Auteur moral

Auteur secondaire

Résumé

"Rewilding is increasingly adopted as a novel, process-oriented restoration approach worldwide, yet little knowledge exists oncommonalities and differences in rewilding practice. This study systematically examines rewilding projects enlisted on theEuropean Rewilding Network (n = 89) from a social-ecological perspective. Using qualitative content analysis and hierarchicalclustering, we assess the diversity of rewilding strategies by comparing ecological and socioeconomic goals, types of interventions,targeted ecological processes, and people's assigned roles in rewilding. Six distinct rewilding strategies emerged: "megaherbivorerewilding", "multi-intervention rewilding", "ecosystem restoration", "species breeding and reintroduction", "fostering human-wildlife coexistence", and "wild nature protection". Our findings highlight (1) recurring patterns in rewilding practices acrosscontexts, (2) co-occurrences between ecological and socioeconomic elements in shaping rewilding practices, and (3) variability inpeople's roles depending on the rewilding strategy pursued. The findings can support knowledge transfer and cross-site learningamong researchers and practitioners, and the development of tailored policy and planning tools."

Editeur

Society for conservation biology

Descripteur Urbamet

Descripteur écoplanete

impact sur l'environnement ;restauration de site ;animal sauvage ;faune sauvage ;étude socioéconomique ;impact sur l'environnement

Thème

Environnement - Nature

Texte intégral

Conservation Letters LETTER Rewilding in Europe: A Systematic Characterization and Classification of 89 Rewilding Projects Brenda Maria Zoderer1 Johan Busse von Colbe2 Jacqueline Loos2,3,4 1Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, Department of Landscape, Water and Infrastructure, BOKU University, Vienna, Austria 2Institute of Ecology, Leuphana University, Universitätsallee 1, Lüneburg, Germany 3Social-Ecological Systems Institute, Leuphana University, Universitätsallee 1, Lüneburg, Germany 4Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Correspondence: Brenda Maria Zoderer (brenda.zoderer@boku.ac.at) Received: 17 March 2025 Revised: 18 September 2025 Accepted: 28 September 2025 Keywords: human?nature relationship | people | restoration | rewilding | socioeconomic dimension | social-ecological perspective | wildness ABSTRACT Rewilding is increasingly adopted as a novel, process-oriented restoration approach worldwide, yet little knowledge exists on commonalities and differences in rewilding practice. This study systematically examines rewilding projects enlisted on the European Rewilding Network (n = 89) from a social-ecological perspective. Using qualitative content analysis and hierarchical clustering, we assess the diversity of rewilding strategies by comparing ecological and socioeconomic goals, types of interventions, targeted ecological processes, and people?s assigned roles in rewilding. Six distinct rewilding strategies emerged: ?megaherbivore rewilding?, ?multi-intervention rewilding?, ?ecosystem restoration?, ?species breeding and reintroduction?, ?fostering human- wildlife coexistence?, and ?wild nature protection?. Our findings highlight (1) recurring patterns in rewilding practices across contexts, (2) co-occurrences between ecological and socioeconomic elements in shaping rewilding practices, and (3) variability in people?s roles depending on the rewilding strategy pursued. The findings can support knowledge transfer and cross-site learning among researchers and practitioners, and the development of tailored policy and planning tools. 1 Introduction Rewilding has emerged as a promising restoration approach in response to global biodiversity and climate crises (Araújo and Alagador 2024; Schmitz et al. 2023; Svenning 2020). Its primary goal is to restore self-regulating, dynamic ecosystems by reinstating lost or degraded ecological processes while reducing human control and pressures over time (Carver et al. 2021; Perino et al. 2019; Prior and Ward 2016). Rewilding is increasingly recognized as a valuable complement to traditional biodiversity conservation and ecological restoration efforts, particularly in times of rapid climate and socioeconomic change (Mutillod et al. 2024; Pettorelli and Bullock 2023; Van Meerbeek et al. 2019). By adopting ahands-off, process-oriented, and open-ended approach and emphasizing the adaptive capacity of ecosystems (Pettorelli and Bullock 2023), rewilding is expected to create conditions that support and enhance biodiversity, even under novel biosphere conditions (Hart et al. 2023; Pettorelli et al. 2018; Svenning et al. 2024). As the rewilding concept is gaining recognition, a growing number of rewilding projects are being implemented across diverse regions worldwide (Convery et al. 2025; Soorae 2021). This expansion into diverse geographic contexts contributes to a diversification of its meaning (Jørgensen 2015; Lorimer et al. 2015). While originally being closely associated with the ?3C?s model? (i.e., cores, corridors, and carnivores? model) aimed at restoring large, connected wilderness areas conducive to apex predators in North America1 (Soulé and Noss 1998), rewilding no longer represents a uniform approach in practice (Deary and This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Conservation Letters, 2025; 18:e13157 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13157 1 of 13 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13157 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8166-4436 https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8304-869X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7639-2894 mailto:brenda.zoderer@boku.ac.at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13157 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1111%2Fconl.13157&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2025-11-11 Warren 2017; O?Connell and Prudhomme 2024; Root-Bernstein et al. 2018; Thomas 2022). Today, rewilding encompasses a broad spectrum of aims and activities (Hawkins et al. 2024a), including the reintroduction of large herbivores to re-establish natural grazing dynamics (O?Connell and Prudhomm 2024; Root- Bernstein et al. 2018), back-breeding and de-extinction programs to facilitate taxon replacements (Seddon and Armstrong 2019), and the passive management of abandoned agricultural land to deliberately enable natural succession and (re)colonization processes (Broughton et al. 2021; Carver 2019). Since legal and regulatory frameworks for rewilding are largely lacking (O?Connell and Prudhomme 2024; Schulte to Bühne et al. 2022), rewilding projects are often ad hoc initiatives shaped by the visions and preferences of individual (non-state) actors and the necessity to tailor these projects to specific ecological, socio- cultural, and political contexts (Hawkins et al. 2024a; Holmes et al. 2019; Root-Bernstein et al. 2018; Thomas 2022). This place- based and adaptive character of rewilding has been recognized as an important quality of rewilding that allows for ?creative pluralism? among practitioners (cf. Deary and Warren 2019) while balancing the transformative goals of rewilding with prag- matic considerations (Hawkins et al. 2024a; Holmes et al. 2019). However, this pluralism of understandings and heterogeneity in rewilding practices also creates challenges, hampering (1) knowledge transfer and cross-site learning among researchers and practitioners, and (2) the development of tailored policies and planning tools (Hayward et al. 2019). These challenges underscore the broader research-implementation gap that per- sists in conservation science, where the disconnect between conceptual understanding and practical implementation often impedes effective policy development (Game et al. 2015). This is further reinforced by the fact that rewilding research is still largely dominated by opinion and conceptual pieces (Carver et al. 2025; Lorimer et al. 2015), with comparatively limited empirical (quantitative) evidence on rewilding practices and their outcomes across larger scales (but see, e.g., Hart et al. 2023). In this article, we systematically analyze differences and com- monalities across a broad range of European rewilding projects to inform research and policy debates on rewilding concerning the appropriate levels of analysis and intervention. By analyz- ing 89 rewilding projects enlisted in the European Rewilding Network through a social-ecological perspective, we find that they can be grouped into six distinct rewilding strategies. The six strategies??megaherbivore rewilding?, ?multi-intervention rewilding?, ?ecosystem restoration?, ?species breeding and rein- troduction?, ?fostering human-wildlife coexistence?, and ?wild nature protection??vary with respect to both ecological and socioeconomic dimensions. Specifically, we show that each strategy assigns different roles to people, providing evidence of how rewilding is shaping human?nature interactions in practice (Hawkins et al. 2024b; Massenberg et al. 2023). 2 Methods 2.1 Data Collection The sample comprises all rewilding projects that were enlisted on the European Rewilding Network (ERN) in October 2023. The ERN was launched in 2013 by the nonprofit organization Rewil- ding Europe to facilitate knowledge exchange among projects committed to long-term rewilding and whose practices and goals are in line with the major strategic areas of Rewilding Europe (Schepers and Jepson 2016), including the recovery ofwild nature, the establishment of nature-based economies, the promotion of interest in the wild through communication, and the expansion and amplification of rewilding efforts across Europe. In order to become part of the network, projects first need to self-nominate. Thereafter, Rewilding Europe evaluates and selects the projects based on several criteria, including their alignment with the four major strategic areas, and size?whereby larger projects are preferred (Rewilding Europe, personal communication, March 2025). Rewilding Europe maintains a publicly available database2 containing detailed information about each project, including information on the location, start and end date, area size, objec- tives, achieved results, and strategic focus of the projects. The information is collected fromnewapplicants using a standardized form. In cases where available descriptions were not sufficient for a thorough characterization, we additionally consulted the project?s websites. 2.2 Data Analysis Based on the pre-structured project descriptions, we conducted a qualitative content analysis to systematically characterize the projects, with ?systematic? understood as the explicit application of coding rules and a multi-step procedure (Mayring 2014). In the first step, relevant dimensions were identified based on existing theoretical frameworks of rewilding (Hawkins et al. 2024a; Perino et al. 2019) to systematically characterize ERN projects from a social-ecological perspective. These dimensions include (1) the projects? spatial localization, site characteristics, and protection status; (2) ecological and socioeconomic goals; (3) type of ecological and socioeconomic interventions; (4) rewilding approach; (5) targeted ecological processes; and (6) the role assigned to people. In the second step, a category scheme was developed for each dimension following a deductive-inductive procedure (Srnka and Koeszegi 2007). Categories were identified based on existing literature and further adapted iteratively to the specific content of our data to increase validity (Table A.1 in Supporting Information). The category system and its associated coding rules were pilot-tested and revised based on half of all projects. The final category scheme was used to code all 89 projects and the respective text chunks provided on the webpages (i.e., units of analysis) by assigning binary codes (0/1). To improve coding validity and reliability, the category scheme and coding rules were developed and evaluated by all three authors, whereas all projects were coded by the second author and validated by the first author. Based on the coded data, a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) combined with a hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was performed to group ERN projects. The MCA, an ordina- tion technique to handle high-dimensional categorical datasets (Greenacre and Blasius 2006), was first performed to trans- form the nominal data of the content analysis into a reduced number of continuous latent variables. As an input to the MCA, we considered 63 variable categories covering different ecological and socioeconomic goals and interventions, rewilding 2 of 13 Conservation Letters, 2025 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense approaches, ecological processes, and roles assigned to people and for which information was available across all projects (Table B.1 in Supporting Information). Based on the scree plot of the percentage of variance explained and interpretability of individual dimensions (see Figure B.1 and section B for more details in Supporting Information), four MCA dimensions? explaining 29.68% of the variance?were retained (see Table B.1 for MCA scores and dimensions in Supporting Information). Following the MCA, an HCA was conducted based on the four dimensions using Euclidean distance andWard?s linkagemethod (Ward 1963). The final number of clusters was identified based on the Elbow method, Silhouette coefficient (Rousseeuw 1987), and Gap Statistic method (Tibshirani et al. 2001) (Figures C.1?C 3 in Supporting Information). All statistical analyses were run in R, version 4.2.2. 3 Results 3.1 Overview of European Rewilding Network Projects In October 2023, the ERN encompassed 89 projects distributed across 28European countries (FiguresD1?D2 in Supporting Infor- mation), with the majority being located in the United Kingdom (n = 17, 19%), the Netherlands (n = 10, 11%), Italy (n = 7, 8%), and Spain (n = 7, 8%). Projects were initiated between 1914 and 2022, with a notable exponential increase after 2010 (accounting for 57% of all projects). Nearly half of the projects (n = 44, 49%) use the term ?rewilding? in either their project title or project description. A significant proportion of projects (n = 34, 38%) cover areas larger than 10,000 ha, and approximately one-third (n = 26, 29%) encompass less than 1000 ha or are not operating in space (n = 4, 4%; Figure D3 in Supporting Information). Most projects aim at restoring ecological processes and functions to facilitate the development of self-organizing and resilient ecosystems (n = 51, 57%). Other aims include the restoration of specific species (n = 27, 26%), species compositions (n = 19, 21%), and the protection and maintenance of existing habitats and ecosystems (n= 20; 23%) (Figure 1A). With the exception of three projects, all initiatives aim at achieving socioeconomic objectives (Figure 1B), primarily focusing on promoting socioeconomic development (n = 64, 72%), raising awareness about wild nature (n = 56, 63%), and increasing opportunities for nature experiences and other cultural ecosystem services (n = 35, 39%). To achieve these objectives, ERN projects apply a range of eco- logical and socioeconomic interventions (Figure 1C,D). The most common ecological interventions are in the field of research and monitoring (n= 43, 48%), the (re)introduction of megaherbivores (n = 38, 43%), breeding activities, and wetland and river restora- tion (both n = 20, 23%). Frequent socioeconomic interventions are guided tours (n = 44, 49%), organization of events, and the dissemination of educational material (n = 39, 44%) as well as the establishment of hiking and educational trails (n = 29, 33%). Overall, projects predominantly adopt a trophic or ecological rewilding approach (44% and 35%, respectively), while passive and Pleistocene rewilding are less commonly pursued (10% and 5%, respectively). Correspondingly, most projects contribute to the restoration and maintenance of natural disturbances (n = 67, 75%) and trophic complexity (n = 64, 72), with fewer addressing dispersal (n = 30, 34%) and other ecological processes (n = 25, 28%). Most initiatives engage people as recreationists (n = 68, 76%), learners (n = 52, 58%), entrepreneurs (n = 45, 51%), participants (n = 44, 49%) and, to a lower extent, as land users (n = 27, 30%) and volunteers (n = 22, 25%). 3.2 Six Rewilding Strategies in Practice We classified the ERN projects into six distinct clusters (Figure 2, Table 1, and Table C.1 in Supporting Information). Each cluster represents a different rewilding strategy, characterized by specific objectives, practices, and intended human?nature interactions (Figure 3). 3.2.1 Megaherbivore Rewilding About 25% of all ERN projects aim at reinstating natural distur- bance regimes and promoting trophic complexity through the reintroduction of free-roaming and wild-living megaherbivores (e.g., European bison, tauros, Konik horses, and Highland cattle). Themajority of projects reportedly integrate these objectives with the promotion of socioeconomic development such as by foster- ing wildlife-watching tourism. A key feature of these projects is their strong focus on recreationists, who are given access to rewilding sites via the implementation of trails, guided tours, and, in about a third of projects, visitor centers and other visitor infrastructure (e.g., observational platforms). Projects belonging to this cluster are located on a smaller spatial scale (median: 741 ha) compared to other clusters. 3.2.2 Multi-Intervention Rewilding Another group of ERN projects (18%) focuses on restoring multi- ple ecological processes, such as trophic complexity, natural dis- turbances and dispersal, to promote self-regulating and complex ecosystems. To achieve these objectives, projects typically com- bine multiple interventions, including megaherbivore and other species reintroductions (e.g., beavers), abandonment or alteration of former land use, barrier removal, and habitat enhancements (e.g., adding animal-aiding elements), thus integrating trophic with ecological rewilding approaches. Ecological interventions are complemented by multiple socioeconomic measures, such as guided tours, novel business models, actor engagement and educational events to support objectives as diverse as aware- ness raising, community building, socioeconomic development, and acting as best practice examples. Consequently, people are assigned diverse roles, ranging from being recreationists, learners, entrepreneurs, to being land users or participants in the project design, implementation, and management. 3.2.3 Ecosystem Restoration About a fifth of ERN projects aim at restoring ecosystems after anthropogenic disturbances using classical restoration or rewilding approaches. This cluster includes two groups, with the first one (mainly in Finland) aiming at restoring degraded wetlands after exploitation (e.g., peatland mining) to secure Conservation Letters, 2025 3 of 13 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense FIGURE 1 Proportion of the 89 projects within the European Rewilding Network focused on specific ecological (A) and socioeconomic goals (B), as well as on the implementation of ecological (C) and socioeconomic interventions (D). natural resources and regulating services, support livelihoods, and integrate traditional ecological knowledge. Reported inter- ventions include research and a shift to community-led man- agement, where land users and local communities participate in the implementation and management of the project. The second group differs from the first in that it places additional emphasis on promoting nature experiences and cultural services for vis- itors. These projects often implement engineering solutions for wetland and freshwater ecosystem restoration, and engage recre- ationists and/or learners through events, information materials, trails, and other visitor infrastructure. 3.2.4 Species Breeding and Reintroduction A quarter of all ERN projects aim at restoring specific species populations that play a key functional role in the ecosystem. While over half of the projects also aim to restore ecological processes such as trophic complexity, the primary focus remains on the re-establishment of viable keystone species populations, including European bison, tauros, lynx, wildcats, and vultures, through breeding activities (e.g., back breeding, captive breed- ing), research and monitoring, and (re)introduction programs. Compared to other strategies, socioeconomic objectives are less clearly defined in this cluster, and if articulated, primarily focus on awareness raising and socioeconomic development. Consequently, 43% of projects did not report socioeconomic interventions (43%) and 20% leave people?s role unclear, with the remainder assigning varied roles depending on the project. 3.2.5 Fostering Human?Wildlife Coexistence Few (n = 4) ERN projects focus on protecting and restor- ing specific species, such as carnivores and/or scavengers, by fostering coexistence with local communities. Spanning large- scale areas, with both core regions with high abundances of species (e.g., wolves, bears) and areas characterized by 4 of 13 Conservation Letters, 2025 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense FIGURE 2 Dendrogram of the hierarchical cluster analysis. The six clusters of European Rewilding Network projects (n = 89, October 2023) represent different rewilding strategies. The horizontal axis displays the height, corresponding to the level of dissimilarity between merged rewilding projects or clusters. Higher values indicate more distinct rewilding projects and clusters, respectively. Icons: Amelie Nordheim-Perera. Conservation Letters, 2025 5 of 13 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense TA B LE 1 C ha ra ct er iz at io n of th e si x cl us te rs of Eu ro pe an Re w ild in g N et w or k pr oj ec ts (n = 89 )r ep re se nt in g si x di st in ct re w ild in g st ra te gi es . Va ri ab le s M eg ah er bi vo re re w ild in g M ul ti - in te rv en ti on re w ild in g Ec os ys te m re st or at io n Sp ec ie s br ee di ng & re in tr od uc ti on Fo st er in g hu m an -w ild lif e co ex is te nc e W ild na tu re pr ot ec ti on G oa ls Ec ol og ic al Re st or in g se lf- or ga ni zi ng an d re si lie nt ec os ys te m s (6 5% ), re st or in g sp ec ifi c sp ec ie s po pu la tio n (3 5% ) Re st or in g se lf- or ga ni zi ng an d re si lie nt ec os ys te m s (1 00 % ), re st or in g sp ec ifi c sp ec ie s co m po si tio n (3 8% ) Re st or in g de gr ad ed ec os ys te m to re fe re nc e st at e (6 5% ), re st or in g se lf- or ga ni zi ng an d re si lie nt ec os ys te m s (3 5% ) Re st or in g sp ec ifi c sp ec ie sp op ul at io n (6 7% ), re st or in g se lf- or ga ni zi ng an d re si lie nt ec os ys te m s (5 7% ) Pr ot ec tin g sp ec ifi c sp ec ie sp op ul at io n (7 5% ), re st or in g sp ec ifi c sp ec ie s po pu la tio n (5 0% ), re st or in g se lf- or ga ni zi ng an d re si lie nt ec os ys te m s (5 0% ) Pr ot ec tin g ha bi ta t/ ec os ys te m (6 4% ), pr ot ec tin g sp ec ifi c sp ec ie s co m po si tio n (5 5% ) So ci oe co no m ic So ci oe co no m ic de ve lo pm en t( 70 % ), aw ar en es sr ai si ng (5 0% ), cu ltu ra l ec os ys te m se rv ic es (3 0% ), be st pr ac tic e (3 0% ) So ci oe co no m ic de ve lo pm en t( 94 % ), cu ltu ra le co sy st em se rv ic es (7 5% ), aw ar en es sr ai si ng (6 3% ), se ns e of co m m un ity (5 0% ), na tu ra lr es ou rc es an d re gu la tin g ec os ys te m se rv ic es (5 0% ), be st pr ac tic e (5 0% ) A w ar en es sr ai si ng (8 2% ), na tu ra l re so ur ce sa nd re gu la tin g ec os ys te m se rv ic es (8 2% ), so ci oe co no m ic de ve lo pm en t( 77 % ), cu ltu ra le co sy st em se rv ic es (5 9% ), be st pr ac tic e (4 1% ) A w ar en es sr ai si ng (4 8% ), so ci oe co no m ic de ve lo pm en t( 43 % ) So ci oe co no m ic de ve lo pm en t (1 00 % ), hu m an ?n at ur e co ex is te nc e (1 00 % ), aw ar en es sr ai si ng (1 00 % ), lo ca l ac ce pt an ce an d su pp or t( 50 % ), tr ad iti on al ec ol og ic al kn ow le dg e (5 0% ) So ci oe co no m ic de ve lo pm en t( 82 % ), aw ar en es sr ai si ng (7 3% ), cu ltu ra l ec os ys te m se rv ic es (4 6% ) (C on tin ue s) 6 of 13 Conservation Letters, 2025 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense TA B LE 1 (C on tin ue d) Va ri ab le s M eg ah er bi vo re re w ild in g M ul ti - in te rv en ti on re w ild in g Ec os ys te m re st or at io n Sp ec ie s br ee di ng & re in tr od uc ti on Fo st er in g hu m an -w ild lif e co ex is te nc e W ild na tu re pr ot ec ti on In te rv en tio ns Ec ol og ic al (R e) in tr od uc tio n of m eg ah er bi vo re (s ) (8 0% ), re se ar ch an d m on ito rin g (3 5% ), br ee di ng ac tiv iti es (3 0% ) (R e) in tr od uc tio n of m eg ah er bi vo re (s ) (8 1% ), re se ar ch & m on ito rin g (6 9% ), (r e) in tr od uc tio n of ot he rs pe ci es (5 0% ), re m ov al of ar tif ic ia l el em en ts (5 0% ), ad di tio n of an im al -a id in g el em en ts (3 8% ), la nd us e ab an do nm en t (3 8% ), w et la nd an d riv er re st or at io n (3 8% ), ch an ge of la nd us e pr ac tic es (3 8% ), ad di tio n of la nd sc ap e el em en ts (3 1% ) W et la nd & riv er re st or at io n (6 5% ), re se ar ch & m on ito rin g (4 7% ), ch an ge of pr oj ec t ar ea m an ag em en t (3 5% ) Re se ar ch & m on ito rin g (5 2% ), br ee di ng ac tiv iti es (4 8% ), (r e) in tr od uc tio n of ot he rs pe ci es (3 3% ) Re se ar ch & m on ito rin g (1 00 % ), re du ci ng hu m an -in du ce d th re at s( 75 % ), (r e) in tr od uc tio n of ot he rs pe ci es (5 0% ), re m ov al of ar tif ic ia l el em en ts (5 0% ), ch an ge of la nd us e pr ac tic es (5 0% ) N o ec ol og ic al in te rv en tio ns (5 5% ) So ci oe co no m ic G ui de d to ur s( 75 % ), tr ai ls (6 5% ), vi si to r ce nt er (3 5% ), ot he r vi si to r in fr as tr uc tu re (3 5% ), ho sp ita lit y & ac co m m od at io n (3 5% ), ev en ts & en ga ge m en t m at er ia l( 35 % ) G ui de d to ur s( 69 % ), ev en ts & en ga ge m en t m at er ia l( 63 % ), ne w bu si ne ss m od el s (5 6% ), tr ai ls (4 4% ), vi si to rc en te r( 38 % ), ho sp ita lit y & ac co m m od at io n (3 8% ), ac to r en ga ge m en t( 38 % ) Ev en ts & en ga ge m en t m at er ia l( 60 % ), ac to re ng ag em en t (5 9% ) N o so ci oe co no m ic in te rv en tio ns (4 3% ) G ui de d to ur s (1 00 % ), ne w bu si ne ss m od el s (7 5% ), ev en ts & en ga ge m en t m at er ia l( 50 % ), fin an ci al su pp or t (5 0% ) G ui de d to ur s( 82 % ), ne w bu si ne ss m od el s (4 6% ), ev en ts & en ga ge m en t m at er ia l( 46 % ), tr ai ls (3 6% ), ho sp ita lit y & ac co m m od at io n (3 6% ) (C on tin ue s) Conservation Letters, 2025 7 of 13 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense TA B LE 1 (C on tin ue d) Va ri ab le s M eg ah er bi vo re re w ild in g M ul ti - in te rv en ti on re w ild in g Ec os ys te m re st or at io n Sp ec ie s br ee di ng & re in tr od uc ti on Fo st er in g hu m an -w ild lif e co ex is te nc e W ild na tu re pr ot ec ti on Re w ild in g ap pr oa ch Tr op hi c re w ild in g (8 0% ), ec ol og ic al re w ild in g (3 0% ) Tr op hi c re w ild in g (8 8% ), ec ol og ic al re w ild in g (8 1% ) O th er ap pr oa ch (8 2% ), ec ol og ic al re w ild in g (4 1% ) O th er ap pr oa ch (3 8% ), tr op hi c re w ild in g (3 3% ) O th er ap pr oa ch (1 00 % ) O th er ap pr oa ch (9 1% ) Ta rg et ed ec ol og ic al pr oc es se s Tr op hi c co m pl ex ity (9 5% ), na tu ra l di st ur ba nc es (9 5% ) N at ur al di st ur ba nc es (1 00 % ), tr op hi c co m pl ex ity (9 4% ), di sp er sa la nd co nn ec tiv ity (5 6% ), ot he re co lo gi ca l pr oc es se s( 56 % ) N at ur al di st ur ba nc es (7 1% ), ot he re co lo gi ca l pr oc es se s( 65 % ) Tr op hi c co m pl ex ity (8 1% ), na tu ra l di st ur ba nc es (6 2% ) Tr op hi c co m pl ex ity (7 5% ) Tr op hi c co m pl ex ity (6 4% ), na tu ra l di st ur ba nc es (5 5% ), di sp er sa la nd co nn ec tiv ity (3 6% ) Ro le of pe op le Re cr ea tio ni st s (1 00 % ), en tr ep re ne ur s (6 0% ), le ar ne rs (5 0% ) Le ar ne rs (1 00 % ), re cr ea tio ni st s( 94 % ), en tr ep re ne ur s( 81 % ), pa rt ic ip an ts (6 9% ), la nd us er s( 56 % ), vo lu nt ee rs (3 8% ) Pa rt ic ip an ts (9 4% ), re cr ea tio ni st s( 65 % ), le ar ne rs (5 9% ) Re cr ea tio ni st s (4 3% ), le ar ne rs (3 8% ) Re cr ea tio ni st s (1 00 % ), la nd us er s (1 00 % ), en tr ep re ne ur (1 00 % ), le ar ne rs (7 5% ), pa rt ic ip an ts (7 5% ), vo lu nt ee rs (7 5% ) Re cr ea tio ni st s( 82 % ), en tr ep re ne ur s( 64 % ), pa rt ic ip an ts (4 6% ), le ar ne rs (4 6% ) U se of th e te rm ?r ew ild in g? (% ) 60 75 59 29 50 18 A re a si ze (m ed ia n) (h ec ta re s) 74 1 95 00 23 00 16 ,10 0 57 ,5 00 17 ,0 00 Pr oj ec td ur at io n (m ed ia n) (y ea rs ) 11 12 13 10 9. 5 15 No te :T he ta bl e su m m ar iz es th e m os tr el ev an tc ha ra ct er is tic sp er cl us te r, in di ca tin g th e pe rc en ta ge of pr oj ec ts th at ar e ch ar ac te riz ed by ea ch va ria bl e. Va ria bl es ar e on ly sh ow n if th ey ar e ch ar ac te ris tic fo r? 30 % of al lp ro je ct s lis te d pe rc lu st er .I co ns :A m el ie N or dh ei m -P er er a. 8 of 13 Conservation Letters, 2025 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense FIGURE 3 Assigned roles of people across the six rewilding strategies. For each rewilding strategy, the percentage of projects (n = 89) assigning one of six different roles to people is shown. traditional land use, these initiatives mitigate threats (e.g., illegal poisoning, poaching), remove artificial elements (e.g., fences), modify land use practices, and conduct research and monitoring, particularly where species are expanding. Efforts also involve raising awareness among local communities through informa- tion campaigns and training programs, as well as promoting socioeconomic development by enabling local communities to capitalize on economic opportunities arising from wildlife (e.g., through offering guided tours). People take on diverse roles, ranging from land users, entrepreneurs to recreationists and learners. 3.2.6 Wild Nature Protection About 12% of all ERN projects are dedicated to conserving areas of high biodiversity value already shaped by ecological processes. Initiatives either include nature reserves, awareness- raising initiatives, or wildlife-watching enterprises. While some initiatives have undergone rewilding in earlier stages (e.g., Swiss National Park), the primary focus lies on preserving existing habitats and their species compositions. Notably, more than half of these projects do not pursue ecological interventions but promote wildlife watching and nature experiences to raise aware- ness and support for existing conservation activities instead. Socioeconomic development is promoted by creating new income sources for local communities through nature-based tourism. Common socioeconomic interventions include providing guided tours, trails, accommodation, and hospitality services, as well as developing novel business models considering people as recreationists and entrepreneurs. The six clusters exhibit distinct geographic distributions across Europe (Figure 4). ?Megaherbivore rewilding? is most prevalent in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, while ?ecosys- tem restoration? is the dominant strategy in Finland. ?Multi- intervention rewilding? and ?species breeding and reintroduc- tion? are also prominent in the United Kingdom but are more evenly distributed across other countries of Central and South- eastern Europe compared to other strategies. 4 Discussion 4.1 Rewilding Strategies: Variations and Their Implications The results show that European rewilding initiatives can be categorized into six groups, each representing a distinct rewilding strategy that differs in terms of ecological and socioeconomic goals and interventions, targeted ecological processes, and the role of people in the rewilding process. While this finding supports previous claims that rewilding is a flexible and context- dependent approach (Deary and Warren 2017; Hawkins et al. 2024a; Root-Bernstein et al. 2018), it also uncovered common pat- terns across different contexts. These patterns typically encom- pass multiple goals and interventions, indicating that rewilding efforts depend on the integration of diverse activities to achieve their (multiple) aims under existing social-ecological conditions. Identifying and characterizing these recurring patterns, and the challenges they respond to, can provide a first step in facilitating learning and collaboration among rewilding practitioners. The identified rewilding strategies are each shaped by a distinct set of ecological and socioeconomic components, underscoring the value of a holistic social-ecological perspective on rewilding (cf. Hawkins et al. 2024b). In contrast to previous conceptual classifications, which focus on ecological objectives and inter- ventions as the main distinguishing features (e.g., Jørgensen 2015; Pettorelli et al. 2018), the analysis suggests that socioeco- nomic elements significantly contribute to the observed diversity in rewilding practice. It is plausible that some of the co- occurrences in ecological and social elements are caused by mutual interdependencies. Taking a social-ecological perspective, future research could explore to what extent these rewilding strategies reflect distinct social-ecological realities or different ideas of human?nature interactions in rewilding (Glentworth et al. 2024). The geographic distribution of rewilding strategies in Europe further suggests that cultural and socio-political factors (Root-Bernstein et al. 2018; Thomas 2022), alongside ecological conditions, may shape variation in rewilding practices. For instance, ?megaherbivore rewilding? appears more prominent in countries like the United Kingdom or the Netherlands, where it likely reflects both practical adaptations to spatial constraints and Conservation Letters, 2025 9 of 13 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense FIGURE 4 Geographic distribution of the rewilding projects across Europe, categorized by rewilding strategy. Themap illustrates the total number of projects enlisted in the European Rewilding Network for each country (n = 89, October 2023). Cross-border projects are counted separately for each country involved. a preference for strategies that are more politically and socially acceptable than those requiring more radical transformations of the landscape (e.g., carnivore reintroductions or passive rewild- ing) (Thomas 2022). Furthermore, national patterns in rewilding practices may also be shaped by dominant discourses within practitioners? networks and the influence of flagship projects (e.g., Oostvaardersplassen or Knepp Estate). Considering these factors in future analyses could offer deeper insights into the origins and geographic proliferation of the identified rewilding strategies. To our knowledge, the present study provides the first systematic analysis of the role of people in existing rewilding projects at a European scale and using self-reported data from those projects. This European-wide, systematic approach complements earlier studies (Deary and Warren 2017; Glentworth et al. 2024; Holmes et al. 2019), which explored people?s roles in rewilding as perceived by rewilding practitioners and other actors. However, those studies were limited to specific countries or individual rewilding sites. In line with their findings, we also find that the majority of rewilding initiatives actively provide space for human?nature interactions. The most prominent roles are recre- ationists, learners, and entrepreneurs, reflecting a commitment to foster awareness-raising, socioeconomic development, and nature experiences through rewilding. These findings indicate that rewilding projects differ from established ideas of wilderness protection that tend to favor people-free places (Vannini and Vannini 2019; Ward 2019). Instead, rewilding projects seek to increase the wildness of existing (cultural) landscapes while fostering different forms of human?nature co-existence (Hawkins et al. 2024a; Massenberg et al. 2023). However, the analysis also demonstrates that the six rewilding strategies exhibit significant variation in the roles assigned to people, suggesting that their feasibility may be contingent on other rewilding objectives and interventions. Future research may explore such contingencies in greater depth, while also examining how benefits and costs of rewilding are distributed across these roles and experienced by different members of local communities and other actor groups. The broad spectrum of identified rewilding strategies demon- strates that established theoretical distinctions between rewilding and other restoration and conservation approaches can become blurred in practice (Mutillod et al. 2024; Pettorelli and Bullock 2023). For instance, existing projects focusing on the recov- ery of specific ecosystems, such as wetlands or rivers, exhibit similar socioeconomic elements but differ with regard to their ecological goals and interventions. While some adopt an open- ended approach focused on the restoration of self-regulating ecosystems, akin to established definitions of rewilding (Carver et al. 2021), others implement classical restoration methods by 10 of 13 Conservation Letters, 2025 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense restoring degraded ecosystems based on pre-defined reference states (Pettorelli and Bullock 2023). Furthermore, the identified strategy ?wild nature protection? exhibits numerous character- istics of traditional process-oriented conservation strategies such as wilderness protection (Zoderer et al. 2024). This suggests that practitioners may not perceive a clear conceptual divide between the two conservation approaches but instead consider the latter as a continuation of rewilding efforts, particularly once ecological processes have become established. A comparison of the six rewilding strategies and the 10 rewild- ing principles formulated by the IUCN Rewilding Task Group (Carver et al. 2025) further shows that the six strategies tend to meet those principles to varying degrees. While projects employ- ing ?multi-intervention rewilding? meet all the 10 principles, other strategies fall short with regard to specific principles. For example, projects focused on ?megaherbivore rewilding? or ?species breeding and reintroduction? may struggle to imple- ment a landscape-scale approach in line with the 3C?s model. Similarly, some initiatives classified as ?ecosystem restoration? do not fully embrace the principle of ecological dynamism, instead aiming to recover andmaintain ecosystems in pre-defined states. These patterns suggest that in practice some rewilding initiatives are less ambitious than proposed by emerging inter- national rewilding standards, likely reflecting the need to adapt to local social-ecological conditions and existing value systems. These observations underscore the importance of balancing the promotion of rewilding as an adaptive, place-based restoration approach with clear communication of its core principles to prevent misinterpretation of the concept and a potential dilution of its original meaning. 4.2 Limitations and Caveats While our study highlights important variations in rewilding strategies within one of the largest global rewilding networks, some methodological limitations warrant consideration. First, the project descriptions analyzed were primarily intended for public communication and therefore likely place more weight to the aspirations and strategic considerations of project managers than the practical realities and experiences of other actors. Future research should therefore complement our analysis with empirical fieldwork to assess how strategies perform on the ground and adapt their objectives and interventions to evolving environmental and socio-political conditions. Second, our focus on a single project database may have introduced a potential bias. Although this approach facilitated a systematic comparison of a large number of projects using comparable data and stan- dardized indicators, it may have excluded rewilding projects that do not meet the network?s selection criteria. For instance, the sample likely overrepresents larger projects and those prioritiz- ing socioeconomic goals, given their importance to Rewilding Europe?s project selection. In absolute terms, it is possible that the present analysis may have overlooked projects that do not associate themselves with the network or rewilding concept due to strategic reasons despite pursuing comparable strategies on the ground. We thus encourage future research to build on this initial taxonomy of rewilding strategies by incorporating projects from additional (inter)national networks (e.g., Rewilding Britain, Global Rewilding Alliance) and data sources to ensure broader representation. 5 Conclusion Our systematic analysis of rewilding projects enlisted in the European Rewilding Network revealed six distinct rewilding strategies. The findings suggest that for rewilding research to be relevant for practitioners, study designs, and the communication of the research results need to be tailored to these specific rewild- ing strategies. As rewilding gains increased support in national and international policy arenas (Carver et al. 2025; Cary and Wartmann 2025), the identified diversity in strategies cautions against a uniform, ?one-size-fits-all? policy approach. Instead, a diversified and tailored policy mix will be required that responds to the distinct ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of each strategy and their interplay. More broadly, maintaining diversity in rewilding practices whilst adhering to shared prin- ciples and guidelines will be key to advancing rewilding as a social-ecological, place-based, and adaptive restoration approach. We encourage future research to extend beyond the European perspective adopted in this study to examine the relevance and distribution of these strategies in other regions and to identify potential additional ones. A better understanding of the full spectrum of rewilding strategies worldwide and their underlying driving factors will provide a critical foundation for cross-site learning and the development of tailored policy and planning tools. Author Contributions Brenda Maria Zoderer: writing ? original draft, conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, visualization. Johan Busse von Colbe: writing ? review and editing, methodology, investigation. Jacqueline Loos: writing ? review and editing, conceptualization, methodology, investigation. Acknowledgments Jacqueline Loos thanks the University of Vienna for a start-up grant and Leuphana University Lüneburg for the facilitation of a junior professorship, supported by the Robert-Bosch Foundation. We would like to thank Amelie Nordheim-Perera for creating the icons in this study. Open Access funding provided by Universitat fur Bodenkultur Wien/KEMÖ. Data Availability Statement Data produced and analyzed in this study can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17121279. EndNotes 1 Some authors suggest that the term ?rewilding? was already used earlier in an non-Western context, such as India or Africa, to denote the process of rehabilitating captive predators in the wild (Hayward et al. 2019). 2https://rewildingeurope.com/european-rewilding-network/. Conservation Letters, 2025 11 of 13 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17121279 https://rewildingeurope.com/european-rewilding-network/ References Araújo, M. B., and D. Alagador. 2024. ?Expanding European Protected Areas Through Rewilding.? Current Biology 34, no. 17: 3931?3940.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.07.045. Broughton, R. K., J. M. Bullock, C. George, et al. 2021. ?Long-Term Woodland Restoration on Lowland Farmland Through Passive Rewild- ing.? PLoS ONE 16, no. 6: e0252466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0252466. Carver, S. 2019. ?Rewilding Through Land Abandonment.? In Rewilding, edited by N. Pettorelli, S. M. Durant, and J. T. du Toit (Hrsg.), 99?122. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560962.006. Carver, S., I. Convery, S. Hawkins, et al. 2021. ?Guiding Principles for Rewilding.? Conservation Biology 35: 1882?1893. https://doi.org/10.1111/ cobi.13730. Carver, S., S. Hawkins, I. Convery, R. Beyers, T. Derham, and Y. Cao. 2025. ?Rewilding: Ten Years of Evolution and Development.? Annual Review of Environment and Resources 50: 625?647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- environ-111523-102359. Carver, S., I. Convery and S. Hawkins 2025. Guidelines for rewilding. IUCN. Cary, E., and F. M. Wartmann. 2025. ?Rewilding in the British Policy Landscape. A Qualitative Analysis of Policy Documents Related to Rewilding.?ScottishGeographical Journal 141, no. 1?2: 113?138. https://doi. org/10.1080/14702541.2024.2322653. Convery, I., S. Carver, R. Beyers, et al. 2025. ?Editorial: Rewilding in Practice.? Frontiers in Conservation Science 6: 1561801. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fcosc.2025.1561801. Deary, H., and C. R. Warren. 2017. ?Divergent Visions of Wildness and Naturalness in a Storied Landscape: Practices and Discourses of Rewilding in Scotland?sWild Places.? Journal of Rural Studies 54: 211?222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.019. Deary, H., and C. R. Warren. 2019. ?Trajectories of Rewilding: A Taxon- omy of Wildland Management.? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 62, no. 3: 466?491. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018. 1425134. Game, E. T., M. W. Schwartz, and A. T. Knight. 2015. ?Policy Relevant Conservation Science.?Conservation Letters 8: 309?311. https://doi.org/10. 1111/conl.12207. Glentworth, J., A. Gilchrist, and R. Avery. 2024. ?The Place for People in Rewilding.? Conservation Biology 38: e14318. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi. 14318. Greenacre, M., and J. Blasius. 2006.Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods. Chapman and Hall/CRC. Hart, E. E., A. Haigh, and S. Ciuti. 2023. ?A Scoping Review of the Scien- tific Evidence Base for Rewilding in Europe.? Biological Conservation 285: 110243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110243. Hawkins, S., S. Carver, and I. Convery. 2024b. ?Rewilding?s Social? Ecological Aims: Integrating Coexistence Into a Rewilding Continuum.? Ambio 54: 869?881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02118-0. Hawkins, S., I. Convery, and S. Carver. 2024a. ?Developing Guidelines and a Theory of Change Framework to Inform Rewilding Application.? Frontiers in Conservation Science 5: 1384267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc. 2024.1384267. Hayward, M. W., R. J. Scanlon, A. Callen, et al. 2019. ?Reintroducing Rewilding to Restoration?Rejecting the Search for Novelty.? Biological Conservation 233: 255?259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.011. Holmes, G., K. Marriott, C. Briggs, and S. Wynne-Jones. 2019. ?What Is Rewilding, How Should It Be Done, and Why? A Q-Method Study of the Views Held by European Rewilding Advocates.?Conservation and Society 18, no. 2: 77?88. Jørgensen, D. 2015. ?Rethinking Rewilding.? Geoforum 65: 482?488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016. Lorimer, J., C. Sandom, P. Jepson, C. Doughty, M. Barua, and K. J. Kirby. 2015. ?Rewilding: Science, Practice, and Politics.? Annual Review of Environment and Resources 40, no. 1: 39?62. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-environ-102014-021406. Massenberg, J. R., J. Schiller, and C. Schröter-Schlaack. 2023. ?Towards a Holistic Approach to Rewilding in Cultural Landscapes.? People and Nature 5, no. 1: 45?56. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10426. Mayring, P. 2014. ?Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Founda- tion, Basic Procedures and Software Solution.? Klagenfurt. https://nbn- resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173. Mutillod, C., É. Buisson, G. Mahy, et al. 2024. ?Ecological Restoration and Rewilding: TwoApproachesWith Complementary Goals?? Biological Reviews 99, no. 3: 820?836. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13046. O?Connell, M. J., and C. T. Prudhomme. 2024. ?The Need for an Evidence- Led Approach to Rewilding.? Journal for Nature Conservation 79: 126609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126609. Perino, A., H. M. Pereira, L. M. Navarro, et al. 2019. ?Rewilding Complex Ecosystems.? Science 364, no. 6438: eaav5570. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.aav5570. Pettorelli, N., J. Barlow, P. A. Stephens, et al. 2018. ?Making Rewilding Fit for Policy.? Journal of Applied Ecology 55, no. 3: 1114?1125. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1365-2664.13082. Pettorelli, N., and J. M. Bullock. 2023. ?Restore or Rewild? Implementing Complementary Approaches to Bend the Curve on Biodiversity Loss.? Ecological Solutions and Evidence 4, no. 2: e12244. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 2688-8319.12244. Prior, J., and K. J. Ward. 2016. ?Rethinking Rewilding: A Response to Jørgensen.? Geoforum 69: 132?135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum. 2015.12.003. Root-Bernstein,M., J. Gooden, andA. Boyes. 2018. ?Rewilding in Practice: Projects and Policy.? Geoforum 97: 292?304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2018.09.017. Rousseeuw, P. J. 1987. ?Silhouettes: A Graphical Aid to the Interpre- tation and Validation of Cluster Analysis.? Journal of Computational and AppliedMathematics 20: 53?65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87) 90125-7. Schepers, F., and P. Jepson. 2016. ?Rewilding in a European Context.? International Journal of Wilderness 22, no. 2: 25?30. Schmitz, O. J., M. Sylvén, T. B. Atwood, et al. 2023. ?Trophic Rewilding Can Expand Natural Climate Solutions.? Nature Climate Change 13, no. 4: 324?333. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01631-6. Schulte to Bühne, H., N. Pettorelli, and M. Hoffmann. 2022. ?The Policy Consequences of Defining Rewilding.? Ambio 51, no. 1: 93?102. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01560-8. Seddon, P. J., and D. P. Armstrong. 2019. ?The Role of Translocation in Rewilding.? In Rewilding, edited by N. Pettorelli, S. M. Durant & J. T. du Toit (Hrsg.), 303?324. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10. 1017/9781108560962.015. Soorae, P. S. 2021. ?Global Conservation Translocation Perspectives: 2021 (IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature).? https://portals. iucn.org/library/node/49298. Soulé, M. E., and R. Noss. 1998. ?Rewilding and Biodiversity: Com- plementary Goals for Continental Conservation.? Wild Earth 8, no. 3: 18?28. Srnka, K. J., and S. T. Koeszegi. 2007. ?From Words to Numbers: How to Transform Qualitative Data Into Meaningful Quantitative Results.? Schmalenbach Business Review 59: 29?57. Svenning, J.-C. 2020. ?Rewilding Should Be Central to Global Restoration Efforts.? One Earth 3, no. 6: 657?660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear. 2020.11.014. Svenning, J.-C., R. Buitenwerf, and E. Le Roux. 2024. ?Trophic Rewilding as aRestorationApproachUnderEmergingNovel BiosphereConditions.? 12 of 13 Conservation Letters, 2025 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.07.045 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252466 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560962.006 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13730 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-111523-102359 https://doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2024.2322653 https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2025.1561801 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.019 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1425134 https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12207 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110243 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02118-0 https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2024.1384267 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021406 https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10426 https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173 https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126609 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5570 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13082 https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12244 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.12.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.09.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01631-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01560-8 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560962.015 https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49298 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.11.014 Current Biology 34, no. 9: R435?R451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024. 02.044. Thomas, V. 2022. ?Domesticating Rewilding: Interpreting Rewilding in England?s Green and Pleasant Land.? Environmental Values 31, no. 5: 515?532. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327121x16328186623841. Tibshirani, R., G.Walther, and T.Hastie. 2001. ?Estimating theNumber of Clusters in a Data Set via the Gap Statistic.? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 63, no. 2: 411?423. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-9868.00293. Van Meerbeek, K., B. Muys, S. D. Schowanek, and J.-C. Svenning. 2019. ?ReconcilingConflicting Paradigms of BiodiversityConservation:Human Intervention and Rewilding.? Bioscience 69: 997?1007. https://doi.org/10. 1093/biosci/biz106. Vannini, P., and A. S. Vannini. 2019. ?Wildness as Vitality: A Relational Approach.? Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 2, no. 2: 252? 273. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619834882. Ward, K. 2019. ?For Wilderness or Wildness? Decolonising Rewilding.? In Rewilding, edited by N. Pettorelli, S. M. Durant, and J. T. du Toit (Hrsg.), 34?54. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 9781108560962.003. Ward, J. H. 1963. ?Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function.? Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, no. 301: 236?244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845. Zoderer, B. M., T. Marsoner, and E. Tasser. 2024. ?Protecting Wilderness orRewilding?AnEcoregion-BasedApproach to Identifying PriorityAreas for the Protection and Restoration of Natural Processes for Biodiversity Conservation.? Journal for Nature Conservation 81: 126661. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126661. Supporting Information Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section. SupplementaryMaterial: conl13157-sup-0001-SuppMat.docx Conservation Letters, 2025 13 of 13 1755263x, 2025, 6, D ow nloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1111/conl.13157 by IN SE E , W iley O nline L ibrary on [25/11/2025]. See the T erm s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /term s-and-conditions) on W iley O nline L ibrary for rules of use; O A articles are governed by the applicable C reative C om m ons L icense https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.02.044 https://doi.org/10.3197/096327121x16328186623841 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00293 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz106 https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619834882 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560962.003 https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2024.126661  Rewilding in Europe: A Systematic Characterization and Classification of 89 Rewilding Projects  1 | Introduction  2 | Methods  2.1 | Data Collection  2.2 | Data Analysis  3 | Results  3.1 | Overview of European Rewilding Network Projects  3.2 | Six Rewilding Strategies in Practice  3.2.1 | Megaherbivore Rewilding  3.2.2 | Multi-Intervention Rewilding  3.2.3 | Ecosystem Restoration  3.2.4 | Species Breeding and Reintroduction  3.2.5 | Fostering Human-Wildlife Coexistence  3.2.6 | Wild Nature Protection  4 | Discussion  4.1 | Rewilding Strategies: Variations and Their Implications  4.2 | Limitations and Caveats  5 | Conclusion  Author Contributions  Acknowledgments  Data Availability Statement  EndNotes  References  Supporting Information