Cargando…
The policy consequences of defining rewilding
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....
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8651963/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33983560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01560-8 |
Sumario: | 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 INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13280-021-01560-8. |
---|