The differences between rewilding and restoring an ecologically degraded landscape

Abstract

1. Rewilding is a developing concept in ecosystem stewardship that involves reorganizing and regenerating wildness in an ecologically degraded landscape, with How to cite this article: du Toit JT, Pettorelli N. The differences between rewilding and restoring an ecologically degraded landscape.

From Historical Narratives to Circular Economy: De-Complexifying the “Desertification” Debate

“…This notion is especially important when different degradation processes act synergistically, displaying interactions and feedbacks that are hardly coordinated and regulated on a local scale [15]. While the "local" dimension remains a fundamental prerequisite for both theoretical approaches and intervention strategies, land degradation claims for more coordinated sustainability strategies conceived on a national or supranational scale with the aim at mitigating spatial imbalances [69]. The notion of "sustainable development"-understood as a spatially balanced process in all the composing dimensions over both time and space [151]-makes a useful contribution to this knowledge path.…”

“…Together with extensive monitoring, mitigating the effect of (and adapting to) climate change was considered the appropriate response to an increased desertification risk [ 68 ]. Landscape restoration is an example of the practical approach typical of the “controlling desertification” vision, also in the face of the debate on (philosophical and operational) differences between rewilding and restoring an ecologically degraded landscape [ 69 ]. Socioeconomic issues have been considered only marginally in this perspective, although population density was sometimes regarded as a risk factor [ 70 ].…”

Are novel ecosystems the only novelty of rewilding?

“…In reality, the inclusion of people within both restoration and rewilding projects will fall along a case-bycase continuum based on location and management goals, and therefore human involvement is not a useful way to separate these two management terms. Another suggested key difference between rewilding and restoration is that restoration programs require long-term financial commitment, compared to rewilding projects that aim for little ongoing intervention (Pettorelli et al 2018;du Toit & Pettorelli 2019). However, there are many instances where rewilding projects would require ongoing human intervention: for the control of released herbivore populations when carnivores cannot be supported in the landscape (Schweiger et al 2019); the maintenance of historical fire regimes in fire-dependent landscapes such as Australia (Hayward et al 2005;Kelly et al 2011); or the control or early detection of invasive predators or pest species in landscapes where these species are drivers of biodiversity declines (Donlan 2008;Iles & Kelly 2014;Bellard et al 2016).…”

“…Du Toit and Pettorelli (2019) proposed that rewilding is more inclusive of people compared to restoration. However, this claim is not supported and directly contradicts other rewilding reviews that address how the “self‐sustaining” component of rewilding will, by its very nature, exclude people from rewilded areas (Seddon et al 2014; Jørgensen 2015).…”

“…Yet as the definition of rewilding has evolved, its use as a conservation restoration method has shifted (Jørgensen 2015). While many still see rewilding as a component of restoration (Perino et al 2019; Schweiger et al 2019), the continued adoption of taxon substitutions and lack of invasive species management has resulted in recent claims that rewilding is never part of restoration (du Toit & Pettorelli 2019). This presents an issue for rewilding because if rewilding is to be distinguished from restoration via the creation of novel ecosystems, then there are legitimate concerns surrounding the conservation value of this practice.…”