The policy consequences of defining rewilding

Ecological restoration and rewilding: two approaches with complementary goals?

As we enter the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) and address the urgent need to protect and restore ecosystems and their ecological functions at large scales, rewilding has been brought into the limelight. Interest in this discipline is thus increasing, with a large number of conceptual scientific papers published in recent years. Increasing enthusiasm has led to discussions and debates in the scientific community about the differences between ecological restoration and rewilding. The main goal of this review is to compare and clarify the position of each field. Our results show that despite some differences (e.g. top-down versus bottom-up and functional versus taxonomic approaches) and notably with distinct goals - recovery of a defined historically determined target ecosystem versus recovery of natural processes with often no target endpoint - ecological restoration and rewilding have a common scope: the recovery of ecosystems following anthropogenic degradation. The goals of ecological restoration and rewilding have expanded with the progress of each field. However, it is unclear whether there is a paradigm shift with ecological restoration moving towards rewilding or vice versa. We underline the complementarity in time and in space of ecological restoration and rewilding. To conclude, we argue that reconciliation of these two fields of nature conservation to ensure complementarity could create a synergy to achieve their common scope.

Wilding cities for biodiversity and people: a transdisciplinary framework

Accelerating urbanisation and associated lifestyle changes result in loss of biodiversity and diminished wellbeing of people through fewer direct interactions and experiences with nature. In this review, we propose the notion of urban wilding (the promotion of autonomous ecological processes that are independent of historical land-use conditions, with minimal direct human maintenance and planting interventions) and investigate its propensity to improve biodiversity and people-nature connections in cities. Through a large interdisciplinary synthesis, we explore the ecological mechanisms through which urban wilding can promote biodiversity in cities, investigate the attitudes and relations of city dwellers towards urban wild spaces, and discuss the integration of urban wilding into the fabric of cities and its governance. We show that favouring assembly spontaneity by reducing planting interventions, and functional spontaneity by limiting maintenance practices, can promote plant diversity and provide ecological resources for numerous organisms at habitat and city scales. These processes could reverse biotic homogenisation, but further studies are needed to understand the effects of wilding on invasive species and their consequences. From a socio-ecological perspective, the attitudes of city dwellers towards spontaneous vegetation are modulated by successional stages, with grassland and woodland stages preferred, but dense shrubby vegetation stages disliked. Wild spaces can diversify physical interactions with nature, and enrich multi-sensory, affective and cognitive experiences of nature in cities. However, some aspects of wild spaces can cause anxiety, feeling unsafe, and the perception of abandonment. These negative attitudes could be mitigated by subtle design and maintenance interventions. While nature has long been thought of as ornamental and instrumental in cities, urban wilding could help to develop relational and intrinsic values of nature in the fabric of cities. Wildness and its singular aesthetics should be combined with cultural norms, resident uses and urban functions to plan and design urban spatial configurations promoting human-non-human cohabitation. For urban wilding to be socially just and adapted to the needs of residents, its implementation should be backed by inclusive governance opening up discussion forums to residents and urban workers. Scientists can support these changes by collaborating with urban actors to design and experiment with new wild spaces promoting biodiversity and wellbeing of people in cities.

Naturalness and principle pluralism in conservation

The concept of naturalness in biodiversity conservation remains polysemic, hampering decision-making. Although some conservationists claim ecosystem naturalness should be primarily determined by composition (integrity), others argue it should be determined by the extent of freedom from anthropogenic influence (autonomy). Problems arise when deciding how to treat affected ecosystems. Although the integrity school promotes benchmark-based active restoration, the autonomy school advocates a hands-off policy, making these 2 approaches contradictory. Moreover, expected global changes have promoted advocacy for ecosystem resilience, further complicating the debate. We argue that autonomy, integrity, and resilience are all morally valid. The conflict between them is contained by recognizing that full naturalness is an unattainable goal; restoration and rewilding processes are not an act of curation, but a contrary-to-duty obligation; principle pluralism can accommodate integrity, resilience, and autonomy as pro tanto principles in a case-specific approach; and naturalness, as an overarching value, gives unity to the plurality of principles.

Learning from the past: opportunities for advancing ecological research and practice using palaeoecological data

Palaeoecology involves analysis of fossil and sub-fossil evidence preserved within sediments to understand past species distributions, habitats and ecosystems. However, while palaeoecological research is sometimes made relevant to contemporary ecology, especially to advance understanding of biogeographical theory or inform habitat-based conservation at specific sites, most ecologists do not routinely incorporate palaeoecological evidence into their work. Thus most cross-discipline links are palaeoecology → ecology rather than ecology → palaeoecology. This is likely due to lack of awareness and/or the misnomer that palaeoecology invariably relates to the "distant past" (thousands of years) rather than being applicable to the "recent past" (last ~ 100-200 years). Here, we highlight opportunities for greater integration of palaeoecology within contemporary ecological research, policy, and practice. We identify situations where palaeoecology has been, or could be, used to (1) quantify recent temporal change (e.g. population dynamics; predator-prey cycles); (2) "rewind" to a particular point in ecological time (e.g. setting restoration/rewilding targets; classifying cryptogenic species); (3) understand current ecological processes that are hard to study real-time (e.g. identifying keystone species; detecting ecological tipping points); (4) complement primary data and historical records to bridge knowledge gaps (e.g. informing reintroductions and bioindicator frameworks); (5) disentangle natural and anthropogenic processes (e.g. climate change); and (6) draw palaeoecological analogues (e.g. impacts of pests). We conclude that the possibilities for better uniting ecology and palaeoecology to form an emerging cross-boundary paradigm are as extensive as they are exciting: we urge ecologists to learn from the past and seek opportunities to extend, improve, and strengthen their work using palaeoecological data.