ArticleAmbio2022
The policy consequences of defining rewilding.
Article in Ambio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Rewilding: history, intervention and the quest for immanence.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2026Article
- Modeling nature-based restoration potential across aquatic-terrestrial boundaries.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The place for people in rewilding.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024Article
- Caught in the crossfire: biodiversity conservation paradox of sociopolitical conflict.npj biodiversity · 2024Article
- Past, present, and future of the Living Planet Index.npj biodiversity · 2023Review
- Learning from the past: opportunities for advancing ecological research and practice using palaeoecological data.Oecologia · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.