Exploring knowledge production and integration in UK rewilding initiatives

Rewilding is a contested term in which understandings are underpinned by values and different types of knowledge(s). The literature points to differentiated adaptations of rewilding practices in across UK contexts (Wynne-Jones et al., 2020). However, there is a lack of empirical evidence around how decisions are made in relation to different rewilding approaches, and how this feeds through to environmental and social outcomes.
Our reliance on ecosystems to deliver resilience and recovery will unavoidably result in additional pressures from competing rural land uses and interests. Given the transformative potential of large-scale land use changes brought about by rewilding, understanding which (and whose) knowledge is or is not included in the decision-making process is crucial to establishing how the benefits and disbenefits are distributed. Further, understanding the types of knowledge(s), and processes used in the design and implementation of rewilding initiatives is fundamental to determining the environmental and societal goods that they can deliver. Such considerations are central for the development of both future rewilding policy and funding mechanisms.
In this research, we take a political-ecology perspective to explore the ways in which different types of knowledge (e.g. rural, scientific, traditional) are produced and integrated in rewilding initiatives, and how this relates to decision-making in a process which is often characterised by open-endedness and uncertainty. We employ purposive sampling and an exploratory case study approach to investigate the local conditions of rewilding decision-making, using qualitative social science methodologies (participant observation / mapping, focus groups, depth interviews) across diverse case study settings.