ArticlePloS one2026
Finding space for rewilding: Nature futures scenarios reveal ecological opportunities based on plural values of nature from participatory processes.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecological restoration is increasingly emphasised by ambitious biodiversity policies as essential for reversing ecosystem degradation in human-dominated landscapes. Among restoration approaches, rewilding fosters self-sustaining ecological processes and reduces the need for direct human intervention. However, effective implementation requires careful evaluation of co-benefits and trade-offs with local communities' interests. This underscores the urgent need for participatory processes that align restoration efforts with local contexts. This study operationalised the Nature Futures Framework, a participatory, value-based scenario-planning methodology, to co-develop rewilding scenarios with local rewilding experts. To assess trade-offs and co-benefits, relevant stakeholders were systematically identified using Net-Map analysis. Semi-structured interviews and participatory mapping were used to assess stakeholder perceptions and the feasibility of translating scenario narratives into rewilding actions. The three scenarios articulated distinct priorities. The Nature for Nature scenario prioritised restoring landscape connectivity and promoting natural succession toward old forests. It also restored natural disturbance regimes, reflooded peatlands, restored historical river courses, and expanded protected areas to 65.8% of the region. The Nature for Society scenario emphasised reduced land use intensity, sustainable forestry, organic agriculture, and participatory flood management, covering 14.4% of the area. The Nature as Culture scenario highlighted community stewardship, biodiversity-friendly agriculture such as paludiculture, and the reintroduction of culturally significant species, encompassing 8.6% of the area. All scenarios converged on restoring water dynamics and improving connectivity. Spatial mapping identified both unique and overlapping priority areas. Overlaps near natural parks, grasslands, and settlements created high-value mosaics that support biodiversity, water regulation, and cultural services. These areas offer opportunities for risk management, sustainable agriculture, and the restoration of ecosystem services. Incorporating stakeholder perspectives enabled the identification of synergies and conflicts, guiding the development of context-specific strategies. Integrating scenario planning with participatory mapping strengthens adaptive restoration planning and provides a replicable model. This approach aligns rewilding actions with ecological, social, and cultural objectives, delivering tangible benefits for biodiversity, local communities, and policy implementation.
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.