Rewilding
Cristian Moyano-Fernández
Rewilding refers to a set of ideas and practices that, rather than constituting a closed model of nature management, entail a reconsideration of the relationships between human beings and non-human ecological processes. Its significance lies not only in the restoration of degraded areas and specific ecosystem states (see Ecosystem Restoration), but also in the reconfiguration of ecological agency, understood as the capacity of natural systems to develop autonomous dynamics under conditions of reduced human control. In this sense, rewilding is not limited to a technical problem of conservation; it also introduces a philosophical dimension concerning what is meant by “active” or “autonomous” nature, and to what extent it is possible or desirable to redirect forms of human intervention toward facilitating processes rather than directly controlling them (Lorimer et al., 2015; Gammon, 2018).
In Europe, some of the best-known examples include projects developed in the Romanian Carpathians, the Danube Delta, the Italian Apennines, the Portuguese Côa Valley, and the Scottish Highlands, where certain infrastructures, activities and extractive uses have been restricted, and measures have been implemented to restore ecological connectivity and populations of ecosystem engineers such as the European bison, the beaver or vultures, as well as to promote coexistence with large carnivores. In Spain, one of the most representative initiatives is that led by Rewilding Spain, which promotes the restoration of ecological processes through the recovery of herbivory dynamics, thanks to the reintroduction of free-roaming horses or cattle, and the support of local sustainable economic models and ecotourism. Alongside these large-scale projects, more modest urban rewilding experiences have also emerged, such as the unconfinement of the Manzanares River in Madrid following the opening of several dam gates, which allowed the spontaneous recovery of riparian vegetation and the return of numerous species of birds, fish and other organisms. These cases illustrate how rewilding takes forms adapted to highly diverse ecological and social contexts.
The term emerged within conservation biology at the end of the twentieth century, particularly in North America, where it was proposed as a means of reversing the biodiversity crisis (see Biodiversity) through the recovery of three key elements: vast protected areas in which human pressures and extractive activities are restricted; large carnivores capable of exerting trophic control over wild herbivore populations; and ecological corridors facilitating animal movement. However, both the understanding and application of the term rewilding have fluctuated considerably. For instance, the North American model of extensive national parks and reserves has been widely criticized from the perspective of environmental justice, while its emphasis on the reintroduction of apex predators has proven less relevant in Europe or in island systems (Moyano-Fernández, 2025). Its contemporary meaning results from a conceptual expansion incorporating contributions from landscape ecology, environmental philosophy, and political ecology, among other disciplines. Recent literature broadly defines rewilding as a strategy aimed at recovering ecological and functional processes in degraded systems, rather than reconstructing specific historical states of nature (Soulé & Noss, 1998; Mutillod et al., 2024). This distinction is significant because it shifts the focus from the conservation of “states” toward the restoration of ecological dynamics, flows, and relationships.
From this perspective, rewilding is grounded in the idea that many contemporary ecosystems are functionally impoverished due to the loss of key species, especially large vertebrates, which affects processes such as predation, seed dispersal, and landscape heterogeneity. However, the centrality of these species should not be understood solely in taxonomic terms, but rather as part of complex ecological networks in which certain species act as systemic regulators. Recent studies have emphasized precisely this relational character of rewilding, conceiving conservation not as the preservation of isolated entities, but as the maintenance of ecological interactions (Carver et al., 2021; Schulte et al., 2022).
Rewilding nevertheless occupies a structural tension between intervention and non-intervention. Although it is often presented as a strategy for reducing human control (see Nature Management Models), in practice it requires significant initial interventions, such as species reintroductions, the removal of human infrastructure, or changes in land use. This apparent paradox has been widely discussed in recent literature, which points out that rewilding does not entirely eliminate human intervention, but rather mitigates and redirects it toward creating conditions for ecological self-organization (Lorimer et al., 2015; Jørgensen, 2015) (see Ecological Agency).
This issue is particularly evident in the management of invasive non-native species. Although some rewilding approaches emphasise minimising human intervention as the primary preventive measure, when introduced species are already present and significantly alter ecological processes, it may be considered justified to carry out control measures through non-lethal interventions (such as sterilisation or capture and translocation) or nature-based solutions. In the latter case, for instance, the recovery of natural predators of these species is often proposed in order to mitigate their populations. However, this practice is not without controversy, as, within rewilding, the ecological and relational effects of species are considered more important than their evolutionary or geographical origin. This may lead to the native–non-native dichotomy becoming irrelevant when determining which natural predators should be favoured to attenuate invasions.
Closely related to this issue is the central question of the notion of “nature” (see Nature) assumed by rewilding. While some formulations remain linked to the idea of “wilderness” or untouched nature, other post-naturalist approaches have criticized this distinction as ontologically unstable in the context of the Anthropocene, in which virtually no ecosystem remains free from human influence (Arias, 2024). Given this ontological hybridity (see Naturalism), rewilding would not restore any original nature, but rather produce new socioecological configurations that challenge the dichotomy between nature and culture and instead aim to recover the autonomy of the wild, or “wildness” (Moyano-Fernández, 2025; De Vroey & Obst, 2025).
At the same time, rewilding has also been debated from social and political perspectives. Species reintroductions and landscape reconfigurations may generate conflicts with human activities such as livestock farming or agriculture, as well as with rural ways of life and local cultural practices. Consequently, some approaches explicitly incorporate dimensions of socioecological justice and local participation, emphasizing that rewilding is not only an ecological transformation but also a redistribution of power in territorial uses aimed at sustaining multispecies coexistence (Carver et al., 2021; Schulte et al., 2022; Derham et al., 2025).
Another important axis of contemporary debate concerns the plurality of approaches within rewilding itself. Recent literature distinguishes between different forms of rewilding, including passive rewilding, which prioritises the reduction of human intervention to allow the spontaneous regeneration of ecosystems, and active or trophic rewilding, which involves more directed actions such as the reintroduction of key species. There is also a distinction between Holocene-oriented approaches, which aim to restore more recent historical ecological communities and processes, and Pleistocene-oriented approaches, which seek to recover wildlife and ecosystem functions dating back more than 12,000 years. In addition, there are context-specific modalities such as urban, agricultural or marine rewilding (Palau, 2020). This diversity has led some authors to describe the term as an “umbrella concept” rather than a single, unified category (Gammon, 2018; Mutillod et al., 2024). Although this plasticity has been criticized for its ambiguity (Jørgensen, 2015), it has also been defended for its capacity to integrate diverse practices within a common framework oriented toward the recovery of ecological processes and wildlife (Moyano-Fernández ,2025).
This semantic and methodological plurality sustains a dual ethical dimension that structures much of the contemporary debate. On the one hand, there is a functionalist ethics that evaluates the success of rewilding insofar as it efficiently contributes to the restoration of ecological processes considered desirable. From this perspective, rewilding is justified by its effects on improving the stability, complexity, resilience, or functional integrity of natural systems. On the other hand, there coexists an ethics centered on the autonomy of non-human nature (see Animal Agency, Ecological Agency, Plant Agency), which emphasizes the value of reducing dependence on anthropogenic management and fostering the capacity of ecological systems and wild species to self-regulate and develop their own dynamics. This second orientation introduces a distinct normative dimension, insofar as it evaluates not only functional outcomes but also the degree of ecological freedom granted to non-human beings. The tension between these two perspectives permeates contemporary understandings of rewilding and explains some of its conceptual ambiguities, since greater functional efficiency does not necessarily coincide with greater ecological autonomy, as illustrated by recent projects of de-extinction through genetic engineering or the replacement of species with AI-driven robots designed to assist natural processes (see Ecomodernism) (Moyano-Fernández, 2022).
This duality translates directly into the classical debate between intervention (or hands-on) and non-intervention (or hands-off), although reformulated in more complex terms than a simple binary opposition. Rather than posing a dilemma between acting and not acting, rewilding shifts attention toward the type, means, intensity, effects, and purpose of intervention. Accordingly, this opposition should not be understood as a strict separation, since in practice there is considerable permeability between both approaches. Indeed, many rewilding projects combine strategies of active intervention in their initial phases — such as species reintroductions, infrastructure removal, or the restoration of ecological connectivity — with more indirect or minimal-intervention forms of management in later stages (Vasile, 2024). This alternation depends largely on the ecological, institutional, and social context of each project, reinforcing the idea that rewilding does not constitute a homogeneous model, but rather a flexible set of adaptive practices.
Taken together, rewilding may be understood as a distinctive movement articulating ecological science, environmental philosophy, and the politics of nature. Its contemporary relevance lies not only in its applications for biodiversity management, but also in its capacity to reopen fundamental questions concerning the relationship between humans and other living beings, the definition of the natural or the wild, and the limits of human intervention. In this sense, rewilding does not merely describe a set of practices of biological conservation or ecological restoration, but functions as a conceptual device that redefines the very categories through which nature is currently understood. Thus, its still relatively young trajectory of generating empirical evidence within the scientific literature (Hart et al., 2023) is complemented by its many provocative contributions in the theoretical and political domains.
Bibliography:
Arias, S. (2024). The abandonment of the ideal of wilderness. The Anthropocene Review, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196241270671.
Carver, S., Convery, I., Hawkins, S. Beyers, R., Eagle, A., Kun, Z., Van Maanen, E., Cao, Y., Fisher, M., Edwards, S.R., … & Soulé, M. E. (2021). Guiding principles for rewilding. Conservation Biology, 35(6), 1882–1893. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13730.
De Vroey, L. & Obst, A. R. (2025). Wilderness values in rewilding: Transatlantic perspectives. Environmental Values, 34(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/09632719241305719.
Derham, T. T., Mathews, F. & Johnson, C. N. (2025). Rewilding and Indigenous Community-Led Land Care. Conservation Letters, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13090.
Gammon, A. R. (2018). The many meanings of rewilding. An Introduction and the Case for a Broad Conceptualisation. Environmental Values, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.3197/096327118X15251686827705.
Jørgensen, D. (2015). Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum, 65: 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016.
Hart, E. E., Haigh, A. & Ciuti, S. (2023). A scoping review of the scientific evidence base for rewilding in Europe. Biological Conservation, 285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110243.
Lorimer, J., Sandom, C., Jepson, P., Doughty, C., Barua, M. & Kirby, K. J. (2015). Rewilding: Science, practice, and politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40: 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021406.
Moyano-Fernández, C. (2022). Ética del rewilding. Plaza y Valdés.
Moyano-Fernández, C. (2025). Rewilding and Ecological Justice. The Ethics and Politics of Wildlife Regeneration. Routledge.
Mutillod, C., Buisson, É., Mahy, G., Jaunatre, R., Bullock, J. M., Tatin, L. & Dutoit, T. (2024). Ecological restoration and rewilding. Biological Reviews, 99(3), 820–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13046.
Palau, J. (2020). Rewilding Iberia. Explorando el potencial de la renaturalización en España. Lynx Edicions.
Schulte to Bühne, H., Pettorelli, N. & Hoffmann, M. (2022). The policy consequences of defining rewilding. Ambio, 51, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01560-8.
Soulé, M. E. & Noss, R. (1998). Rewilding and biodiversity. Wild Earth, 8(3), 18–28.
Vasile, M. (2024). From Reintroduction to Rewilding: Autonomy, Agency and the Messy Liberation of the European Bison. Environment and History, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.3197/096734022X16552219786618.