Rewilding benefits and conflicts in shared landscapes
- Editorial Team SDG15
- 4 days ago
- 5 min read
Published on 27 August 2026 at 05:06 GMT
By Editorial Team SDG15
Rewilding has moved from a specialist conservation idea into a wider argument about how land and water are used. Its central aim is to restore ecological processes, often by reducing intensive management, reconnecting fragmented habitats and returning species that have disappeared. The approach can rebuild food webs and give rivers, forests, grasslands and coasts more scope to change. It can also alter farming systems, access, employment and control over land. The public-interest question is therefore not simply whether nature recovers, but who carries the costs, who receives the benefits and who has authority over the transition.
What rewilding changes
Rewilding does not describe one fixed intervention. Some projects allow woodland or wetland to regenerate after grazing, drainage, mowing or timber extraction is reduced. Others remove barriers so animals, seeds, water and sediment can move through a landscape. More interventionist projects reintroduce ecosystem engineers or predators, from beavers and large herbivores to carnivores. The International Union for Conservation of Nature describes rewilding as the restoration of healthy ecosystems through wildlife and natural processes, while stressing that practice has sometimes harmed communities or biodiversity when the concept was misunderstood.
A widely cited framework published in Science identifies three interacting targets: trophic complexity, natural disturbance and dispersal. Restoring predators or grazers can change feeding relationships; allowing floods, fire or vegetation succession to operate within agreed limits can diversify habitats; and habitat connectivity can enable populations to move, mix and respond to environmental change. The authors argue that these processes can improve ecological resilience and maintain biodiversity, but they also record uncertainty about outcomes and the perception that rewilding can exclude people.
Potential gains extend beyond species counts. Wetlands and less channelised rivers can retain water and sediment, while regenerating vegetation can store carbon and protect soils. Diverse landscapes may support pollination, water purification, recreation and nature-based tourism. Research on abandoned farmland has argued that rewilding can provide regulating and cultural ecosystem services and may support businesses linked to tourism or low-intensity products. These outcomes remain highly dependent on location, ecology, finance and ownership, rather than following automatically from reduced management.
Ecological uncertainty and competing baselines
A decision to withdraw management can produce losses as well as gains. Species-rich hay meadows, heathlands and other semi-natural habitats may depend on continued cutting, grazing or burning. Scrub and woodland succession can reduce open-habitat species even as forest species increase. In some fire-prone regions, land abandonment and vegetation change can increase fuel continuity, although outcomes depend on the ecosystem and subsequent management. Rewilding is consequently distinct from neglect: projects may still involve monitoring, fencing, animal welfare checks, invasive-species control and periodic intervention.
The choice of ecological baseline is also disputed. Historic ecosystems changed under climate, human settlement and past extinctions, so a single pristine reference point may not exist. Species reintroductions require evidence that habitat, genetic sourcing and disease controls are suitable. They also require plans for animals that cross project boundaries. The IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management frames rewilding as adaptive and evidence-based, recognising that ecosystems are dynamic and that results can be unpredictable.
Livestock, safety and rural work
Large animals make the conflicts most visible. Returning wolves or other carnivores can increase the risk of livestock losses, while wild herbivores can damage crops, forestry and fences. The European Commission identifies predation on livestock as the principal source of conflict over large carnivores in Europe. It also notes that national data are incomplete and compensation systems vary. Fencing, guarding dogs and shepherding can reduce exposure in some settings, but they bring costs, labour and practical limits, especially in extensive grazing systems.
Public safety concerns vary by species and landscape. Bears can pose a direct danger in rare encounters, and large herbivores can create road-collision or handling risks. Fear may remain politically important even where verified attacks are uncommon. Risk communication that dismisses residents can deepen mistrust, while dramatic claims unsupported by local evidence can distort decisions. The Commission’s coexistence platform brings together farmers, landowners, hunters, conservation bodies and reindeer herders because conflict involves experience, identity and acceptable risk as well as animal numbers.
Employment effects are similarly uneven. Nature tourism, guiding, habitat monitoring and restoration contracts may diversify income, while lower-input management can support new enterprises. Evidence reviewed for NatureScot found possible benefits for tourism and recreation but limited evaluation of community and local economic outcomes. It also identified potential changes to existing land use, employment patterns and skills needs, including greater seasonality where tourism replaces other work. Claims of a new nature-based economy therefore depend on ownership, revenue distribution and whether established livelihoods continue alongside ecological recovery.
Ownership, consent and durable conservation
Land ownership determines who can initiate rewilding, receive subsidies, sell ecosystem services or restrict access. Large private estates, governments, charities, smallholders, tenants and customary users do not enter negotiations with equal power. Changes to grazing, hunting, gathering or rights of way can affect people who do not hold formal title. Rising land values may benefit owners while making housing or farmland less accessible to local residents. Conversely, fragmented ownership can prevent the connected corridors that ecological recovery requires.
These tensions are strongest when a project is designed elsewhere and presented locally as a completed plan. Consultation after major choices have been made may collect opinions without sharing decision-making power. The IUCN guiding principles state that rewilding requires local engagement and community support and that projects are context-specific. These principles provide a conservation standard for project design, monitoring and adaptation.
Consent is also more complex than a single public meeting. Communities contain livestock keepers, landless workers, tourism businesses, Indigenous Peoples, conservation groups and residents with different interests. Disagreement can remain even after an inclusive process. Transparent ownership, early participation, accessible evidence, routes for complaints and monitoring of ecological and social effects allow conflicts to be recorded rather than hidden. Where species move across borders, coordination extends beyond the original project area.
Rewilding is directly relevant to SDG 15 (life on land) because it seeks to reverse habitat fragmentation, biodiversity loss and degraded ecosystem processes. Its contribution cannot be assessed only through hectares enrolled or animals released. Evidence of ecological recovery sits alongside changes in livestock losses, employment, access, safety and local influence. Rewilding can expand the space in which nature operates, but its legitimacy and durability are shaped by the people already living and working there.
Further information:
• International Union for Conservation of Nature, “The benefits and risks of rewilding”, supports the definition, identified risks and principles on community support.
• Perino et al., “Rewilding complex ecosystems”, Science, supports the framework of trophic complexity, disturbance and dispersal, and its social-ecological caveats.
• European Commission, “National large carnivore management”, supports the discussion of livestock losses, coexistence measures and public-safety concerns.
• Wang, Pedersen and Svenning, “Rewilding abandoned farmland has greater sustainability benefits than afforestation”, supports the analysis of ecosystem services, jobs and land-tenure risks.
• NatureScot, “Case studies in large-scale nature restoration and rewilding”, supports the assessment of tourism, employment, skills and the limited evidence on local economic outcomes.
