The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe
Open accessAbstract
For millennia, mankind has shaped landscapes, particularly through agriculture. In Europe, the age-old interaction between humans and ecosystems strongly influenced the cultural heritage. Yet European farmland is now being abandoned, especially in remote areas. The loss of the traditional agricultural landscapes and its consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services is generating concerns in both the scientific community and the public. Here we ask to what extent farmland abandonment can be considered as an opportunity for rewilding ecosystems. We analyze the perceptions of traditional agriculture in Europe and their influence in land management policies. We argue that, contrary to the common perception, traditional agriculture practices were not environmentally friendly and that the standards of living of rural populations were low. We suggest that current policies to maintain extensive farming landscapes underestimate the human labor needed to sustain these landscapes and the recent and future dynamics of the socio-economic drivers behind abandonment. We examine the potential benefits for ecosystems and people from rewilding. We identify species that could benefit from land abandonment and forest regeneration and the ecosystem services that could be provided such as carbon sequestration and recreation. Finally, we discuss the challenges associated with rewilding, including the need to maintain open areas, the fire risks, and the conflicts between people and wildlife. Despite these challenges, we argue that rewilding should be recognized by policy-makers as one of the possible land management options in Europe, particularly on marginal areas.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration
Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., & Harris, J. A. (2009) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.012 · Cited by 2,008
Cited by
Global biodiversity change: The bad, the good, and the unknown
Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. M., & Martins, I. S. (2012) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-042911-093511 · Cited by 777
Self-citationCatastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets
Watson, J. E. M., Shanahan, D. F., Di Marco, M., Allan, J., Laurance, W. F., Sanderson, E. W., Mackey, B., & Venter, O. (2016) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049 · Cited by 483
Global trends in grassland carrying capacity and relative stocking density of livestock
Piipponen, J., Jalava, M., de Leeuw, J., Rizayeva, A., Godde, C., Cramer, G., Herrero, M., & Kummu, M. (2022) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.16174 · Cited by 129
The promised land: contrasting frames of marginal land in the European Union
Muscat, A., de Olde, E. M., Candel, J. J. L., de Boer, I. J. M., & Ripoll-Bosch, R. (2022) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105860 · Cited by 33
Prehistoric and historic baselines for trophic rewilding in the Neotropics
Svenning, J.-C., & Faurby, S. (2017) · Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2017.09.006 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Navarro, L. M., & Pereira, H. M.
- Venue
- Ecosystems
- Published
- 2012-06-30
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 900-912
- ISSN
- 1432-9840 (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0629
- OpenAlex
- W1989992157
- Cited by
- 694
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 29.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10021-012-9558-7
- The paper
- Navarro, L. M., & Pereira, H. M. (2012). Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9558-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.