Rewilding and the risk of creating new, unwanted ecological interactions

Delibes‐Mateos, Miguel; Barrio, Isabel C.; Barbosa, A. Márcia; Martínez‐Solano, Íñigo; Fa, John E.; Ferreira, Catarina

doi:10.1017/9781108560962.017

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 107 publications

(98 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, nonintervention could produce environmental degradation in certain cases (Delibes‐Mateos et al. 2019). For example, seminatural habitats traditionally maintained by anthropogenic activities, such as grazing or extensive agriculture, harbor a high diversity of animals and plants (San Miguel et al 2010), and a lack of active management may be ecologically less favorable for some species (Delibes‐Mateos et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, seminatural habitats traditionally maintained by anthropogenic activities, such as grazing or extensive agriculture, harbor a high diversity of animals and plants (San Miguel et al 2010), and a lack of active management may be ecologically less favorable for some species (Delibes‐Mateos et al. 2019). This has led to an increasing scientific debate between conservation scientists who believe natural processes should be allowed to take their course without human intervention (Deary & Warren 2017) and those who advocate for managing nature actively (Linnell et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks

Martínez‐Jauregui

Delibes‐Mateos

Arroyo

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extraordinary population growth of certain ungulate species is increasingly a concern in agroforestry areas because overabundance may negatively affect natural environments and human livelihoods. However, society may have negative perceptions of killing wildlife to reduce their numbers and mitigate damage. We used an online survey that included a choice experiment to determine Spanish citizens' (n = 190) preferences toward wildlife population control measures related to negative effects of ungulate overabundance (negative impacts on vegetation and other wildlife species and disease transmission to livestock) in 2 agroforestry national parks in Spain. We used latent-class and willingness-to-pay in space models to analyze survey results. Two percent of respondents thought a national park should have no human intervention even if lack of management may cause environmental degradation, whereas 95% of respondents favored efforts to reduce damage caused by overabundant ungulate species. We estimated human well-being losses of survey respondents when sustainable effects of deer overabundance on the environment became unsustainable effects and well-being gains when sustainable effects transitioned to no visible effects. We found that the type of wildlife-control program was a very relevant issue for the respondents; indirect control in which killing was avoided was the preferred action. Sixty-six percent of respondents agreed with the option of hunters paying for culling animals to reduce ungulate impacts rather than management cost coming out of taxes, whereas 19% of respondents were against this option and willing to pay for other solutions in national parks. Our results suggest that killing wildlife in national parks could be a socially acceptable tool to manage overabundance problems in certain contexts, but it could also generate social conflicts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks

Martínez‐Jauregui

Delibes‐Mateos

Arroyo

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The (re‐)introduction of locally extinct megafauna or functional analogues can, however, bear the risk of triggering unpredictable and unwanted changes in ecosystem functionality especially when long time has passed between extirpation and (re‐)introduction (Delibez‐Mateos et al, ). This calls for creative solutions when planning rewilding projects.…”

Section: An Integrative Rewilding Framework For Megabiota In the Anthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analogous losses of large animals and trees, socio‐ecological consequences, and an integrative framework for rewilding‐based megabiota restoration

Schweiger

Svenning

2019

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large‐sized animals (megafauna) and trees (megatrees) are key ecosystem components with high cultural and economic importance going back millennia. Once common, both groups of megabiota have been massively reduced in pre‐historic and historic times, with human‐induced downsizing still ongoing. Key ecosystem services provided by megafauna and megatrees include nutrient and seed transfer, carbon allocation, climate regulation and biodiversity facilitation. Socio‐cultural services include food and timber provisioning and the ‘charisma’ of large‐sized organisms, with its associated high cultural, recreational and nature conservation values for human societies worldwide. Conservation and restoration of megafauna and—trees in a socio‐ecological framework are needed to counteract past and ongoing analogous downsizing of both groups of megabiota and the loss of important ecosystem services in a human‐dominated world. Importantly, synergistic megatree–megafauna restoration promotes self‐regulating biodiverse ecosystems across the full range of land use intensities ranging from current downsized wildlands to highly human‐modified landscapes. We propose an integrative rewilding‐based restoration framework applicable across the whole range of human land use intensity. This includes individual‐based protection, assisted colonisation and facilitation of urban wildlife. Active management of megafauna and ‐trees can be economically beneficial and necessary to minimize human–wildlife conflicts in highly human‐dominated landscapes. Societal acceptance and adaptation to old big trees and wild megafauna are prerequisites for successful megabiota restoration in human‐modified landscapes and elsewhere where human–wildlife conflicts are hard to avoid. The prime goal of such integrative rewilding activities should be a proactive facilitation of the self‐regulation potential of natural and novel ecosystems for which large‐sized trees and animals would be some of the most important components for enhancing biodiversity and societal value in the Anthropocene. Such megabiota restoration needs to be done on a wide scale to restore functional effects on the biosphere. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

“…While the interrogation of notions of control is warranted and welcome, current levels of control in one project are not a fair representation of rewilding aspirations, limiting the validity of the conclusion drawn. This trend has led to a perceived paradox being reflected in the literature between rewilding's transformative 1 goals and a need for pragmatism in its application, with concerns that desired paradigm shifts are being compromised in rewilding practice and policies, alongside concerns that rewilding interventions may lead to unwanted social or ecological outcomes (Delibes-Mateos et al, 2019;Genes et al, 2019;Holmes et al, 2020;Wynne-Jones et al, 2020). This demonstrates a need to expand conceptualisations of rewilding, to consider its aims and motivations alongside its practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing guidelines and a theory of change framework to inform rewilding application

Hawkins,

Convery,

Carver

2024

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThere remain a number of debates and conflicts about the concept of rewilding which can be barriers to its application. Some of these conflicts stem from the variety of contextual interpretations of rewilding, leading to conflict between rewilding theories and approaches. Conclusions have also been drawn about rewilding based on limited case studies, so that emergent rewilding theories aren’t applicable to all rewilding projects, limiting their support in the field. Past theories have distinguished different types of rewilding, encouraging debate over the proposed methods, although in practice these approaches often share similar goals and use similar interventions. One barrier to achieving consensus in the practice of rewilding is that there are no clear guidelines for rewilding, and there are limited broad-scale studies focusing on how rewilding is practiced. This paper addresses this by offering the first broad study of rewilding guidelines and interventions.MethodsA grounded theory study was undertaken, using data sourced from rewilding organisations, case studies, and research. Expressions were coded in the data relating to intentions for how rewilding should be practiced and the interventions used.ResultsDrawing from these data, the paper offers three tools to guide rewilding practitioners: (1) an overview of guidelines for rewilding practice, (2) a list of interventions used in rewilding, considering them against rewilding goals, (3) a theory of change framework to guide rewilding application.DiscussionThe tools presented here will inform work towards IUCN rewilding guidelines. Several areas that require further consideration are highlighted. We hope that this initial study of application can improve agreement and collaboration among the rewilding community.

show abstract

Rewilding and the risk of creating new, unwanted ecological interactions

Cited by 5 publications

References 107 publications

Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks

Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks

Analogous losses of large animals and trees, socio‐ecological consequences, and an integrative framework for rewilding‐based megabiota restoration

Developing guidelines and a theory of change framework to inform rewilding application

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About