Rewilding vs. Restoration

Significant loss of biodiversity and critical habitat has driven a new wave of conservation initiatives such as protection, restoration, and rewilding. Over time, the focus of these programs has shifted from passive habitat protection to active ecosystem enhancement.

While both rewilding and restoration aim to recover ecosystems from human-induced damage, restoration traditionally focuses on repairing degraded environments, whereas rewilding emphasizes re-establishing self-regulating ecological processes and the top-down (e.g., predation) or bottom-up (e.g., carbon sequestration) impacts of returning species to landscapes. Increasing global awareness of ecosystem inter-connectedness, long understood by Indigenous peoples through restorative land management, highlights the urgent need to move beyond protecting what remains toward re-establishing lost ecological functions.

Species and the processes they provided—such as digging, pollination, decomposition, and herbivory—have been lost, leading to greater fire intensity, poorer soils, and higher carbon emissions. Rewilding offers a response, as seen in the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone, which reduced herbivore pressure and restored ecosystem health.

However, given how much ecosystems have changed, rewilding alone carries uncertainties and must be paired with restoration practices like weed control, pest management, and native regeneration. A collaborative, adaptive approach—guided by traditional knowledge—is essential to rebuild biodiversity and function.

The most effective strategies will depend on the unique history, ecological condition, management goals, and resources of each site.

To see some of the restoration and rewilding efforts in Tasmania watch here.

For a more detailed look into the differences between the two practices read here.