The word has become almost impossible to use precisely. Rewilding appears in garden centre marketing and government policy documents, in the mission statements of luxury eco-lodges and in the manifestos of radical conservation organisations. It describes projects ranging from a few wildflowers planted in a roadside verge to the reintroduction of apex predators across tens of thousands of hectares of landscape.
When a word means everything, it risks meaning nothing. So it is worth being specific about what rewilding actually is, what the evidence says about whether it works, and where the limits of the concept genuinely lie.
The Original Idea
Rewilding as a coherent concept was developed in the 1990s by conservation biologist Michael Soulé and writer Dave Foreman. Their original proposal had three components, which became known as the three Cs: cores, corridors, and carnivores.
Cores were large, protected wilderness areas. Corridors were connecting strips of habitat that allowed species to move between cores. Carnivores were apex predators, whose presence at the top of the food chain regulates the behaviour and populations of species below them, producing what ecologists call a trophic cascade.
The classic example of a trophic cascade is the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park in 1995. Before the wolves returned, elk grazed freely across the park, stripping vegetation from riverbanks and valley floors. When wolves arrived, the elk changed their behaviour. They avoided areas where they were vulnerable to predation. Vegetation recovered. Riverbanks stabilised. Bird species returned. The rivers themselves changed course in places, as restored vegetation altered the physical structure of the landscape.
The wolves did not just kill elk. They changed how the elk moved, and that change rippled through the entire ecosystem.
This is what the original rewilding concept was built around. Not the passive protection of what remains, but the active restoration of ecological processes, through the return of the species that drive them.
What It Has Become
The concept has expanded considerably since then, and not always coherently.
In the UK, rewilding has been adopted as a term by projects as different as Isabella Tree’s Knepp Estate in West Sussex, where intensive farmland has been returned to a mosaic of scrub, woodland, and wetland grazed by free roaming cattle and horses, and community projects in urban areas that remove paving to allow spontaneous vegetation. Both are called rewilding. They are doing very different things.
The Knepp project is a serious, evidence based conservation experiment that has produced remarkable results. Turtle doves, purple emperor butterflies, and peregrine falcons have returned to land that had been intensively farmed for decades. The approach is passive in the sense that the land managers are not planting specific species or managing for particular outcomes. They are creating conditions and allowing the ecosystem to respond.
This is genuinely radical in the context of British conservation, which has historically been highly managed and prescriptive. The idea that stepping back and allowing natural processes to operate can produce better outcomes than active management is not universally accepted, and the evidence from projects like Knepp is important precisely because it challenges that orthodoxy.
But it is a long way from the three Cs. There are no apex predators at Knepp. The grazing animals are not wild. The land is an island, surrounded by intensively farmed countryside. It is a valuable experiment, but describing it with the same word used for wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone obscures more than it reveals.
The Apex Predator Question
The most contentious element of rewilding in a European context is the question of large carnivores. Wolves, lynx, and bears have been absent from most of Britain and much of Western Europe for centuries. Their reintroduction is discussed seriously in Scotland, where there is sufficient land area and where deer populations have expanded to the point where their impact on vegetation is ecologically significant.
The case for lynx reintroduction in Scotland is based on exactly the Yellowstone logic. Deer numbers are too high. The vegetation of the uplands is being suppressed. A predator that targets deer would change their behaviour and distribution, allowing plant communities to recover.
The case against involves the interests of farmers and landowners, the question of whether the landscape can support viable populations, and a more fundamental debate about what kind of countryside we want and who gets to decide.
These are not simple questions. They involve genuine conflicts of interest and genuine uncertainty about outcomes. The rewilding movement’s tendency to present large carnivore reintroduction as obviously correct, as if the objections were simply a failure of vision or a defence of vested interests, does the concept a disservice. The objections are often legitimate and the trade-offs are real.
What the Evidence Actually Shows
The evidence for rewilding, in its more serious forms, is genuinely strong.
The return of large herbivores to previously cultivated land, combined with reduced or eliminated management, consistently produces increases in biodiversity. Studies from Knepp and similar projects in the Netherlands and Scandinavia show recovery of insects, birds, and plants that has not been achieved by conventional nature reserve management.
The evidence for apex predator effects is also strong, though the Yellowstone trophic cascade has been somewhat overstated in popular accounts. The changes were real but more complex and contested than the wolves changed the rivers narrative suggests. The broader evidence base, from wolf reintroductions across Europe and large carnivore recoveries in various ecosystems, does support the conclusion that apex predators have significant and broadly positive effects on ecosystem structure.
What the evidence does not support is the idea that rewilding is a simple or universal solution. It works where there is sufficient land area, sufficient connectivity between habitats, and sufficient political and social support to sustain the process over the decades it requires. Those conditions do not exist everywhere and cannot be assumed.
The UK Context
Britain is one of the most nature depleted countries in the developed world. Decades of intensive agriculture, urban expansion, and the drainage of wetlands have produced a landscape that is, in ecological terms, severely impoverished. The State of Nature reports, published every few years by a coalition of conservation organisations, document ongoing declines in species across almost every group.
Against this backdrop, the rewilding conversation is an important corrective to a conservation culture that has sometimes focused on managing what remains rather than restoring what has been lost.
The UK government’s commitment to protecting 30 per cent of land and sea for nature by 2030, known as 30 by 30, has given rewilding projects a degree of political support they previously lacked. Funding through the Environmental Land Management scheme is beginning to reach landowners who want to manage their land differently.
The scale of what is actually happening remains modest relative to the scale of what is needed. But the direction of travel has changed in ways that were not visible five years ago.
What It Requires
Genuine rewilding, in any meaningful sense, requires land, time, and the willingness to accept outcomes that cannot be fully controlled.
It requires land because ecological processes need space to operate. Fragmented patches of habitat, however well managed, cannot support the full range of species and interactions that a connected landscape can. The corridor element of the original three Cs is not optional. Without connectivity, rewilded areas become islands, and islands lose species over time.
It requires time because ecological recovery is measured in decades and centuries, not years. The Knepp project has been running for over twenty years and its founders describe it as still in its early stages. Yellowstone’s wolf reintroduction is approaching its thirtieth year. These are not quick interventions.
And it requires the willingness to accept uncertainty. Rewilding is not landscape design. You are not specifying an outcome and working toward it. You are creating conditions and allowing natural processes to determine what happens. That requires a relationship with uncertainty that is genuinely difficult for institutions, landowners, and governments to sustain.
The Honest Assessment
Rewilding is not a slogan and it is not a solution to everything. Used carefully, it describes a serious and evidence based approach to ecological restoration that has produced genuinely impressive results in the projects that have implemented it properly.
Used loosely, it covers everything from a rewilded office window box to a serious landscape scale conservation project, and in doing so makes it harder to have a precise conversation about what is actually needed and what is actually possible.
The word matters less than the practice. The practice, at its best, is an acknowledgement that the landscapes we have created are not inevitable, that natural processes are more capable of producing richness and complexity than we are, and that sometimes the most useful thing we can do is get out of the way and give things the space and time to recover.
That is a genuinely important idea. It deserves more precision than the word currently receives.
Leave a Reply