The policy consequences of defining rewilding

Henrike Schulte To Bühne,Nathalie Pettorelli,Michael Hoffmann

doi:10.1007/s13280-021-01560-8

Henrike Schulte To Bühne, Nathalie Pettorelli + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01560-8

Copy DOI

Abstract

More than 30 years after it was first proposed as a biodiversity conservation strategy, rewilding remains a controversial concept. There is currently little agreement about what the goals of rewilding are, and how these are best achieved, limiting the utility of rewilding in mainstream conservation. Achieving consensus about rewilding requires agreeing about what “wild” means, but many different definitions exist, reflecting the diversity of values in conservation. There are three key debates that must be addressed to find a consensual definition of “wild”: (1) to which extent can people and “wild” nature co-exist?; (2) how much space does “wild” nature need? and (3) what kinds of “wild” nature do we value? Depending on the kinds of “wild” nature rewilding aims to create, rewilding policy will be faced with managing different opportunities and risks for biodiversity and people.

Highlights

Rewilding has emerged as a captivating, but controversial, concept in conservation (Pettorelli et al 2019)
To contribute to the process of finding consensus around rewilding, we identify three key questions that need to be addressed: (1) can ‘‘wild’’ nature and people co-exist?; (2) how much space does ‘‘wild’’ nature need?; and (3) what kinds of ‘‘wild’’ nature do we value over others? Rather than positing a viewpoint on each of these questions, our contribution focuses on highlighting some of the policy-relevant consequences of different answers
What rewilding looks like in practice depends on how stakeholders define ‘‘wild’’ (Figure 1)

Summary

Introduction

Rewilding has emerged as a captivating, but controversial, concept in conservation (Pettorelli et al 2019). People and ‘‘wild’’ nature can co-exist in Allows integrating (some) human Potential for increased human-wildlife a shared space activities and legacies in rewilded conflict in rewilded sites where people sites are present Rewilding possible in areas with a Smaller sites may not be able to deliver on high degree of intensive human a large range of ecosystem functions land use (e.g. cities)

Results

Conclusion