SynthesisAmbio2024
Economics of rewilding.
Synthesis in Ambio, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Does re-wilding contribute to biodiversity conservation in Mediterranean cultural landscapes?Ambio · 2026Article
- Article
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
Rewilding, a concept often defined as an open-ended approach to ecological restoration that aims to establish self-sustaining ecosystems, has gained much interest in recent conservation science and practice. The economic dimensions of rewilding remain understudied, despite repeated calls for research, and we find that synthetic or programmatic contributions to the scientific literature are still missing. Here, we mined Scopus and Web of Science databases through a systematic review, looking for "rewilding" with various economic terms in the peer-reviewed literature, in the English language. We then screened out a 257 references-rich corpus with 14 variables, including the position of rewilding regarding positive and negative economic effects in specific sectors, and geographical or ecological foci. Our corpus amounts to ca. 40% of recent rewilding literature, with a clear emphasis on European study sites and the economic consequences of rewilding initiatives. Rewilding studies often refer to positive economic impacts on tourism and hunting, e.g., through higher income and employment rates, although very few studies properly quantify these. Conversely, most authors find rewilding harms farming, which is threatened by abandonment and damages by wildlife, raising interest in potential EU subsidy regimes. We highlight the surprising paucity of rewilding literature truly focusing on economics and/or providing detailed quantification-with remarkable exceptions. While rewilding's ecological relevance is no longer in question, demonstrating its economic benefits and sustainability will undoubtedly help scaling up. Thus, we advise rewilders to systematically measure and report investments and outcomes of rewilding initiatives, and to adopt common standards for cost and benefit assessments.
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.