As if it isn’t hard enough for us to have a conversation about our work, given the differing and sometimes concurrent jurisdictional uses of reclamation / restoration / rehabilitation (the 3Rs), we now have to contend with a new term – rewilding. To complicate matters further, rewilding has been further subdivided into specialities (e.g., guerilla rewilding, urban rewilding and even Pleistocene rewilding; see Cortlett (2016) and Pettorelli et al. (2018) for further subdivisions). So, what are these all about, do they differ from our beloved 3Rs, and why does it matter?
As can be seen from the definitions above, there are some similarities to the 3Rs – a focus on human disturbances and an emphasis on ecological function – and a common goal of the recovery of ecosystems following anthropogenic degradation (Mutillod et al., 2024). The primary difference is that the 3Rs as we use them tend to focus on active intervention on industrial disturbances (mining, quarries, energy, etc.) by regulated parties, whereas rewilding often involves less active intervention done voluntarily on land disturbed by non-industrial human actions (agriculture, urban development).