Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38850468›Full record

SynthesisAmbio2024

Economics of rewilding.

Emmanuel Faure, Harold Levrel, Fabien Quétier

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Emmanuel FaureLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, CNRS - Univ. Grenoble Alpes - Univ. Savoie Mont-Blanc, Grenoble, France.
Harold LevrelUniversité Paris-Saclay, Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement, AgroParisTech - Cirad - CNRS - EHESS - Ecole des PontsParisTech, Nogent-sur-Marne, France. Harold.Levrel@agroparistech.fr.
Fabien QuétierRewilding Europe, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemEconomic outcomesEconomicsEconomic sectorsIndicatorsReviewRewilding

Identifiers

PMID38850468
PMCPMC11300785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.