TY - JOUR

T1 - Reintroducing rewilding to restoration – Rejecting the search for novelty

AU - Hayward, Matt W.

AU - Scanlon, Robert J.

AU - Callen, Alexandra

AU - Howell, Lachlan G.

AU - Klop-Toker, Kaya L.

AU - Di Blanco, Yamil

AU - Balkenhol, Niko

AU - Bugir, Cassandra K.

AU - Campbell, Lachlan

AU - Caravaggi, Anthony

AU - Chalmers, Anita C.

AU - Clulow, John

AU - Clulow, Simon

AU - Cross, Paul

AU - Gould, John A.

AU - Griffin, Andrea S.

AU - Heurich, Marco

AU - Howe, Belinda K.

AU - Jachowski, David S.

AU - Jhala, Yadvendradev V.

AU - Krishnamurthy, Ramesh

AU - Kowalczyk, Rafał

AU - Lenga, Dean J.

AU - Linnell, John D.C.

AU - Marnewick, Kelly A.

AU - Moehrenschlager, Axel

AU - Montgomery, Robert A.

AU - Osipova, Liudmila

AU - Peneaux, Chloe

AU - Rodger, John C.

AU - Sales, Lilian P.

AU - Seeto, Rebecca G.Y.

AU - Shuttleworth, Craig M.

AU - Somers, Michael J.

AU - Tamessar, Cottrell T.

AU - Upton, Rose M.O.

AU - Weise, Florian J.

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - 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 We suggest that the utility of ‘rewilding’ as a term is obsolete, and hence recommend scientists and practitioners use ‘restoration’ instead.

AB - 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.

KW - Rewilding

KW - Pleistocene

KW - Island

KW - Restoration

KW - Restore

KW - Ecological equivalent species

KW - Reinforcement

KW - Reintroduction

KW - Novel ecosystems

KW - Conservation translocation

KW - Ecological replacement

KW - Assisted colonisation

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.011

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.011

M3 - Article

VL - 233

SP - 255

EP - 259

JO - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

ER -