The policy consequences of defining rewilding

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.

Automated summary

Rewilding, proposed as a biodiversity conservation strategy over 30 years ago, still faces controversy due to lack of consensus on its goals and methods, limiting its utility in mainstream conservation. Achieving consensus on rewilding requires addressing diverse definitions and values of wild nature.