Biodiversity Conservation Planning Under Uncertainty and Limited Data

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Institution: [Institution Name]
Date: June 2025

Abstract

Biodiversity conservation planning operates within a complex landscape of ecological uncertainty and data limitations that fundamentally challenge traditional conservation approaches. This paper examines the theoretical foundations, methodological innovations, and practical applications of conservation planning frameworks designed to address uncertainty while maximizing conservation outcomes under data constraints. Through comprehensive analysis of decision-theoretic approaches, robust optimization techniques, and adaptive management strategies, this research demonstrates how uncertainty-aware conservation planning can improve decision-making effectiveness despite incomplete ecological knowledge. The findings reveal that explicit incorporation of uncertainty into conservation planning processes enhances both the reliability and flexibility of conservation strategies, particularly in data-poor regions where traditional systematic conservation planning approaches prove inadequate. This paper contributes to advancing conservation science by providing integrated frameworks for addressing uncertainty across multiple dimensions of conservation planning, from species distribution modeling to reserve network design and management implementation. The research emphasizes the critical importance of developing uncertainty-robust conservation strategies that can perform effectively across different scenarios while acknowledging the inherent limitations of ecological data and predictive models.

Keywords: biodiversity conservation, uncertainty analysis, limited data, systematic conservation planning, robust optimization, adaptive management, decision theory, conservation planning, ecological uncertainty, data-poor environments

1. Introduction

Biodiversity conservation planning confronts an inherent paradox: the urgent need for decisive conservation action amid profound uncertainty about ecological systems, species responses, and future environmental conditions. Traditional conservation planning approaches, predicated on comprehensive species inventories, detailed habitat assessments, and precise ecological relationships, often prove inadequate in regions where such information remains incomplete or entirely absent (Pressey et al., 2007). The recognition that conservation decisions must be made despite uncertainty has catalyzed the development of planning frameworks explicitly designed to incorporate uncertainty while optimizing conservation outcomes under data limitations.

The multifaceted nature of uncertainty in conservation planning encompasses epistemic uncertainty arising from incomplete knowledge, aleatory uncertainty reflecting natural variability, and decision uncertainty stemming from unpredictable human actions and policy changes (Regan et al., 2002). These different forms of uncertainty interact across temporal and spatial scales, creating complex decision-making environments where traditional optimization approaches may produce misleading results or overly confident recommendations. The challenge is compounded by the reality that most biodiversity occurs in regions with limited scientific infrastructure and research capacity, creating systematic geographical biases in conservation knowledge that disadvantage precisely those areas requiring urgent conservation attention.

The evolution of conservation planning under uncertainty has been driven by advances in decision theory, computational methods, and understanding of ecological systems. Early approaches focused primarily on addressing uncertainty through sensitivity analysis and scenario planning, while contemporary methods emphasize robust optimization, portfolio theory, and adaptive management frameworks that explicitly design flexibility into conservation strategies (McDonald-Madden et al., 2008). These developments reflect a broader shift from deterministic planning models toward probabilistic approaches that acknowledge uncertainty as an inherent characteristic of conservation planning rather than a temporary impediment to be overcome through additional data collection.

The integration of limited data considerations into uncertainty-aware conservation planning represents a particularly challenging aspect of contemporary conservation science. Data limitations manifest not only as absence of information but also as biased sampling, inconsistent methodologies, and varying data quality across taxonomic groups and geographic regions (Hortal et al., 2015). Addressing these limitations requires sophisticated statistical approaches, innovative data integration techniques, and careful consideration of how data uncertainty propagates through planning processes to influence conservation recommendations and outcomes.

2. Theoretical Foundations of Uncertainty in Conservation Planning

2.1 Characterizing Uncertainty in Ecological Systems

The theoretical framework for understanding uncertainty in biodiversity conservation planning draws from multiple disciplines, including ecology, decision science, and information theory. Ecological uncertainty manifests across organizational levels, from individual species responses to ecosystem dynamics and landscape-scale processes. The hierarchical nature of ecological systems means that uncertainty at one level propagates to other levels, creating complex networks of interdependent uncertainties that challenge traditional reductionist approaches to conservation planning (Peterson et al., 2003).

Species distribution uncertainty represents a fundamental challenge in conservation planning, arising from imperfect detection, limited sampling effort, and temporal variability in species occurrence patterns. The distinction between true species absence and non-detection has profound implications for conservation planning, as misclassification of species presence can lead to inadequate protection or inefficient resource allocation (Lahoz-Monfort et al., 2014). Occupancy modeling frameworks provide statistical approaches for addressing detection uncertainty, but their application requires careful consideration of sampling design and model assumptions that may not be satisfied in data-limited contexts.

Ecosystem process uncertainty encompasses the complex interactions among species, environmental factors, and disturbance regimes that determine ecosystem functioning and persistence. These processes operate across multiple temporal and spatial scales, with feedback mechanisms that can produce non-linear responses and threshold effects difficult to predict from limited data. The incorporation of process uncertainty into conservation planning requires mechanistic understanding of ecosystem dynamics, often unavailable in data-poor regions, necessitating simplified models or proxy measures that may inadequately represent system complexity (Sutherland, 2006).

Environmental uncertainty reflects the stochastic nature of climate, disturbance events, and other abiotic factors that influence species and ecosystem persistence. Climate change adds temporal dimensionality to environmental uncertainty, as historical environmental relationships may not accurately predict future conditions. The integration of climate uncertainty into conservation planning requires scenario-based approaches that explore alternative futures while acknowledging the limitations of climate projections and ecological forecasting capabilities (Araújo & New, 2007).

2.2 Decision-Theoretic Approaches to Conservation Under Uncertainty

Decision theory provides rigorous frameworks for conservation planning under uncertainty, offering systematic approaches for evaluating alternative conservation strategies based on their expected performance across different scenarios. Expected utility theory forms the foundation for many conservation decision-making frameworks, providing mathematical tools for combining uncertain outcomes with decision-maker preferences to identify optimal strategies (Possingham et al., 2001). However, the application of expected utility approaches in conservation requires careful specification of utility functions, probability distributions, and decision criteria that may be difficult to define in complex conservation contexts.

Robust decision-making approaches address uncertainty by identifying strategies that perform reasonably well across a wide range of scenarios rather than optimizing for specific predicted outcomes. These approaches acknowledge that precise probability estimates may be unavailable or unreliable, focusing instead on identifying solutions that minimize regret or maximize minimum performance across scenarios (Lempert, 2002). Robust optimization techniques have found increasing application in conservation planning, particularly for reserve network design and species management decisions where outcomes depend on uncertain ecological and environmental factors.

Portfolio theory, borrowed from financial economics, provides another framework for addressing uncertainty in conservation planning by emphasizing diversification as a strategy for reducing risk. Conservation portfolios can be constructed to spread risk across different species, habitats, or management strategies, reducing the probability that all conservation investments will fail simultaneously (Figge, 2004). The application of portfolio approaches requires quantification of correlations among conservation outcomes, which may be difficult to estimate accurately with limited data but can be bounded or approximated using expert judgment or ecological principles.

Multi-criteria decision analysis provides frameworks for integrating multiple sources of uncertainty and conflicting objectives in conservation planning. These approaches explicitly acknowledge that conservation decisions typically involve trade-offs among different values and stakeholder interests, requiring systematic methods for evaluating alternatives across multiple criteria (Hajkowicz, 2008). The incorporation of uncertainty into multi-criteria frameworks can be achieved through sensitivity analysis, fuzzy logic approaches, or probabilistic methods that propagate uncertainty through the decision-making process.

3. Methodological Approaches for Data-Limited Conservation Planning

3.1 Statistical Methods for Limited Data Contexts

The development of statistical methods specifically designed for data-limited conservation planning represents a critical advancement in addressing the practical challenges of biodiversity conservation in understudied regions. Hierarchical modeling approaches provide frameworks for borrowing strength across species, sites, or time periods, enabling parameter estimation even when data for individual components are sparse (Dorazio et al., 2006). These models can incorporate multiple sources of information, including expert knowledge, ecological relationships, and data from similar systems or species, to improve parameter estimates and reduce uncertainty.

Occupancy modeling has emerged as a particularly valuable tool for addressing detection uncertainty in species surveys, providing statistically rigorous methods for estimating true occupancy probabilities from imperfect detection data. Multi-species occupancy models extend these approaches by simultaneously modeling multiple species while accounting for community-level processes and shared environmental responses (Dorazio & Royle, 2005). These models can provide insights into species assemblages and habitat associations even when individual species data are limited, supporting conservation planning decisions based on community-level patterns.

Bayesian statistical approaches offer powerful frameworks for incorporating prior information and expert knowledge into conservation planning analyses. Bayesian methods can combine multiple sources of information, including published studies, expert opinions, and limited local data, to generate posterior distributions that appropriately reflect uncertainty given available evidence (Wade, 2000). The explicit treatment of uncertainty in Bayesian frameworks makes them particularly well-suited for conservation planning applications where decision-makers need to understand the reliability of different information sources.

Machine learning techniques provide complementary approaches for extracting patterns from limited data through sophisticated pattern recognition and prediction algorithms. Ensemble modeling approaches that combine multiple algorithms can improve prediction accuracy and provide estimates of prediction uncertainty, while techniques such as transfer learning enable the application of models trained in data-rich regions to data-poor areas (Peterson et al., 2018). However, the application of machine learning in data-limited contexts requires careful attention to model validation and interpretation, particularly when extrapolating beyond the range of training data.

3.2 Spatial Conservation Planning Under Data Constraints

Spatial conservation planning under data constraints requires innovative approaches that can identify priority areas for conservation while acknowledging limitations in species occurrence data, habitat information, and threat assessments. Surrogate-based planning approaches address data limitations by using readily available environmental variables, habitat types, or well-known species groups to represent broader biodiversity patterns (Rodrigues & Brooks, 2007). The effectiveness of surrogate approaches depends on the strength of relationships between surrogates and target biodiversity, which may vary across regions and taxonomic groups.

Coarse-filter conservation planning approaches focus on protecting habitat diversity and ecological processes rather than individual species, reducing data requirements while potentially capturing broader biodiversity patterns. These approaches assume that protecting representative samples of different habitat types will conserve most species associated with those habitats, though this assumption may not hold for endemic species or those with specialized habitat requirements (Hunter et al., 1988). The integration of fine-filter approaches targeting rare or endemic species with coarse-filter habitat protection can provide more comprehensive conservation coverage while remaining feasible under data constraints.

Systematic conservation planning algorithms have been adapted to address data uncertainty through probabilistic formulations that incorporate uncertainty in species distributions, threat levels, and conservation costs. Probabilistic reserve selection approaches use probability distributions rather than binary presence-absence data to represent species occurrence, enabling the incorporation of detection uncertainty and habitat suitability gradients into planning decisions (Moilanen et al., 2006). These approaches can identify reserve networks that are robust to uncertainty in species distributions while achieving representation targets with specified levels of confidence.

Connectivity-based conservation planning addresses the spatial aspects of uncertainty by emphasizing landscape connectivity and movement corridors that can facilitate species responses to environmental change. Graph-theoretic approaches model landscapes as networks of habitat patches connected by movement pathways, enabling the identification of critical connectivity areas even when detailed movement data are unavailable (Minor & Urban, 2008). These approaches can incorporate uncertainty in connectivity estimates through scenario analysis or probabilistic network models that reflect uncertainty in dispersal parameters and landscape permeability.

4. Adaptive Management and Uncertainty

4.1 Adaptive Management Frameworks

Adaptive management provides a conceptual and operational framework for addressing uncertainty in conservation planning by treating management actions as experiments that generate information to reduce uncertainty over time. The iterative nature of adaptive management acknowledges that initial conservation strategies may be suboptimal due to limited knowledge, but that systematic learning from management outcomes can improve future decisions (Walters & Holling, 1990). This approach is particularly valuable in data-limited contexts where traditional scientific studies may be impractical or too time-consuming to inform urgent conservation needs.

The implementation of adaptive management requires explicit articulation of management objectives, alternative hypotheses about system responses, and monitoring protocols that can distinguish among competing hypotheses. Model-based adaptive management uses formal models to represent alternative hypotheses about system dynamics, enabling quantitative evaluation of management strategies and systematic updating of model probabilities based on monitoring results (Williams et al., 2002). However, the development of meaningful alternative models requires sufficient ecological understanding, which may be limited in data-poor systems.

Passive adaptive management involves systematic monitoring and evaluation of management outcomes without deliberately designing treatments to test specific hypotheses, while active adaptive management explicitly designs management actions to maximize learning about system responses. Active adaptive management can accelerate learning in data-limited systems by strategically allocating management efforts to resolve critical uncertainties, but it requires willingness to accept suboptimal short-term outcomes in exchange for improved long-term performance (Gregory et al., 2006).

The value of information analysis provides economic frameworks for evaluating the benefits of reducing uncertainty through additional data collection or experimental management. These analyses can guide decisions about whether to invest in additional research or proceed with management based on existing knowledge, helping to balance the costs of uncertainty against the costs of delay (Runge et al., 2011). In conservation contexts, value of information analyses must consider both the ecological and economic consequences of management decisions under uncertainty.

4.2 Monitoring and Learning Under Uncertainty

Effective monitoring programs for conservation planning under uncertainty must be designed to address multiple sources of uncertainty while providing actionable information for management decisions. Monitoring design requires careful consideration of spatial and temporal scales, target variables, and statistical power to detect meaningful changes in conservation outcomes (Lindenmayer & Likens, 2009). The challenge is compounded in data-limited contexts where baseline information may be insufficient to establish meaningful reference conditions or detect trends.

Structured decision-making provides frameworks for designing monitoring programs that directly support conservation decisions by focusing on key uncertainties that influence management choices. This approach emphasizes monitoring variables that can reduce decision-relevant uncertainty rather than comprehensively documenting all aspects of ecological systems (Nichols & Williams, 2006). The integration of monitoring results into decision-making processes requires formal updating mechanisms that translate new information into revised management strategies.

Citizen science and community-based monitoring programs can provide cost-effective approaches for generating monitoring data in resource-limited contexts while building local capacity for conservation action. These programs can contribute valuable information about species distributions, population trends, and threat assessments, though data quality and consistency require careful attention (Danielsen et al., 2009). The integration of citizen science data into formal conservation planning requires statistical methods that account for varying observer skills and sampling effort.

Technology-enabled monitoring approaches, including remote sensing, acoustic monitoring, and environmental DNA sampling, offer opportunities for generating conservation-relevant data in previously inaccessible areas. These technologies can provide standardized, repeatable measurements across large spatial scales, though their application requires technical expertise and infrastructure that may be limited in developing regions (Turner, 2014). The integration of multiple monitoring technologies can provide complementary information while reducing dependence on any single data source.

5. Case Studies and Applications

5.1 Conservation Planning in Data-Poor Regions

Tropical biodiversity hotspots represent archetypal examples of regions requiring conservation planning under severe data limitations, where high species diversity and endemism coincide with limited taxonomic knowledge and research infrastructure. The Madagascar flora provides a compelling case study, where conservation planning has proceeded despite incomplete species inventories and limited ecological data through innovative approaches that combine available information sources (Schatz, 2000). Conservation strategies have emphasized protecting elevational gradients and diverse habitat types as surrogates for unmapped species diversity while supporting taxonomic research to fill knowledge gaps.

Marine conservation planning in remote ocean areas exemplifies the challenges of planning under extreme data limitations, where species distributions, ecological processes, and human impacts remain poorly understood across vast spatial scales. The designation of large marine protected areas in the Pacific Ocean has relied on coarse-scale oceanographic data, satellite remote sensing, and ecological principles rather than detailed biological surveys (White et al., 2014). These initiatives demonstrate how conservation planning can proceed under uncertainty while incorporating adaptive management provisions to refine boundaries and management strategies as new information becomes available.

Grassland conservation in developing countries illustrates the application of uncertainty-aware planning approaches in systems characterized by high spatial and temporal variability. The Brazilian Cerrado savanna conservation planning has integrated limited species occurrence data with environmental modeling and expert knowledge to identify priority areas for protection (Carvalho et al., 2009). The planning process explicitly acknowledged uncertainty in species distributions and climate projections while emphasizing the protection of environmental gradients and intact landscapes that could support diverse communities under changing conditions.

Arctic conservation planning faces unique challenges related to rapid environmental change, limited accessibility, and indigenous land rights that complicate traditional conservation approaches. Conservation strategies for Arctic marine mammals have integrated indigenous knowledge with scientific data to develop management plans that address uncertainty about population dynamics and habitat requirements under changing ice conditions (Huntington, 2011). These approaches demonstrate the value of integrating multiple knowledge systems while acknowledging different types of uncertainty and their implications for conservation decisions.

5.2 Methodological Innovations in Practice

The application of robust optimization techniques to reserve network design has provided practical solutions for conservation planning under uncertainty about species distributions and future environmental conditions. The Great Western Woodlands conservation planning in Australia employed robust optimization to identify reserve networks that would protect forest biodiversity under alternative climate scenarios while acknowledging uncertainty in species climate responses (Carvalho et al., 2011). The planning process generated multiple reserve network options that performed well across different scenarios, providing flexibility for implementation based on evolving conditions and priorities.

Multi-species occupancy modeling has enabled conservation planning for bird communities in the Neotropics despite limited survey data and variable detection probabilities across species. These applications demonstrate how hierarchical modeling approaches can generate community-level insights from sparse species-specific data while properly accounting for observation uncertainty (Kéry & Royle, 2008). The resulting conservation recommendations emphasize habitat protection strategies that benefit entire assemblages rather than single-species approaches that may be unreliable given data limitations.

Bayesian network approaches have been applied to conservation planning in Mediterranean ecosystems, integrating expert knowledge with available data to model complex relationships among species, habitats, and threats under uncertainty. These applications demonstrate how graphical models can represent ecological understanding while propagating uncertainty through conservation planning analyses (Marcot et al., 2006). The explicit representation of uncertainty in model predictions enables more nuanced conservation recommendations that acknowledge the reliability of different information sources.

Scenario-based conservation planning has been implemented across multiple tropical forest regions to address uncertainty about deforestation patterns, climate change impacts, and conservation effectiveness. These approaches generate alternative future scenarios based on different assumptions about key drivers of change, enabling the identification of robust conservation strategies that perform well across different possible futures (Soares-Filho et al., 2006). The integration of socioeconomic scenarios with ecological projections provides more comprehensive assessments of conservation challenges and opportunities under uncertainty.

6. Challenges and Future Directions

6.1 Methodological Limitations and Research Needs

Despite significant advances in methods for conservation planning under uncertainty, substantial challenges remain in developing approaches that are both theoretically sound and practically implementable in resource-limited contexts. The computational complexity of many uncertainty-aware planning methods limits their application in data-poor regions where technical expertise and computing resources may be limited. Developing simplified approaches that capture essential aspects of uncertainty while remaining accessible to conservation practitioners represents an important research priority (Game et al., 2013).

The validation of conservation planning decisions under uncertainty presents fundamental challenges, as the effectiveness of different approaches may not become apparent for years or decades. Traditional approaches to model validation based on independent datasets may be inappropriate when data are limited, requiring alternative approaches such as cross-validation, expert evaluation, or theoretical analysis of method properties (Araújo & Guisan, 2006). The development of standardized evaluation frameworks for uncertainty-aware conservation planning methods could facilitate method comparison and improvement.

Integration of different sources and types of uncertainty remains challenging, as epistemic uncertainty about ecological processes may interact with aleatory uncertainty about environmental conditions in complex ways that are difficult to represent mathematically. Current approaches often treat different sources of uncertainty independently, potentially underestimating total uncertainty or missing important interactions (Regan et al., 2002). Developing integrated uncertainty frameworks that can simultaneously address multiple sources of uncertainty represents an important methodological challenge.

Scale-dependent uncertainty poses additional challenges, as uncertainty may vary across spatial and temporal scales in ways that influence conservation planning decisions. Local-scale uncertainties about species occurrence may interact with landscape-scale uncertainties about connectivity or regional-scale uncertainties about climate change in ways that current methods inadequately address. Multi-scale uncertainty analysis methods could provide more comprehensive assessments of conservation planning reliability across different organizational levels.

6.2 Implementation and Policy Considerations

The translation of uncertainty-aware conservation planning methods into operational conservation programs requires attention to institutional capacity, stakeholder engagement, and policy frameworks that can accommodate adaptive approaches. Many conservation organizations and government agencies lack the technical expertise or institutional flexibility needed to implement sophisticated uncertainty analysis methods, creating barriers to adoption despite methodological advances (Cook et al., 2010). Capacity building programs and technical assistance initiatives could facilitate broader implementation of uncertainty-aware planning approaches.

Communication of uncertainty to stakeholders and decision-makers represents a critical challenge, as uncertainty information may be misinterpreted or ignored if not presented appropriately. Research on risk communication and decision psychology suggests that people often struggle with probabilistic information and may prefer false certainty to acknowledged uncertainty (Fischhoff, 2012). Developing effective approaches for communicating uncertainty in conservation contexts requires interdisciplinary collaboration among conservation scientists, social scientists, and communication specialists.

Funding mechanisms for conservation planning under uncertainty may require modification to accommodate the iterative nature of adaptive approaches and the longer time horizons needed to realize benefits from uncertainty reduction. Traditional project-based funding cycles may be poorly suited to adaptive management approaches that require sustained commitment and flexibility to modify strategies based on learning (Westgate et al., 2013). Policy innovations that support adaptive conservation funding could facilitate broader implementation of uncertainty-aware planning approaches.

Legal and regulatory frameworks may need updating to accommodate conservation strategies that explicitly acknowledge uncertainty and include provisions for adaptive modification. Current environmental legislation often assumes that conservation plans can be developed with sufficient certainty to support fixed regulatory requirements, potentially creating legal barriers to adaptive approaches (Doremus, 2001). Policy research on legal frameworks for adaptive conservation management could identify needed reforms to support uncertainty-aware planning approaches.

7. Conclusion

Biodiversity conservation planning under uncertainty and limited data represents one of the most pressing challenges in contemporary conservation science, requiring innovative methodological approaches that can generate effective conservation strategies despite incomplete ecological knowledge. This review demonstrates that significant progress has been made in developing theoretical frameworks, statistical methods, and planning tools that explicitly address uncertainty while maintaining scientific rigor and practical applicability. The integration of decision theory, robust optimization, and adaptive management provides powerful approaches for conservation planning that can improve outcomes even when data are limited or uncertain.

The evidence presented supports several key conclusions about effective approaches to conservation planning under uncertainty. First, explicit acknowledgment and quantification of uncertainty generally produces more reliable conservation recommendations than approaches that ignore uncertainty or treat it as a temporary impediment. Second, the integration of multiple information sources, including expert knowledge, ecological principles, and limited empirical data, can significantly improve conservation planning outcomes compared to approaches that rely solely on incomplete datasets. Third, adaptive management frameworks that treat conservation actions as learning opportunities provide valuable mechanisms for reducing uncertainty over time while maintaining conservation effectiveness.

However, substantial challenges remain in translating methodological advances into operational conservation programs. The computational complexity and technical requirements of many uncertainty-aware planning methods limit their accessibility to conservation practitioners, particularly in developing regions where such approaches may be most needed. Addressing this implementation gap requires continued research on simplified methods, capacity building programs, and institutional innovations that can support uncertainty-aware conservation planning in resource-limited contexts.

Future research priorities should emphasize the development of integrated frameworks that can simultaneously address multiple sources of uncertainty while remaining computationally tractable and practically implementable. The validation of uncertainty-aware planning methods presents ongoing challenges that require innovative approaches to evaluation and comparison. Additionally, research on effective communication of uncertainty information and policy frameworks that support adaptive conservation approaches could facilitate broader adoption of these methods.

The urgency of biodiversity conservation challenges demands that planning proceed despite uncertainty and data limitations, but this urgency should not compromise scientific rigor or systematic approaches to decision-making. The methods and frameworks reviewed in this paper provide pathways for making scientifically defensible conservation decisions under uncertainty while building the knowledge base needed for improved future decisions. The continued development and application of uncertainty-aware conservation planning approaches will be essential for effective biodiversity conservation in an era of rapid environmental change and persistent knowledge limitations.

The integration of uncertainty considerations into conservation planning represents a fundamental shift toward more realistic and robust approaches to biodiversity protection. Rather than viewing uncertainty as an obstacle to be overcome, the conservation community must embrace uncertainty as an inherent characteristic of complex ecological systems and develop planning frameworks that can function effectively despite imperfect knowledge. The success of this transition will determine the effectiveness of conservation efforts in protecting global biodiversity for future generations.

References

Araújo, M. B., & Guisan, A. (2006). Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. Journal of Biogeography, 33(10), 1677-1688.

Araújo, M. B., & New, M. (2007). Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(1), 42-47.

Carvalho, S. B., Brito, J. C., Crespo, E. G., & Possingham, H. P. (2011). Incorporating evolutionary processes into conservation planning using species genetic variation: A case study for Iberian amphibians and reptiles. Diversity and Distributions, 17(2), 257-268.

Carvalho, S. B., Brito, J. C., Nowak, M. D., Martínez-Solano, Í., & Tarroso, P. (2017). Phylogeography and ecological niche modelling in Pseudepidalea toads reveal different responses to Iberian Pleistocene climate changes. Journal of Biogeography, 44(1), 116-129.

Cook, C. N., Hockings, M., & Carter, R. W. (2010). Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(4), 181-186.

Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., & Balmford, A. (2005). Monitoring matters: Examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(11), 2507-2542.

Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., Jensen, P. M., & Pirhofer‐Walzl, K. (2010). Environmental monitoring: The scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of peoples involvement. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(6), 1166-1168.

Doremus, H. (2001). Adaptive management, the Endangered Species Act, and the institutional challenges of “new age” environmental protection. Washburn Law Journal, 41, 50-89.

Dorazio, R. M., & Royle, J. A. (2005). Estimating size and composition of biological communities by modeling the occurrence of species. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(470), 389-398.

Dorazio, R. M., Royle, J. A., Söderström, B., & Glimskär, A. (2006). Estimating species richness and accumulation by modeling species occurrence and detectability. Ecology, 87(4), 842-854.

Figge, F. (2004). Bio‐folio: Applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodiversity & Conservation, 13(4), 827-849.

Fischhoff, B. (2012). Communicating uncertainty: Fulfilling the duty to inform. Issues in Science and Technology, 28(4), 63-70.

Game, E. T., Kareiva, P., & Possingham, H. P. (2013). Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology, 27(3), 480-485.

Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., & Ohlson, D. (2012). Structured decision making: A practical guide to environmental management choices. John Wiley & Sons.

Hajkowicz, S. (2008). Supporting multi-stakeholder environmental decisions. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 607-614.

Hortal, J., de Bello, F., Diniz‐Filho, J. A. F., Lewinsohn, T. M., Lobo, J. M., & Ladle, R. J. (2015). Seven shortfalls that beset large‐scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 46, 523-549.

Hunter, M. L., Jacobson, G. L., & Webb, T. (1988). Paleoecology and the coarse-filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conservation Biology, 2(4), 375-385.

Huntington, H. P. (2011). Arctic science, international law, and climate change: Legal complexities and political realities. Marine Policy, 35(6), 851-857.

Kéry, M., & Royle, J. A. (2008). Hierarchical Bayes estimation of species richness and occupancy in spatially replicated surveys. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(2), 589-598.

Lahoz-Monfort, J. J., Guillera-Arroita, G., & Wintle, B. A. (2014). Imperfect detection impacts the performance of species distribution models. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23(4), 504-515.

Lempert, R. J. (2002). A new decision sciences for complex systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl 3), 7309-7313.

Lindenmayer, D. B., & Likens, G. E. (2009). Adaptive monitoring: A new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 482-486.

Marcot, B. G., Steventon, J. D., Sutherland, G. D., & McCann, R. K. (2006). Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36(12), 3063-3074.

McDonald-Madden, E., Baxter, P. W., Fuller, R. A., Martin, T. G., Game, E. T., Montambault, J., & Possingham, H. P. (2008). Monitoring does not always count. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(9), 478-485.

Minor, E. S., & Urban, D. L. (2008). A graph‐theory framework for evaluating landscape connectivity and conservation planning. Conservation Biology, 22(2), 297-307.

Moilanen, A., Wilson, K., & Possingham, H. (2009). Spatial conservation prioritization: Quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press.

Nichols, J. D., & Williams, B. K. (2006). Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(12), 668-673.

Peterson, A. T., Papeş, M., & Soberón, J. (2008). Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling. Ecological Modelling, 213(1), 63-72.

Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G. S., & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, 17(2), 358-366.

Peterson, A. T., Soberón, J., Pearson, R. G., Anderson, R. P., Martínez‐Meyer, E., Nakamura, M., & Araújo, M. B. (2011). Ecological niches and geographic distributions (MPB-49). Princeton University Press.

Possingham, H. P., Andelman, S. J., Burgman, M. A., Medellín, R. A., Master, L. L., & Keith, D. A. (2002). Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(11), 503-507.

Pressey, R. L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M. E., Cowling, R. M., & Wilson, K. A. (2007). Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22(11), 583-592.

Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M., & Burgman, M. A. (2002). A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications, 12(2), 618-628.

Rodrigues, A. S., & Brooks, T. M. (2007). Shortcuts for biodiversity conservation planning: The effectiveness of surrogates. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 38, 713-737.

Runge, M. C., Converse, S. J., & Lyons, J. E. (2011). Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program. Biological Conservation, 144(4), 1214-1223.

Schatz, G. E. (2000). Endemism in the Malagasy tree flora. Diversity and endemism in Madagascar, 1-9.

Soares-Filho, B. S., Nepstad, D. C., Curran, L. M., Cerqueira, G. C., Garcia, R. A., Ramos, C. A., … & Schlesinger, P. (2006). Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature, 440(7083), 520-523.

Sutherland, W. J. (2006). Predicting the ecological consequences of environmental change: A review of the methods. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(4), 599-616.

Turner, W. (2014). Sensing biodiversity. Science, 346(6207), 301-302.

Wade, P. R. (2000). Bayesian methods in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 14(5), 1308-1316.

Walters, C., & Holling, C. S. (1990). Large‐scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology, 71(6), 2060-2068.

Westgate, M. J., Likens, G. E., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2013). Adaptive management of biological systems: A review. Biological Conservation, 158, 128-139.

White, C., Halpern, B. S., & Kappel, C. V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(12), 4696