People and rewilding: opposition and opportunities
Blogpost by Clara Jeanroy
200 million football fields.
200 million football fields are the size of agricultural areas abandoned in Europe since the 1990s, especially in regions like the Iberian Peninsula, the Alps and the Carpathians mountains.
What to do with all this land? In many cases the alternative is to “rewild”, which means promoting natural processes whilst minimizing human management. This can be achieved differently: One option is to let landscape evolve naturally with eventually, abandoned agricultural fields turning into forests (called “passive rewilding”) and forests that were managed reaching their full ecological potential (called “proforestation”). Meanwhile, another option is to reintroduce emblematic and locally instinct species like the beaver or the lynx (called “trophic” or “active rewilding”). However, people, and especially local communities, do not always welcome these changes.
For our recent study “Perceptions of rewilding in European abandoned agricultural lands”, we reviewed 80 articles to understand perceptions relating to rewilding in Europe.
Overall, rural, older and farming respondents typically opposed rewilding and preferred traditional land management. This was mostly because these communities are attached to the land and livelihood they grew up in, and they perceived rewilding as a threat to those. Meanwhile, younger and urban individuals, such as tourists, were usually more positive towards the conversion of abandoned agricultural areas into forests. When criticizing rewilding, people mostly dreaded impacts on the landscape (e.g. homogenizing the landscape or increased fire risk), and on economic activities (e.g. reducing food production). Feelings of fear or unsafety were also often mentioned along with feeling of injustice, specifically concerning active rewilding. Indeed, some people felt that wildlife and wilderness were prioritised over already marginalised humans.
To limit this feeling and conflict in general, we found that practitioners should focus on trust building, stakeholder engagement and financial support (e.g. subsidies which are powerful tools to promote acceptability). For the successful and fair re-naturalisation of abandoned agricultural areas, we advocate for better alignment between actors’ perspectives and rewilding objectives. In fire-prone regions for example, many oppose passive rewilding because it can fuel fire risk (more shrubs and vegetation that dries out in summer). Meanwhile, using active rewilding can limit this risk (e.g. herbivores consume the inflammable vegetation) and consequently reduce the conflict.
For next steps in research, more studies on perceptions are needed in the Carpathians and Baltic regions, which face strong yet more recent abandonment (20 to 30 years later than the Alps because agricultural abandonment only started after the Socialist period). In addition, while many papers look at attitudes towards active and passive rewilding, we mostly lack studies towards “proforestation” (passive rewilding of managed forests).
Lastly, timeline is crucial. Interestingly, some studies showed that people feared less Bisons after their reintroduction. This illustrates that attitudes are dynamic and evolve with knowledge and experience, particularly in the case of rewilding which can take decades to unfold and involve uncertainty. As such, we need more long-term understanding of perceptions with studies in later-stages of rewilding processes.
Reference: Jeanroy, C. G., Smith, A. M., & Verburg, P. H. (2026). Perceptions of rewilding in European abandoned agricultural lands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 274, 105715. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2026.105715
Featured image: Rewilding of former agricultural land in Friuli Venezia Giulia (photo: Alessandro Foscari)