Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 1;16(6):e0241160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241160. eCollection 2021.
'Rewilding' is an increasingly prominent concept in conservation, but one that has attracted controversy. Debate frequently focuses on human 'control' over nature. 'Traditional' conservation has been presented as involving 'high control,' and rewilding as 'low control.' Opposition to rewilding often stems from a perceived lack of control and associated perception of increased risk and uncertainty. This paper explores the concept of control in conservation. I identify multiple dimensions of control ('stabilisation', 'location', 'prediction' and 'outputs'), illustrating that control is not a simple, linear concept. I compare two ethnographic case studies: the Sussex Wildlife Trust's Old Lodge nature reserve; and Knepp Estate, one of the most influential rewilding projects in the UK. I use them to test assertions made about control in 'traditional' conservation and 'rewilding'. I outline how Old Lodge does not exert precise control in all respects, but involves elements of uncertainty and negotiation. I describe how Knepp's model of rewilding reduces control in some dimensions but potentially increases it in others. I conclude that, while Knepp's rewilding does represent a significant conceptual departure from 'traditional' conservation, it should not be characterised as an approach that reduces control in a simplistic way. Based on this analysis, I argue that reduction of control does not necessarily underpin the concept of rewilding. Rather, there is interplay between different control dimensions that combine to form multiple 'configurations of control.' Using a framework of 'configurations of control', debate about the place of rewilding in conservation can become less polarised, and instead involve an active discussion of what configuration of control is desired. This analysis has the potential to increase understanding of rewilding projects as part of plural conservation strategies, in the UK and globally.
“重新野化”是保护领域一个日益突出的概念，但也引起了争议。辩论通常集中在人类对自然的“控制”上。“传统”保护被认为涉及“高度控制”，而重新野化则是“低度控制”。反对重新野化的观点往往源于对控制的缺乏认知，以及随之而来的对风险和不确定性增加的感知。本文探讨了保护中的控制概念。我确定了控制的多个维度（“稳定化”、“定位”、“预测”和“输出”），表明控制不是一个简单的线性概念。我比较了两个民族志案例研究：苏塞克斯野生动物信托基金会的老 Lodge 自然保护区；以及 Knepp 庄园，这是英国最有影响力的重新野化项目之一。我用它们来检验“传统”保护和“重新野化”中关于控制的说法。我概述了老 Lodge 在所有方面都没有施加精确控制，但涉及到不确定性和协商的元素。我描述了 Knepp 的重新野化模式如何在某些方面减少控制，但在其他方面可能会增加控制。我得出的结论是，尽管 Knepp 的重新野化确实代表了与“传统”保护的重大概念背离，但它不应被简单地描述为一种以简化方式减少控制的方法。基于这一分析，我认为控制的减少不一定是重新野化概念的基础。相反，不同控制维度之间存在相互作用，形成了多种“控制配置”。使用“控制配置”框架，可以减少保护中重新野化的辩论的两极分化，并促使人们积极讨论所需的控制配置。这种分析有可能增加对重新野化项目的理解，将其作为英国乃至全球多元化保护策略的一部分。
