The policy consequences of defining rewilding |
| |
| Authors: | Henrike Schulte to Bühne Nathalie Pettorelli Michael Hoffmann |
| |
| Institution: | 1.Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4RY UK ;2.Science and Solutions for a Changing Planet DTP and the Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, SL5 7PY UK ;3.Conservation and Policy, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4RY UK |
| |
| 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.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13280-021-01560-8. |
| |
| Keywords: | Human-nature relationships Rewilding Wilderness Wildness |
|
|
