The policy consequences of defining rewilding.

Area of Science:

• Conservation Science
• Ecology
• Environmental Policy

Background:

• Rewilding, proposed over 30 years ago, is a controversial biodiversity conservation strategy.
• Lack of agreement on rewilding goals and methods hinders its mainstream conservation utility.
• Diverse values in conservation lead to varied definitions of "wild" nature.

Purpose of the Study:

• To identify key debates necessary for achieving consensus on the definition of "wild" in rewilding.
• To explore how different definitions of "wild" impact rewilding policy, opportunities, and risks.
• To facilitate the integration of rewilding into broader conservation efforts.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of existing literature and definitions of "wild" nature.
• Identification and examination of three core debates in rewilding.
• Conceptual framework development for rewilding policy.

Main Results:

• Three critical debates identified: human-nature coexistence, space requirements for wild nature, and valued types of wild nature.
• Disagreement on these debates obstructs consensus on rewilding.
• The chosen definition of "wild" nature directly influences rewilding's outcomes for biodiversity and people.

Conclusions:

• Achieving consensus on rewilding requires a shared understanding of "wild" nature.
• Addressing key debates is crucial for developing effective and widely accepted rewilding policies.
• Rewilding policy must carefully manage opportunities and risks based on the specific aims for wild nature.