Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 233, May 2019, Pages 255-259
Biological Conservation

Perspective
Reintroducing rewilding to restoration – Rejecting the search for novelty

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.011Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The term ‘rewilding’ has over a dozen definitions and existing ‘rewilding’ projects invariably began as restoration projects.

  • All existing ‘rewilding’ definitions fit within existing definitions of the long-established field of restoration.

  • Fuzzy and vague definitions impinge upon scientific progress.

  • We recommend using the clearly defined term restoration instead of rewilding.

Abstract

Rewilding is emerging as a major issue in conservation. However, there are currently a dozen definitions of rewilding that include Pleistocene rewilding, island rewilding, trophic rewilding, functional rewilding and passive rewilding, and these remain fuzzy, lack clarity and, hence, hinder scientific discourse. Based on current definitions, it is unclear how the interventions described under the rewilding umbrella differ from those framed within the long-standing term ‘restoration’. Even projects held up as iconic rewilding endeavours invariably began as restoration projects (e.g., Oostvaaderplassen; Pleistocene Park; the return of wolves to Yellowstone, etc.). Similarly, rewilding organisations (e.g., Rewilding Europe) typically began with a restoration focus. Scientific discourse requires precise language. The fuzziness of existing definitions of rewilding and lack of distinction from restoration practices means that scientific messages cannot be transferred accurately to a policy or practice framework. We suggest that the utility of ‘rewilding’ as a term is obsolete, and hence recommend scientists and practitioners use ‘restoration’ instead.

Introduction

Definitions are central to the scientific method. They clarify thought processes and ensure transparent, structured and unambiguous communication about the phenomena under study. Good definitions should be complete, concrete and universally accepted. They should avoid being so broad and inclusive that they lack intelligible meaning. Ideally, definitions should be operational, that is, they should refer to entities that can be measured. Without clear definitions, researchers run the risk of falling into pitfalls where the same phenomenon is studied repeatedly under different terms, wasting scant research resources, or where opportunities for joint efforts are overlooked because people pursuing the same problems perceive themselves to be working on different ones. Poor definitions hinder the integration of scientific work because data sets are scattered through the literature under a variety of different terms. Yet the risk of vague definitions is not restricted to scientific endeavours. Variable use of the terms translocation and reintroduction ultimately led to the creation of clear definitions because it was often impossible to determine what actions practitioners had instigated and what the intended outcomes were (Seddon et al., 2007). In the same way, it is critical for conservation practitioners, non-government organisations and community groups to be clear about their activities via the use of clear and explicit terminology. To constrain these risks, it is at times necessary to evaluate whether certain terms advance or hinder progress.

Here, we scrutinize the term ‘rewilding’, a buzz-word that has recently injected a new and much-needed wave of public enthusiasm into conservation optimism. While the term has been broadly applied in the public domain, we find that within the scientific literature rewilding is the subject of a dozen different definitions (Jørgensen, 2015). There is confusion over whether the term and its composites (e.g., ‘Pleistocene/island/trophic/passive rewilding’) define a novel set of phenomena not previously considered, or whether they merely serve to effectively rebrand a more conventional, but perhaps old-fashioned term: ‘restoration’. As congruity in scientific terms is vital for clear communication of scientific principles and philosophies, we debate the novelty of the term rewilding, including its most recent definitions, and then consider the value of using this term in scientific discourse.

Some might argue that the use of ‘wild’ in the original terminology itself makes the term fundamentally flawed. After all, preconceived notions relating to the terms nature, wilderness, and wild have been extensively scrutinized particularly in the fields of the history and philosophy of science (Cole and Yung, 2012; Nelson and Callicott, 2008). Thus, the definition suggests that ‘wild’ is the ideal ecosystem state and that the objective is to return to that state. The emerging consensus from the conservation perspective is that there is a continuum of ‘wild-ness’ and viewing this as an ‘either/or’ dichotomy is not useful, and a more nuanced view of the levels of restoration intervention required is necessary (Mallon and Stanley Price, 2013; Redford et al., 2012). This challenges the notion of humans as an intrinsic part of natural wild social-ecological systems. Thus, while humans are essential actors in facilitating re-wilding initiatives, they are likely not viewed as a fundamental part of the resultant systems should it be considered to be “rewilded”. It is important to note that these same epistemological notions are not inherent to the term restoration. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the term ‘restoration’ does still face problems in light of altered community structure (Hobbs et al., 2006), the ethics of ‘turning back the clock’ (Katz, 2009), and appropriate baselines to use as objectives (Caro, 2007; Hayward, 2012).

Section snippets

Why debate a definition?

Debating the definition of rewilding may seem an arcane indulgence, however the implications of policy makers and funders embracing some of the more hands-off notions of rewilding may not be benign, but dangerous if the goal of conservation is to achieve the maximum level of pre-existing biodiversity in systems. The Society for Ecological Restoration now encourages a stricter use of the vocabulary around restoration (Society for Ecology Restoration International Science and Policy Working

The evolution of rewilding

The term rewilding was arguably conceived to promote the original authors' view of conservation via cores [habitats], corridors, and carnivores (Soulé and Noss, 1998), although that ignores the long held use of the term in India and Africa to describe the process of rehabilitating captive predators to life back in the wild (YJ, KR, KM pers. obs.). In the Soulé and Noss (1998) context, ‘rewilding’ referred to conservation and management interventions that focused on reintroducing keystone

No change from restoration?

Despite the evolution and expansion of the term ‘rewilding’, this term in all its forms is arguably indistinguishable to the preceding terms, restoration or translocation. Early definitions of restoration describe the practice as “the process of repairing damage caused by humans to the diversity and dynamics of indigenous ecosystems” (Jackson et al., 1995). Although at the time of this definition, restoration science was still developing, it was clear that it had established itself under the

It's in the values, not the ecology

While we see little difference in the explicit ecology or practice of rewilding and restoration, there is an apparent difference in the underlying social values that are implicit in the different approaches. Restoration ecology is very clear about being a human action to reach a human determined goal. Restoration aligns with the ecosystem services or nature-based solutions discourses that focus on delivering tangible or intangible benefits to humans and therefore implicitly acknowledges that

Conclusion

Rewilding is a term with the potential to excite and engage the masses with its links to wolves, mammoths and mastodons; and because the call for re-establishing “wild” places fits to a perception of nature that many modern day humans can relate to (e.g., Kirchhoff and Vicenzotti, 2014). However, the confusion that arose with imprecise definitions of translocation and reintroduction (described in Section 1; Seddon et al., 2007) illustrates the problems of imprecise definitions for both the

Acknowledgements

MWH and MJS are funded by the Australia-Africa Universities Network - Partnership Research & Development Fund 2018.

References (40)

  • D.P. Armstrong et al.

    Reintroduction

  • T.M. Caro

    The Pleistocene re-wilding gambit

    Trends. Ecol. Evol.

    (2007)
  • R.T. Corlett

    Restoration, reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2016)
  • D. Jørgensen

    Rethinking rewilding

    Geoforum

    (2015)
  • D. Nogués-Bravo et al.

    Rewilding is the new Pandora's box in conservation

    Curr. Biol.

    (2016)
  • D.A. Burney et al.

    Paleoecology and “inter-situ” restoration on Kaua'i, Hawai'i

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2007)
  • C.P. Catterall

    Fauna as passengers and drivers in vegetation restoration: a synthesis of processes and evidence

    Ecol. Manag. Restor.

    (2018)
  • D.N. Cole et al.

    Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change

    (2012)
  • S.E. Dalrymple et al.

    “Words matter.” A response to Jørgensen's treatment of historic range and definitions of reintroduction

    Restor. Ecol.

    (2013)
  • Devon Wildlife Trust. Beavers - Nature's Water Engineers: A Summary of Initial Findings From the Devon Beaver...
  • J. Donlan et al.

    Re-wilding North America

    Nature

    (2005)
  • J. Donlan et al.

    Pleistocene rewilding: an optimistic agenda for twenty-first century conservation

    Am. Nat.

    (2006)
  • Hansen, D.M., 2010. On the use of taxon substitutes in rewilding projects on islands, In Islands and Evolution. eds V....
  • M.W. Hayward

    Time to agree on a conservation benchmark for Australia

    Pac. Conserv. Biol.

    (2012)
  • M.W. Hayward et al.

    The reintroduction of large carnivores to the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: an assessment

    Oryx

    (2007)
  • R.J. Hobbs et al.

    Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order

    Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr.

    (2006)
  • Hofmeyr, M., 1997. Operation Phoenix., ed. P.A. Johnson, p. 16. North West Parks Board, Rustenberg, South...
  • Hofmeyr, M., Davies, R., Nel, P., Dell, S., 2003. Operation Phoenix - the introduction of larger mammals to Madikwe...
  • IUCN/SSC, 2013. Guidelines for Reintroductions and other Conservation Translocations. Reintroduction Specialist Group...
  • L.L. Jackson et al.

    Ecological restoration: a definition and comments

    Restor. Ecol.

    (1995)
  • Cited by (49)

    • Actors and actions in the discourse, policy and practice of English rewilding

      2022, Environmental Science and Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The resultant ‘policy window’ (Kingdon, 2013) allowed the debate over rewilding to expand into the larger debate regarding land management and agricultural and environmental policy. Rewilding’s expansion and evolution together with the debates surrounding it have made it an (in)famously broad term which lacks a single, cohesive definition (Prior and Brady, 2017; Hayward et al., 2019). As a result it is applied to a spectrum of ecological restoration approaches (ranging from rewilding ‘lite’ to rewilding ‘max’ (Gordon et al., 2021)) which are distinct from other forms of ecological restoration due to their emphasis on a reduction of human intervention and a (corresponding) increase in other-than-human autonomy (Ward and Prior, 2020).

    • Beyond agroecology: Agricultural rewilding, a prospect for livestock systems

      2022, Agricultural Systems
      Citation Excerpt :

      While the other rewilding forms generally originate in landscapes where agriculture is absent, marginal or has been abandoned (Navarro and Pereira, 2012), agricultural rewilding can be found on land that is either marginal or non-marginal for agriculture on individual farms and/or in agricultural landscapes. Despite continued debate over the utility of distinguishing “rewilding” from “restoration” (Anderson et al., 2019; Hayward et al., 2019), all forms of rewilding emphasise minimal human intervention and the influence of fauna (especially large mammals) on ecosystems (Gordon et al., 2021b). Torres et al. (2018a) developed a two-dimensional framework to measure and monitor the progress of rewilding; it characterises an ecosystem's condition as a function of (i) the intensity of human forcing of natural processes and (ii) the ecosystem's ecological integrity.

    • Taming rewilding - from the ecological to the social: How rewilding discourse in Scotland has come to include people

      2021, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      These tensions can generate or amplify conflict (Carver, 2016; Skogen et al., 2008; Wynne-Jones et al., 2018). Also within the academic debate, there are those who remain more cautious about rewilding, arguing it is ‘fuzzy’, ill-defined, poorly understood, or unpredictable (Hayward et al., 2019; Nogués-Bravo et al., 2016; Rubenstein and Rubenstein, 2016). All of this contrasts with those proponents who argue rewilding holds the promise of a necessary and beneficial change in our relationship with the natural world (Monbiot, 2013).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text