Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41822856›Full record

ReviewCambridge prisms. Extinction2026

Rewilding for resilience: A call to integrate quantitative and qualitative approaches for monitoring rewilding.

Sally Hawkins, Mike Jones

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cambridge prisms. Extinction, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sally HawkinsCollege of Science and Sustainability; School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences; CQUniversity - Melbourne Campus, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1285-3006
Mike JonesSLU Centre for Biological Diversity, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rewilding is a transformative conservation strategy that emphasises the restoration of ecological processes and ecosystem resilience. This perspective article addresses limitations in current rewilding monitoring practices, which predominantly rely on quantitative metrics. We argue for the integration of qualitative approaches to better capture the complexity and interdependence of human-nature interactions that shape rewilding outcomes. Drawing on social-ecological systems (SES) thinking, we propose a holistic monitoring framework that combines quantitative and qualitative measures. This approach reflects emerging shifts in conservation mindsets - recognising humans as part of nature, valuing biodiversity intrinsically as well as instrumentally, and embracing uncertainty and complexity over control. We suggest that Holling's panarchy - a framework for understanding adaptive cycles and cross-scale interactions - can support the design of rewilding interventions and guide monitoring. By focusing on fast- and slow-changing variables, panarchy enhances adaptive management and supports context-sensitive theories of change. This article contributes to the rewilding discourse by offering practical guidance for practitioners and policymakers, promoting a shift towards inclusive, adaptive and transformative monitoring practices.

Indexed as

adaptive managementcoexistenceconservation planningethics and policylandscape ecology

Identifiers

PMID41822856
PMCPMC12975618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.