How do rewilders define rewilding, and how do they think it should be done.

Abstract

The emergence of rewilding as a concept and as a practical approach to conservation in recent years has been accompanied by some debate amongst self-identified rewilding advocates and practitioners. Firstly, there has been a debate about what exactly constitutes rewilding, what it is aiming to achieve, what should and should not be considered appropriate, and how fundamental concepts should be defined. Secondly, there is some disagreement over the subtleties of why it should be done, which benefits and outcomes should be prioritised over others. Thirdly, there is some debate about how it should be achieved, which tools and techniques should be used, whether approaches such as payments for ecosystem services should or should not be part of the rewilders’ armoury. Yet so far, there has been little empirical exploration of how rewilders define rewilding, and why and how it should be done. This paper presents the result of an extensive Q-method study of rewilding advocates and practitioners in Europe, to identify what rewilders think, and why. It demonstrates areas of convergence and divergence, and where discreet clusters of views may exist. It promises to generate a more insightful discussion about the future of rewilding.