscript outline. J.J. conceived and performed the literature review and analysed the data. J.J., S.N.C.W., P.K.D., S.D.F., N.A.H., M.H. and C.R.J. wrote and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Jansen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Details on the literature search, and Supplementary Table 1-3

Supplementary Data

All articles and their respective grouping

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jansen, J., Woolley, S.N.C., Dunstan, P.K. et al. Stop ignoring map uncertainty in biodiversity science and conservation policy. Nat Ecol Evol (2022).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing