You are on page 1of 14

Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe

Author(s): Laetitia M. Navarro and Henrique M. Pereira


Source: Ecosystems, Vol. 15, No. 6 (September 2012), pp. 900-912
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23253732
Accessed: 25-10-2017 10:15 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23253732?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecosystems

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Ecosystems (2012) 15: 900-912
DOI: 10.1007/s 10021-012-95 58-7
Ecosystems
©2012 The Author(s). This article is published with open access at Springerlink

Rewilding Abandoned Landsc


in Europe
Laetitia M. Navarro1 and Henrique M. Pereira1'2*

1CentTo de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciencias da Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal; 2Departamento de
Engenharia Civil, Arquitectura e Georrecursos, Instituto Superior Tecnico, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal

Abstract

For millennia, mankind has shaped landscapes, sustain these landscapes and the recent and future
particularly through agriculture. In Europe, the of the socio-economic drivers behind
dynamics
age-old interaction between humans and ecosys abandonment. We examine the potential benefits
tems strongly influenced the cultural heritage. forYet
ecosystems and people from rewilding. We
European farmland is now being abandoned, identify species that could benefit from land aban
especially in remote areas. The loss of the tradi donment and forest regeneration and the ecosys
tional agricultural landscapes and its consequences tem services that could be provided such as carbon
for biodiversity and ecosystem services is generat sequestration and recreation. Finally, we discuss
ing concerns in both the scientific community and the challenges associated with rewilding, including
the public. Here we ask to what extent farmland the need to maintain open areas, the fire risks,
abandonment can be considered as an opportunity and the conflicts between people and wildlife.
for rewilding ecosystems. We analyze the percep Despite these challenges, we argue that rewilding
tions of traditional agriculture in Europe and their should be recognized by policy-makers as one of
influence in land management policies. We argue the possible land management options in Europe,
that, contrary to the common perception, tradi particularly on marginal areas.
tional agriculture practices were not environmen
tally friendly and that the standards of living of Key words: farmland abandonment; land-use
rural populations were low. We suggest that cur change; passive management; ecosystem services;
rent policies to maintain extensive farming land land sharing; land sparing.
scapes underestimate the human labor needed to

Introduction uation of these dynamics in tropical ecosystems,


the projections made for much of the Northern
Deforestation and the loss of natural habitats re
Hemisphere are quite the opposite (Pereira and
main major global concerns. Nonetheless, althoughothers 2010). In fact, most deforestation in Europe
scenarios for the next decades project the contin occurred before the industrial revolution (Kaplan
and others 2009), and the amount of forests and
Received 6 October 2011; accepted 15 April 2012;
scrubland is now increasing following the land
published online 30 June 2012 abandonment that began in the mid-twentieth
Electronic supplementary material: The online version of this article century (FAO 2011), a trend that is expected to
(doi:10.1007/sl0021-012-9558-7) contains supplementary material, continue over the next few decades (van Vuuren
which is available to authorized users.
and others 2006).
Author Contributions: HMP developed the ideas for the paper. LMN
conducted the research and wrote the initial draft, which was then edited Natural vegetation recovery is a complex process
by HMP. that occurs during the progressive alleviation of
* Corresponding author; e-mail: hpereira@fc.ul.pt

900

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe 901

agricultural use (Hobbs and Cramer 2007; Stoate cultivation, while hosting high biodiversity and
and others 2009). This reduction in land-use providing recreational and aesthetical benefits
intensity, including abandonment at the extreme, is,(Bugalho and others 2011). Finally, in some areas
at the local scale, explained by a combination ofwith poor farmland soils, the option has been to
socio-ecological drivers (MacDonald and others plant forests, often of fast growing species (Young
2000; Rey Benayas and others 2007) such as low and others 2005).
productivity and aging of the population. These In this article, we discuss a fourth option: rewil
factors interact between them and with the ecolog ding abandoned landscapes, by assisting natural
ical dynamics of succession, creating positive feed regeneration of forests and other natural habitats
back loops, which increase the irreversibility of through passive management approaches. Rewil
farmland abandonment in marginal areas, and ding has seldom been considered as a land man
reduce the effectiveness of subsidies awarded to agement policy, as often it faces resistance from
farmers to halt abandonment (Figueiredo and
both the public (Enserink and Vogel 2006; Bauer
Pereira 2011; Gellrich and others 2007). In Europe, and others 2009) and the scientific communities
there has been a decline of 17% of the rural popu (Conti and Fagarazzi 2005; Moreira and Russo
lation since 1961 (FAOSTAT 2010). Some parishes 2007). Arguments against rewilding include the
of Mediterranean mountain areas have lost more loss of the traditional agricultural landscape and
than half of their population in a similar period negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem
(Gortazar and others 2000; Pereira and others 2005). services (for example, Conti and Fagarazzi 2005).
At the regional scale, the current farmland con This situation has given rise to a pattern of double
traction is best explained by an increase in agricul standards: developing countries are asked to halt
tural productivity and the slowing of population deforestation while some developed countries are
growth in Europe (Keenleyside and Tucker 2010). actively fighting forest regeneration on their own
Landowners and managers facing increased land (Meijaard and Sheil 2011).
agricultural market competition have resorted Here, we critically examine some of the argu
mostly to one of three active management strate ments used in support of the maintenance of the
gies (Figure 1): intensification, extensification, and traditional landscapes and contrast those argu
afforestation. Intensification is often chosen on the ments with the potential benefits for ecosystem
most productive soils and where good conditions services and biodiversity that could accrue from
exist for mechanization (Pinto-Correia and Mas rewilding. We conclude with an analysis of the
carenhas 1999). Extensification consists of obtain main challenges associated with rewilding aban
ing higher productivity by expanding the area of doned landscapes.
the farm through land consolidation or in devel
oping multiple uses of the land. This has happened
in the Montado and Dehesa areas of Portugal and European Landscapes: Examining
Spain, an agroforestry system that integrates the Paradigms
animal production, cork harvesting and cereal
The cultural importance of traditional agriculture
landscapes has been widely recognized in Europe
Active

management and the world. As of 2011, 76 of the 936 UNESCO


♦ Agricultural
Intensification world heritage sites are in the "cultural landscapes"
category (http://whc.unesco.org), and 29 of those
because of traditional or symbolical agricultural
Agricultural
Extensification practices. Examples include the "Causses and
Cevennes Mediterranean agro-pastoral cultural
landscape" in France or the "Mont Perdu" in the
High
Pyrenees. As much as 15 to 25% of the European
farmland can be classified as High Nature Value
farmland (EEA 2004). Of the 231 habitat types
Rewilding

Passive
listed in the European Habitats Directive, 41 are
management associated with low-intensity agricultural manage
Figure 1. Landscape management strategies plotted ment, including semi-natural grasslands and hay
against agricultural use intensity and level of manage meadows (Halada and others 2011).
ment (from active to passive): agricultural intensification, This has lead to a generalized push towards pol
agricultural extensification, afforestation, and rewilding. icies embracing the protection of extensive farming

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
902 L. M. Navarro and H. M. Pereira

systems with the dual-role of protecting biodiver 0 Historical - Regional scale


sity and ecosystem services. Here we argue that not - - - Current - Regional scale
Current - Local scale
all socio-ecological aspects of the maintenance of
these landscapes have been taken into account
because our perceptions of these landscapes have
been biased by our own cultural experiences. We
question three ideas associated with current poli
cies: (1) the idea that traditional agriculture prac
tices were environmentally friendly; (2) the idea —h 1
that traditional rural populations lived well; (3) the Wilderness Extensive Agriculture Intensive agriculture

idea that traditional landscapes can be kept despite Land-use intensity


the context of recent rural exodus and future socio
economic trends.

Figure 2. Conceptual representation of the response of


Were Traditional Agriculture Practices
cur ent species diversity to land-use intensity at the local
Environmentally Friendly? and regional scales, and of the hypothetical regional
response if Holocene extinctions had not occurred. The
In Europe, pre-Neolithic Holocene landscapes can response at the local scale is adapted from EEA (2004),
most likely be described as a mosaic of old-growth whereas the current and historical responses at the
forest, scrubland, and grasslands, maintained by regional scale are discussed in the text.
the grazing of large herbivores and by fire (Sven
ning 2002; Vera 2000, Vera 2009), although the Lindborg and others 2008). Therefore, it has been
relative amount of open area is debated (for suggested that biodiversity peaks for low levels of
example, Hodder and others 2009). Later on, and land use associated with these extensive farming
much before the onset of modern agriculture, systems (Figure 2), following the intermediate dis
European inhabitants destroyed most of Europe's turbance principle (Wilkinson, 1999).
forests on usable land. Europe is now the continent This pattern has been used as an argument to
with the least original forest cover (Kaplan and maintain the active management of extensive
others 2009). farmland and halt ecological succession. However
The process of forest clearing might be as old as at regional scales, this relationship is likely to
human's making of tools (Williams 2000). It started exhibit a different pattern (Figure 2). The habitat
in the Neolithic with the use of fire to open areas turnover of wild landscapes can be a mosaic of
for grazing and hunting (Pereira and others in closed forest and open areas, which should accom
press). Forest loss was accelerated during Antiquity, modate many of the species that can usually be
when the rise of classical civilizations led to large found in extensive farmland habitats. In the early
scale deforestation (Williams 2000; Kaplan and Holocene, the regional diversity of wild landscapes
others 2009). After a brief interruption caused by would have been even higher (Figure 2). Several
the breakdown of the Roman society, the defores species have now disappeared due to the expansion
tation trend continued in the Middle Ages (inter of human activities, including the auroch (Bos pri
rupted only by the Black Death), with an estimated meginius), the Tarpan (Equus ferus ferns), or became
loss of 50-70% of the European forest during this extinct in most of their former ranges (for example,
period. wisent, Bison bonasus).
Hence humans amplified the disturbance regime Deforestation also had important impacts on
of European ecosystems and expanded the open ecosystem services. In the Mediterranean basin,
area considerably (Pereira and others in press), deforestation is thought to have caused desiccation
creating and maintaining "traditional" landscapes and soil erosion (McNeely 1994; Blondel 2006). In
such as the alpine grasslands (Laiolo and others the Middle Ages, timber shortage is likely to have
2004), and the agro-silvo-pastoral systems of played a role on the impulse to conquer new ter
Mediterranean regions (Blondel 2006). These ritories (Farrell and others 2000). To build naval
extensive farming systems have higher species fleets, countries such as Portugal and Spain had to
diversity than intensive farming systems (Batary resort to importing wood from colonies from the
and others 2012; Tscharntke and others 2005), and, sixteenth century on (Devy-Vareta and Alves
at the local scale, often have higher species diver 2007). By the end of the nineteenth century, the
sity than non-managed ecosystems and natural dimension of the erosion problems in mountain
forests (Blondel 2006; Hochtl and others 2005; slopes and associated silting in rivers and floods

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe 903

downstream led to large state sponsored afforesta Gellrish and others 2007). These characteristics
tion programs in Portugal and Spain. played a key role in the demise of many of the
traditional practices when labor costs rose due to
economic growth, an effect that contributed to and
Did Traditional Rural Populations Live
was exacerbated by rural exodus. Large numbers of
Well?
livestock kept vegetation succession on hold for
For centuries, populations inhabiting marginal agri centuries, but in the past few decades livestock
cultural areas organized their lives in a self-sufficient numbers have declined in many of these regions
manner (Blondel 2006). The industrial revolution (Cooper and others 2006). In Europe, the number
and the globalization of the food and labor markets of livestock (cattle, goats and sheep) declined by
brought many of these regions to an economic dis 25% between 1990 and 2010 (FAOSTAT 2010).
advantage with urban and peri-urban areas: Still, recognizing the role of European farmers in
increasing wages associated with economic growth maintaining these landscapes (Daugstad and others
and the low food prices in global markets rendered the 2006), several measures have been implemented to
low-productivity farmland uncompetitive. limit farmland depopulation. As part of the Euro
Nowadays, marginal agricultural areas through pean Common Agriculture Policy, Less Favored
out the globe are classified as "poverty traps" where Areas (LFAs-Regulation 1257/1999) were desig
households suffer from scarcity of resources, low nated mainly to prevent rural abandonment and
return on investment, lack of opportunities, and maintain cultural landscapes (Dax 2005; Stoate and
reduced social services (Conti and Fagarazzi 2005; others 2009). LFAs went from representing a third
Ruben and Pender 2004). For example, in moun of the European Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA)
tains of Southern Europe, rural populations are in 1975 to more than half in 2005 (Dax 2005;
constrained by the low productivity of small-scale MacDonald and others 2000). Though the LFA
parcels and the limited opportunities for mechani classification often happens to match High Nature
zation and intensification (MacDonald and others Value farming systems and extensive agriculture, it
2000). On average, across European mountain poses no limit to intensification and overgrazing
areas, the income per hectare is about 40% lower (Dax 2005).
than in other, non-disadvantaged, areas (809 €/ha In the Rural Development Plan for 2007-2013,
vs. 1370 €/ha in EC 2009). The young have limited the payments to farmers in LFAs totaled € 12.6
access to education and employment while the billion (DG Agriculture 2011). Though the sum of
elders experience isolation and difficulties to access these subsidies is substantial at the European scale,
services (EC 2008a). This results in out-migration at the individual level they might not be enough to
and aging of the population, leading to an inverted maintain young farmers or attract new residents
population pyramid. This rural exodus is driven by a (Cooper and others 2006), especially in areas
"circle of decline" where low population density where the farm size is small. For example, when
limits business creation, causing fewer jobs and more considering an average farm size of 23 ha in
out-migrations which, in turn, accentuates the mountain areas (MacDonald and others 2000) and
decrease in population density (EC 2008a). an average LFA subsidy of € 100/ha (Dax 2005),
Rural populations still value the quality of their the average payment is of € 2,300 per farm/year.
environment and its scenic beauty (Bell and others This value can be higher if farmers also adhere to
2009; Pereira and others 2005), but the working agri-environmental schemes, but overall LFA
conditions in many of these regions have always farmers still have lower incomes (Cooper and oth
been difficult. Terraces are some of the most ers 2006): the Farm Net Value Added is 13,056 €/
admired cultural landscapes in Mediterranean Annual Work Unit in mountain LFAs, 14,174€/
areas, but locals often use the expression "slavery AWU in other LFAs, and 18,923 €/AWU in non
land" to describe the harshness of the working LFAs (average for the EU25 countries between
conditions (Pereira and others 2005). 2004 and 2005 in EC 2008b).
Hence the decrease in rural populations that
Are Current Efforts to Maintain started in the 1960s is projected to continue into
the next few decades (Figure 3). Future scenarios
Traditional Landscapes Likely
to Succeed? predict that the contribution of agriculture in
regards to GDP and employment in Europe will
Traditional agricultural practices were character continue decreasing (Eickhout and others 2007;
ized by being labor intensive for relatively low Nowicki and others 2006) and the young genera
agricultural yields (MacDonald and others 2000; tions will keep migrating to the cities, as long as

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
904 L. M. Navarro and H. M. Pereira

their life quality and income prospects are others 2008; Stoate and others 2009). Some of these
higher
there (EC 2008a; Keenleyside and Tucker 2010) areas are located in Northern Portugal, Northwest
resulting in the non-replacement of the aging ern France, the Alps, the Apennines and Central
population of European farmers. Europe (Figure 4).
Following the decrease in the rural population,
agricultural area in Europe is also expected to keep
contracting (Figure 3), despite an expected increase The Benefits of Rewilding
in the global demand for agricultural goods,
Defining Rewilding
because enough food is obtained either directly by
production on competitive land in Europe or else Rewilding is the passive management of ecological
where in the world (Keenleyside and Tucker 2010). succession with the goal of restoring natural eco
Regionally labeled and organic products could help system processes and reducing human control of
maintain certain forms of extensive agriculture but landscapes (Gillson and others 2011). Note that
this market remains restricted (Strijker 2005). although passive management emphasizes no
Projections also take into account an increasing management or low levels of management (for
demand in biocrops (Rounsevell and others 2006; example, Vera 2009), intervention may be required
Schroter and others 2005; Verburg and Overmars in the early restoration stages.
2009), which can explain a moderate increase in In contrast, much of the biodiversity conserva
the predicted agricultural area in some scenarios. tion efforts in Europe emphasize active manage
The dimension of the agricultural area abandoned ment, by maintaining low-level agricultural
or converted into production forest varies widely practices (Figure 1). Active management also dif
between scenarios (Table 1). If we use the interme fers in goals, targeting the increase of the abun
diate scenarios in Verburg and Overmars (2009), dance of specific taxa or the maintenance of
between 10 and 29 million ha of land will be released particular habitats, using approaches such as veg
from agriculture between 2000 and 2030. Areas etation clearing and construction of artificial habi
particularly susceptible to the decline of agro tats, often working against successional processes.
pastoral use include semi-natural grasslands and Natural succession on abandoned farmland and

remote or mountainous areas with poor soil quality pastures often leads to scrubland and sometimes at a
(Keenleyside and Tucker 2010; Pointereau and later stage, to forest (Conti and Fagarazzi 2005).

Rural population (million)


240

■i

Figure 3. Past and future trends of European agricultural area and rural population. Agricultural area (lines): land-use
change predicted in the four scenarios of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (van Vuuren and others 2006). The
projections are based on the area of food crops, grass and fodder, and biofuels crops, between 1970 and 2030. OS order
from strength, AM adapting mosaic, GO global orchestration, TG techno-garden. Rural population size (bars): historical
values (dark gray) and future projections (light gray) (FAOSTAT 2010; past data for the Baltic countries from http://
www.nationmaster.com).

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe 905

Table 1. Projections of Future Change in the Agricultural Area (Arable Land and Pasture) from Different
Studies

Region Variation in the Initial Period Reference

agricultural area agricultural


area (Mha)

EU15+Norway —6%/—10% for cropland 142.5 2000-2080 Rounsevell and others (2006)
and Switzerland1 -1%/—10% for grassland
EU152 +5.5%/—15% 82.5 2000-2030 Eickhout and others (2007)
EU27 —5%/—15% 198 2000-2030 Verburg and Overmars (2009)
Europe —5%/—24% 235 1970-2050 MA (2005)
Developed countries3 +8%/—20% 183 2000-2050 Balmford and others (2005)

'initial agricultural area estimate obtained from FAOSTAT (2010).


2These values are only for arable land.
3This study looked at the 23 most important food crops worldwide, corresponding to 44% of the cropland area in developed countries.

0%

1 - 5%

5-10%

10-15%

15-20%

20 - 30%

30 - 40%

40 - 50%

50 - 75%

> 75%

Figure 4. Localization of the hotspots of abandonment and rewilding in Europe. Those hotspots are areas categorized as
"agriculture" in 2000 that are projected to become rewilded or afforested in 2030 and that are common to all four
scenarios of the CLUE model (Verburg and Overmars 2009). Hotspots are expressed as a percentage of each 10-km2 grid
cell. Agricultural areas correspond to "arable land (non-irrigated)", "pasture", "irrigated arable land" and "permanent
crops". Rewilded and afforested areas correspond to "(semi)-natural vegetation", "forest", "recently abandoned arable
land" and "recently abandoned pasture land". Countries in grey have no data.

Passive forest regeneration restores almost as much ness" is not a synonym of "contin
forested areas globally as active tree plantation (Rey uous forest" (Sutherland 2002). The European
Benayas and Bullock 2012). Nonetheless, "wilder megafauna played a role in maintaining open land

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
906 L. M. Navarro and H. M. Pereira

Carbon sequestration Figure 5. Qualitative


assessment of the

Habitat for
ecosystem services
biodiversity
Water regulation provided by rewilding,
afforestation, extensive
agriculture and intensive
agriculture in Europe.
The relative values given
to the provision of each
Soil and nutrient
Food production service by the different
protection
land management
strategies are discussed in
the text.

Aesthetic Timber production

Recreation

■ Rewilded areas Extensive agriculture areas ■ Plantation forests □ Intensive agriculture areas

scapes, before being brought to global or localcould benefit from farmland abandonment (Sup
extinction by humans and replaced by domesticatedplementary Table 1). We also identified 101 species
grazers (Johnson 2009; Vera 2000; Bullock 2009). negatively affected by land abandonment (Sup
This does not mean that rewilding should aim atplementary Table 2), but 13 of those species can be
rebuilding Pleistocene ecosystems, an approachclassified as both "winner" and "looser" depending
which has been proposed elsewhere (Donlan and
on the study and the region. Much of the agrobi
others 2006), but that faces many difficulties (Caro
odiversity associated with High Nature Value
2007), including the lack of many of the original
Farmland will be in the "loosing" category. In
keystone species, a different climate, and ecosys
contrast, many of the winner species have declined
tems modified locally (for example, changes in soil or became functionally extinct in traditional agri
caused by agriculture) and regionally by humans cultural landscapes, such as large carnivores. These
(for example, the global nitrogen cycle). Instead, species will benefit from forest regeneration and
the emphasis is on the development of self-sus the connection of fragmented natural habitats
taining ecosystems, protecting native biodiversity (Keenleyside and Tucker 2010; Russo 2006).
and natural ecological processes and providing a Revegetation promotes the increase of the or
range of ecosystem services (Cramer and others ganic matter content and the water holding
2008). These novel ecosystems may be designed to capacity of soils (Arbelo and others 2006). This can
be as similar as possible to some historical baseline lead to higher biomasses and densities of earth
in the recent or distant past, but they will often worms (Russo 2006) and other invertebrate fami
involve the introduction of new biotic elements lies (Supplementary Table 1A).
(Hobbs and others 2009). Some forest birds benefit from forest regrowth
after farmland abandonment (Pointereau and oth
Benefits of Rewilding for Biodiversity ers 2008), such as woodpeckers, treecreepers, and
tits (Supplementary Table IB). Some birds of prey
Rewilding will cause biodiversity changes with have benefited from increases in rodent popula
some species declining in abundance, that is, loser tions (Pointereau and others 2008). Perhaps more
species, and other species increasing in abundance, surprisingly, populations of several bird species of
that is, winner species (Russo 2006; Sirami and the Eastern European steppe have increased after
others 2008). We reviewed 23 studies identifying a agricultural activity decline (Holzel and others
positive response of species to decreasing human 2002). Some, such as the Little Bustard (Tetrax tet
pressure or to restoration of their habitat following rax), have benefited from the tall and dense grass
land abandonment (Supplementary Information). land of the regrown steppes. This contrasts with the
In total, we identified 60 species of birds, 24 species concerns that the decrease of open areas in Wes
of mammals, and 26 species of invertebrates that tern Europe is contributing to the decline of steppe

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe 907

species. Therefore the biodiversity consequences of European forests has grown from 5.3 to 7.7 Pg
rewilding depend on the geographical context. between 1950 and 1999 (Nabuurs and others 2003).
Likewise, rural abandonment makes the land Nonetheless, active afforestation can potentiall
suitable for a comeback of large mammals (Sup yield higher carbon sequestration rates than rewi
plementary Table 1C). Large grazers are benefiting ding by using fast growing species (Figure 5). Nat
from the lower hunting pressures that usually ural regeneration allows soil recovery and nutrient
accompany abandonment (Breitenmoser 1998; availability, though erosion can increase in the firs
Gortazar and others 2000). European carnivore years following abandonment (Pointereau and
species have been increasing since the 1960s in others 2008; Rey Benayas and others 2007). Forest
abundance and distribution, as stable populations regulate hydrological cycles, particularly in moun
of Eastern Europe are naturally recolonizing tain areas (Korner and others 2005) and water
abandoned landscapes of Scandinavia, the Medi quality is expected to locally improve in abandoned
terranean, and the Alps (Enserink and Vogel 2006; fields (Stoate and others 2009). Nonetheless, the
Boitani 2000; Stoate and others 2009). transition from grassland to forest, a higher water
It is also important to consider the trophic use system, can reduce the quantity of water
interactions between species and the cascading ef (Brauman and others 2007). Afforested areas
fects driven by rewilding. For example, amphibians managed for timber provisioning are disturbed both
and otter (Lutra lutra) populations are known to for plantation and management, thus providing
benefit from the restoration of ditches by beavers qualitatively less water and soil related services than
(Castor fiber) in abandoned areas of Eastern Europe rewilded areas (Figure 5).
(Kull and others 2004). The presence of lynx in Intensive agriculture areas and planted forests
some parts of Switzerland reduced the roe deer and are designed to focus on specific provisioning ser
chamois browsing impact by regulating both pop vices. Extensive agriculture offers a tradeoff be
ulations (Breitenmoser 1998). tween food provisioning, cultural services, and
habitat for biodiversity, whereas rewilding provides
Benefits of Rewilding for People: a wide range of supporting, regulating and cultural
Ecosystem Services services (Figure 5).
The passive management associated with rewil
Abandoned farmland is often perceived negatively
ding has much lower maintenance costs than other
as it is associated with the perception of unkept
management options, and therefore significant re
land and with the decrease on the economic
turns of regulating and cultural services are ob
usability of the land, particularly by the tained
rural for limited levels of investment. Still, these
populations (Hochtl and others 2005; Bauer and
services have characteristics of common goods
others 2009). However there are many ecosystems
(TEEB 2010), and therefore are rarely advanta
services that are provided by this type of land
geous for the individual land-owner. Nonetheless,
scapes, particularly indirect and non-use services,
wilderness is linked to amenity-based growth and
which are often disregarded in the process of pol
attracts urban individuals seeking different envi
icy-making (TEEB 2010). ronments to both visit and work (Rasker and
Rewilded areas can, at the regional scale, provide
Hackman 1996): North American counties favoring
habitat for biodiversity with conservation results as
wilderness showed faster growth in their employ
high or higher than other land management options
ment and income level than counties in which the
(Figures 2, 5). This supporting service can lay the
economy is mainly based on resource extraction.
foundations for some cultural services (Figure 5),
because some of the species benefiting from aban
The Challenges of Rewilding
donment are linked with recreation through hunting
and tourism (Gortazar and others 2000; Kaczennsly
Rewilding as a landscape management option does
and others 2004). For instance, in the Abbruze region
involve several challenges. Our understanding of
of Italy, tourism has benefited from the advertisement
those challenges and how they can be overcome
of the presence of bears and wolves (Enserink and
depends on the relationship between humans, the
Vogel 2006). In addition to these direct and indirect
landscape and the biodiversity that it sustains.
use values, the large mammal species brought back by
rewilding are amongst the species with highest exis
Conflicts with Wildlife
tence values (Proen^a and others 2008).
Conflicts occur when wildlife overlaps with human
Forest regrowth promotes carbon sequestration
activities
(Kuemmerle and others 2008). The carbon stock in such as hunting and farming (Gortazar

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
908 L. M. Navarro and H. M. Pereira

and others 2000; Linnell and others 2000; Schleybe a slow process, particularly in a dry
therefore
and Roper 2003). Those conflicts are age-old in
environment such as the Mediterranean (Rey
Benayas and others 2008), or when the soils have
Europe and negative perceptions were transmitted
through generations via folklore and tales been modified by past agriculture, that is, the
(Wilson
2004; Boitani 2000). Hunting wild species, and
"cultivation legacy" (Cramer and others 2008), or
the "grazing
particularly carnivores, was socially enforced (En history" (Chauchard and others
serink and Vogel 2006), which led in many2007).
casesThe
to revegetation also depends on the
availability and quality of the native seed bank
their local extinction by the nineteenth century.
Though many European countries have(Rey impleBenayas and others 2008).
mented regulations to protect large carnivores,
If the abandoned land is too degraded assisted
regeneration
such legislation is not understood and accepted by may be needed (Cramer and others
all (Breitenmoser 1998). In particular, they accen
2008). Active restoration would involve large-scale
nativeand
tuate a cleavage in opinions amongst countries trees plantation and tree growth manage
between rural and urban populations (Bauer and Benayas and others 2008). An inter
ment (Rey
others 2009; Wilson 2004) the latter being mediate
usually level of intervention involves the creation
more favorable to a wildlife comeback. and management of forest regeneration sources or
The conflicts with carnivores are largely ex"woodland islets" (Rey Benayas and Bullock
plained by the fact that they prey on domestic 2012). Another problem often requiring interven
animals due to the scarcity of wild prey (Russo tion is the vulnerability of intermediate stages of
2006) but also by the loss of traditional livestock
natural succession to natural perturbations, such as
guarding knowledge in several countries (Fourli invasive species (Kull and others 2004; Stoate and
1999; Kaczensky and others 2004). Nonetheless,others 2009) and fire (Pausas and others 2008). Fire
the level of depredation of livestock by carnivores is a particularly acute problem as it has impacts not
generally low, often less than 10% of their diet only on biodiversity but also on human health
(Wilson 2004). Still, the impact at the level of the (Proenga and Pereira 2010b). If fire regime is not
livestock owner can be high (Wilson 2004). To appropriately managed, frequent fires will favor
compensate for these impacts, several countries pay fire-prone scrubland and halt succession towards
for damages caused by wildlife. For bear and wolf forest, in a self-reinforcing feedback loop (Proen^a
damages, an average of € 2 million/year were and Pereira 2010a).
compensated in Europe between 1992 and 1998 in One of the strategies to manage fire regimes is to
France, Greece, Italy, Austria, Spain and Portugal maintain open spaces in the landscape, minimizing
(Fourli 1999) while € 2.15 million were spent in also the impacts of revegetation on species that
preventive measures. prefer open areas (Figure 2). This strategy can be
Large grazers such as deer and wild boars can implemented by increasing the populations of large
also cause significant damage to crops, pastures and herbivores (Hodder and Bullock 2009; Sutherland
forest plantations (Goulding and Roper 2002; 2002), including reintroduction of extinct species
Kamler and others 2010). As for the carnivores, a (Svenning 2002). In the case of species regionally
combination of preventive measures such as elec extinct, it is possible to use individuals from other
tric fencing (Honda and others 2009) with com populations. For instance, seven European bison
pensation payments can contribute to decrease the were recently reintroduced in northern Spain,
levels of conflict. 1,000 years after their extinction (Burton 2011). A
Fear of attacks on people also play a factor in this more complex situation occurs with species that are
conflict, but this often can be improved with better globally extinct, such as wild relatives of some
information to the public as there is a correlation domesticated species. A possible solution is to re
between the fear of an animal and a lack of lease into the wild individuals of breeds that are
most
knowledge of its behavior (Decker and others likely to be successful in replacing the eco
2010;
Kaczensky and others 2004). logical role of their wild ancestors. For instance,
Iceland ponies have been released in the former
arable fields of the Dutch-Belgian border (Kuiters
Limits to Ecological Resilience and Slim 2003): their grazing favored a dense grass
In many regions of Europe, the transition sward
from and after 27 years open grassland still rep
abandoned to semi-natural land takes less than resented 98% of the area.
15 years, followed by another 15-30 years before Natural colonization of abandoned land by car
reforestation (Cramer and others 2008; Verburg nivores can also be limited by the availability of
and Overmars 2009). Passive regeneration can prey, as is the case for the Iberian lynx (Lynx

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe 909

pardinus) currently negatively affected by the dynamics, but we hypothesize that no significant
scarcity of rabbits, decimated by diseases (Delibes loss in species diversity is expected as long as
Mateos and others 2008), or as can be expected for mosaics of open spaces and forest are maintained,
some populations of wolves and bears currently and that some dimensions of biodiversity may even
preying on livestock (Russo 2006). improve, such as the average size of populations of
Rewilding may be a future option in areas that wild species. At the global scale, many species have
are undergoing agricultural development or already gone extinct and it will be impossible to get
intensification today. There is currently a debate them back, but the release into the wild of breeds of
between land sharing and land sparing approaches some domesticated species may allow recovery of
to reconcile food production with biodiversity some historical losses (Figure 2). In terms of eco
(Phalan and others 2011). In land sharing, biodi system services, rewilding allows for a wide range
versity conservation and food production goals are of regulating and cultural services (Figure 5).
met on the same land, with biodiversity friendly The extent and outcome of rewilding will be
agricultural practices and extensive agriculture, heterogeneous across Europe (Figure 4) as different
whereas in land sparing, land is divided between regions will have different departing points of post
areas of intensification and of exclusion of agri farmland abandonment and varying limitations to
culture. In practice, it is difficult to determine natural forest regrowth. For example, on some
which is the best option because species respond abandoned areas of Southern Europe, the avail
differently to the alteration of their habitat (Phalan ability of forest tree seed banks can be a limiting
and others 2011). To maintain future options for factor due to little natural forest left and the fre
rewilding, both land sparing and land sharing are quent fire regime may delay ecological succession.
needed. On the one hand, land sharing is essential In contrast, the relative scarcity of open areas in
to limit land degradation and to maintain the much of Northern Europe may render the inten
appropriate seed bank for future passive revegeta sification or reestablishment of natural perturba
tion. On the other hand, land sparing would allow tions, such as grazing by large wild herbivores and
for the conservation of populations of species that fire (for example, prescribed burns), priority goals
are currently in conflict with human activities, for management. Rewilding can also be considered
making "cohabitation" very difficult. on available land that does not necessarily result
from farmland abandonment, such as national
Final Remarks forests previously managed for timber production,
decommissioned military areas, salt ponds and
Most landscapes are evaluated and protected other wetlands, thus increasing the level of heter
according to emotional and aesthetic values that ogeneity of European wild landscapes.
societies attribute to them (Antrop 2005; Gobster From a conservation standpoint, the option be
and others 2007) and conservation programs are tween rewilding and active management will de
determined by people's perceptions of what should pend on the goals and the local context. Active
be preserved (Gillson and others 2011) and depend management is likely to be preferred when the goal
on shifting baselines of what nature should be like is to restore specific species or maintain early suc
(Vera 2009). Thus, the values that Europeans give cessional habitats and other habitats associated
to farmland and wilderness landscapes are based on with human activities. Passive management
tradition and history but also on socio-economic emphasizes dynamic ecological processes over static
backgrounds (Van den Berg and Koole 2006). Yet, patterns of species or habitat occurrence and can be
considering that landscapes result from the dy more sustainable in the long term or at large spatial
namic interaction of natural and cultural drivers scales.
(Antrop 2005), they cannot be perceived as an Despite many benefits, rewilding has been dis
chored in time and we should anticipate occasional regarded as a management option until recently.
changes that will force us to reevaluate their defi Initiatives such as Rewilding Europe (http://
nition.
www.rewildingeurope.com) and the PAN Parks
Rewilding appears to be a viable management Network (http://www.panparks.org) are now
option for some of these transitions with important bringing rewilding to the forefront of the discussion
benefits for biodiversity and ecosystem services. At of European conservation policies. Rewilding poses
the local scale, some species will decline and other many challenges, but those are inherent to the
increase, eventually leading to local species diver implementation of any restoration plan. In a world
sity decreases in some taxa (Figure 2). We lack wounded by biodiversity loss, farmland abandon
research studies looking at the regional scale ment is an opportunity to improve biodiversity in

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
910 L. M. Navarro and H. M. Pereira

Europe, to study the regeneration of vegetation, lighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:
98.
and even to test ecological theories (Hobbs and
Breitenmoser U. 1998. Large predators in the Alps: the fall and
Cramer 2007). In the end, the question is not
rise of man's competitors. Biol Conserv 83:279-89.
whether we prefer a domesticated or a wild Euro
Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS, Axonson J, Pausas JG.
pean landscape but rather which management 2011. Mediterranean Cork Oak Savannas require human use
options (Figure 1) at each place will be more to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front Ecol
achievable and sustainable. Environ 9<5):278-86.
Bullock DJ. 2009. What larger mammals did Britain have and
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS what did they do? Br Wildl 20(5):16-20.
Burton A. 2011. Where the wisents roam. Front Ecol Environ
We thank P. Verburg for sharing data
9:140.from the

CLUE model and commenting on theCaro


manuscript.
T. 2007. The Pleistocene re-wilding gambit. Trends Ecol
We also thank V. Proenqa, R. Beilin, J. Evol
Bullock
22:281-3. and
S. Ceausu for comments. This research was funded Chauchard S, Carcaillet C, Guibal F. 2007. Patterns of land-use
by the Funda^ao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia abandonment control tree-recruitment and forest dynamics in
Mediterranean mountains. Ecosystems 10:936-48.
(FCT)-ABAFOBIO (PTDC/AMB/73901/2006) and
Conti G, Fagarazzi L. 2005. Forest expansion in mountain eco
by FORMAS-Project LUPA. L.N. is supported by a
systems: "environmentalist's dream" or societal nightmare?
grant from FCT (SFRH/BD/62547/2009). Planum 11:1-20.

Cooper T, Baldock D, Rayment M, Kuhmonen T, Terluin I,


OPEN ACCESS Swales V, Poux X, Zakeossian D, Farmer M. 2006. An evalu
ation of the less favoured area measure in the 25 member
This article is distributed under the terms of the
states of the European Union. London: Institute for European
Creative Commons Attribution License which Environmental Policy. 262 pp.
permits any use, distribution, and reproduction
Cramer in
VA, Hobbs RJ, Standish RJ. 2008. What's new about old
any medium, provided the original author(s) and
fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem assembly. Trends
the source are credited. Ecol Evol 23:104-12.

Daugstad K, Ronningen K, Skar B. 2006. Agriculture as an up


holder of cultural heritage? Conceptualizations and value
REFERENCES judgements—a Norwegian perspective in international con
text. J Rural Stud 22:67-81.

Dax,
Antrop M. 2005. Why landscapes of the past are T. 2005. The for
important redefinition of Europe's less favoured areas.
the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70:21-34. In: Rural development in Europe - 3rd annual conference -
Funding European Rural Development in 2007-2013. MPRA
Arbelo CD, Rodriguez-Rodriguez A, Guerra JA, Mora JL, Notario
JS, Fuentes F. 2006. Soil degradation processes and plant paper no. 711.
colonization in abandoned terraced fields overlying pumiceDecker SE, Bath AJ, Simms A, Lindner U, Reisinger E. 2010. The
tuffs. Land Degrad Dev 17:571-88. return of the king or bringing snails to the garden? The hu
Balmford A, Green RE, Scharlemann JPW. 2005. Sparing land man dimensions of a proposed restoration of European Bison
(Bison bonasus) in Germany. Restor Ecol 18:41-51.
for nature: exploring the potential impact of changes in agri
Delibes-Mateos M, Delibes M, Ferreras P, Villafuerte R. 2008. Key
cultural yield on the area needed for crop production. Glob
Change Biol 11:1594-605. role of European rabbits in the conservation of the Western
Batary P, Holzschuh A, Orci KM, Samu F, Tscharntke T. 2012. Mediterranean basin hotspot. Conserv Biol 22(5):1106-17.
Devy-Vareta N, Alves AAM. 2007. Os avan^os e os recuos da
Responses of plant, insert and spider biodiversity to local and
landscape scale management intensity in cereal crops and floresta em Portugal-da Idade Media ao Liberalismo. In: Silva
grasslands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 146(l):130-6. JS, Ed. Floresta e sociedade, uma historia em comum. Publico
Bauer N, Wallner A, Hunziker M. 2009. The change of European SA e Fundagao Luso-Americana: Lisboa. p 55-75.
landscapes: Human-nature relationships, public attitudesDG
to Agriculture. 2011. Rural development in the European
wards rewilding, and the implications for landscape manageUnion. Statistical and economic information report. 257 pp.
ment in Switzerland. J Environ Manage 90:2910-20. Donlan CJ, Berger J, Bock CE, Bock JH, Burney DA, Estes JA,
Bell S, Montarzino A, Aspinall P, Peneze Z, Nikodemus O. 2009.Foreman D, Martin PS, Roemer GW, Smith FA, Soule ME,
Rural society, social inclusion and landscape change in CenGreene HW. 2006. Pleistocene rewilding: an optimistic agenda
for twenty-first century conservation. Am Nat 168(5):660-81.
tral and Eastern Europe: a case study of Latvia. Sociol Rural
49:295-326.
EEA 2004. High nature value farmland: characteristics, trends
and policy
Blondel J. 2006. The "design" of mediterranean landscapes: a challenges. Copenhagen: European Environmental
Agency.
millennial story of humans and ecological systems during the 31 pp.
historic period. Hum Ecol 34:713-29. EC - European Commission. 2008a. Poverty and social exclusion
Boitani L. 2000. Action plan for the conservation of theinwolves
rural areas. Brussels: DG Employment Social Affairs and
(Cartis lupus) in Europe. Nature and Environment, no. Equal Opportunities. 187 pp.
113.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. 84 pp. EC - European Commission. 2008b. Overview of the less fa
Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA. 2007. voured
Theareas farms in the EU-25 (2004-2005). Brussels: DG
Agriculture
nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview high and Rural Development. 99 pp.

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe 911

EC - European Commission. 2009. New insights into mountain Johnson CN. 2009. Ecological consequences of late quaternary
farming in the European Union. Brussels: DG Agriculture and extinctions of megafauna. Proc R Soc B 276:2509-19.
Rural Development. 35 pp. Kaczensky P, Blazic M, Gossow H. 2004. Public attitudes toward
Eickhout B, Van Meijl H, Tabeau A, Van Rheenen T. 2007. brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia. Biol Conserv 118:661
Economic and ecological consequences of four European land 74.

use scenarios. Land Use Policy 24:562-75. Kamler J, Homolka M, Barancekova M, Krojerova-Prokesova J.
Enserink M, Vogel G. 2006. The carnivore comeback. Science 2010. Reduction of herbivore density as a tool for reduction of
314:746-9. herbivore browsing on palatable tree species. Eur J For Res
129:155-62.
Farrell EP, Fiihrer E, Ryan D, Andersson F, Hiittl R, Piussi P.
Kaplan
2000. European forest ecosystems: building the future on theJO, Krumhardt KM, Zimmermann N. 2009. The pr
legacy of the past. For Ecol Manage 132:5-20. historic and preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quat S
FAO. 2011. State of the world's forests. Rome: FAO. 179Revpp.28:3016-34.
Keenleyside
FAOSTAT. 2010. Retrieved on 1 March 2011. http://faostat.fao.org. C, Tucker G. 2010. Farmland Abandonment in th
EU: an assessment of trends and prospects. London: WWF an
Figueiredo J, Pereira HM. 2011. Regime shifts in a socio-eco
IEEP. 97 pp.
logical model of farmland abandonment. Landsc Ecol
26(5):737-49. Korner C, Spehn E, Baron J. 2005. Mountain systems. Mille
um ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being
Fourli M. 1999. Compensation for damage caused by bears and
current state and trends. Washington: Island Press, p 681-71
wolves in the European Union. LIFE-Nature projects, Euro
pean Commission-DG XI-Environment, Nuclear Safety and Kuemmerle T, Hostert P, Radeloff VC, Linden S, Perzanowski K,
Civil Protection. 72 pp. Kruhlov I. 2008. Cross-border comparison of post-sociali
farmland abandonment in the Carpathians. Ecosystems
Gellrich M, Baur P, Koch B, Zimmermann NE. 2007. Agricul
11:614-28.
tural land abandonment and natural forest re-growth in the
Swiss mountains: a spatially explicit economic analysis. Agric Kuiters AT, Slim PA. 2003. Tree colonisation of abandoned
Ecosyst Environ 118:93-108. arable land after 27 years of horse-grazing: the role of bramble
as a facilitator of oak wood regeneration. For Ecol Manage
Gillson L, Ladle RJ, Araujo MB. 2011. Baselines, patterns and
181:239-51.
process. In: Ladle RJ, Whittaker RJ, Eds. Conservation bio
geography. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. p 31-44. Kull T, Pencheva V, Petrovic F, Elias P, Henle K, Balciauskas L,
Kopacz M, Zajickova Z, Stoianovici V. 2004. Agricultural
Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G. 2007. The shared
landscapes. In: Young J, Halada L, Kull T, Kuzniar A, Tartes U,
landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?
Uzunov Y, Watt A, Eds. Conflicts between human activities
Landsc Ecol 22:959-72.
and the conservation of biodiversity in agricultural land
Gortazar C, Herrero J, Villafuerte R, Marco J. 2000. Historical
scapes, grasslands, forests, wetlands and uplands in the
examination of the status of large mammals in Aragon, Spain.
acceding and candidate countries. Wallingford: Centre for
Mammalia 64:411-22.
Ecology and Hydrology, p 10-20.
Goulding MJ, Roper TJ. 2002. Press responses to the presence of
Laiolo P, Dondero F, Ciliento E, Rolando A. 2004. Consequences
free-living wild boar (Sus scrofa) in southern England. Mamm
of pastoral abandonment for the structure and diversity of the
Rev 32:272-82.
alpine avifauna. J Appl Ecol 41:294-304.
Halada L, Evans D, Romao C, Petersen J-E. 2011. Which habitats
Lindborg R, Bengtsson J, Berg A, Cousins SAO, Eriksson O,
of European importance depend on agricultural practices?
Gustafsson T, Hasund KP, Lenoir L, Pihlgren A, Sjodin E,
Biodivers Conserv 20(ll):2365-78.
Stenseke M. 2008. A landscape perspective on conservation of
Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implica
semi-natural grasslands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 12 5 (1) :213-22.
tions for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol Evol
Linnell JDC, Swenson JE, Andersen R. 2000. Conservation of
24:599-605.
biodiversity in Scandinavian boreal forests: large carnivores as
Hobbs RJ, Cramer VA. 2007. Why old fields? Socioeconomic and
flagships, umbrellas, indicators, or keystones? Biodivers
ecological causes and consequences of land abandonment.
ConservIn:
9:857-68.
Cramer VA, Hobbs RJ, Eds. Old fields: dynamic and restoration
MA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems an
of abandoned farmland. Washington: Island Press, p 1-14.
human well-being: scenarios. Washington: Island Press. 560 p
Hochtl F, Lehringer S, Konold W. 2005. "Wilderness": what it
MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleur
means when it becomes a reality—a case study from the
P, Gutierrez Lazpita J, Gibon A. 2000. Agricultural abandon
southwestern Alps. Landsc Urban Plan 70:85-95.
ment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental conse
Hodder KH, Bullock JM. 2009. Really wild? Naturalisticquences
grazingand policy response. J Environ Manage 59:47-69.
in modern landscapes. Br Wildl 20:37-43.
McNeely JA. 1994. Lessons from the past: forests and biodiv
Hodder KH, Buckland PC, Kirby KK, Bullock JM. 2009. sity.
Can the
Biodivers Conserv 3:3-20.
pre-neolithic provide suitable models for re-wilding the
Meijaard E, Sheil D. 2011. A modest proposal for wealth
landscape in Britain? Br Wildl 20(5):4-I5.
countries to reforest their land for the common good. B
Holzel N, Haub C, Ingelfinger MP, Otte A, Pilipenko VN. 2002. 43(5):524-8.
tropica
The return of the steppe - large-scale restoration of degraded
Moreira F, Russo D. 2007. Modelling the impact of agricultur
land in southern Russia during the post-Soviet era. J Nat
abandonment and wildfires on vertebrate diversity in Med
Conserv 10:75-85.
terranean Europe. Landsc Ecol 22:1461-76.
Honda T, Miyagawa Y, Ueda H, Inoue M. 2009. Effectiveness of
Nabuurs GJ, Schelhaas MJ, Mohren GMJ, Field CB. 2003.
newly-designed electric fences in reducing crop damage by
Temporal evolution of the European forest sector carbon sink
medium and large mammals. Mamm Study 34:13-17.
from 1950 to 1999. Glob Change Biol 9:152-60.

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
912 L. M. Navarro and H. M. Pereira

Nowicki P, Weeger C, Van Meijl H, Banse M, Helming Ruben R, Pender J. 2004. Rural diversity and heterogeneity
J, Terluin
I, Verhoog D, Overmars KP, Westhoek H. 2006. SCENAR less-favoured areas: the quest for policy targeting. Food Pol
2020: scenario study on agriculture and the rural world.
29:303-20.

Brussels: European Commission-DG Agriculture and Rural


Russo D. 2006. Effects of land abandonment on animal species
Development. 236 pp. Europe: conservation and management implications. Inte
Pausas JG, Llovet J, Rodrigo A, Vallejo R. 2008. Are wildfires grated assessment
a of vulnerable ecosystems under globa
disaster in the Mediterranean basin—a review. Int J Wildl Fire change in the EU. Project report. 52 pp.
17:713-23.
Schley L, Roper TJ. 2003. Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Wester
Pereira E, Queiroz C, Pereira HM, Vicente L. 2005. Ecosystem
Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricu
services and human well-being: a participatory study in acrops. Mamm Rev 33:43-56.
tural
mountain community in Portugal. Ecol Soc 10(2): 14. Schroter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araujo MB,
Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia C
Pereira HM, Leadley PW, Proenga V, Alkemade R, Scharlemann
JPW, Fernandez-Manjarres JF, Araujo MB, Balvanera P,2005.BiggsEcosystem service supply and vulnerability to glob
R, Cheung WWL, Chini L, Cooper HD, Gilman EL, Guenette change in Europe. Science 310:1333-7.
S, Hurtt GC, Huntington HP, Mace GM, Oberdorff T, Sirami
Revenga
C, Brotons L, Burfield I, Fonderflick J, Martin JL. 2008. I
C, Rodrigues P, Scholes RJ, Sumaila UR, Walpole M. 2010.
land abandonment having an impact on biodiversity? A met
Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science
analytical approach to bird distribution changes in the nort
330:1496-501. western Mediterranean. Biol Conserv 141:450-9.
Pereira HM, Navarro LM, Martins IS. in press. Global biodiversity
Stoate C, Baldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, Van Doom A,
change: the good, the bad and the unknown. Annu De
RevSnoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C. 2009. Ecological impacts
Environ. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-042911-093511.
of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—a review.
Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE. 2011. Reconciling
J Environ Manage 91:22-46.
food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing
Strijker D. 2005. Marginal lands in Europe-causes of decline.
and land sparing compared. Science 333(6047):1289-91. Basic Appl Ecol 6:99-106.
Pinto-Correia T, Mascarenhas J. 1999. Contribution to the ex Sutherland WJ. 2002. Openness in management. Nature 418:834-5.
tensification/ intensification debate: new trends in the Por
Svenning JC. 2002. A review of natural vegetation openness in
tuguese Montado. Landsc Urban Plann 46:125-31.
North-western Europe. Biol Conserv 104(2):133-48.
Pointereau P, Coulon F, Lambotte M, Stuczynski T, Sanchez
TEEB. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity:
Ortega V, Del Rio A. 2008. Analysis of farmland abandonment
mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the
and the extent and location of agricultural areas that are
approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. 39 pp.
actually abandoned or are in risk to be abandoned. Ispra:
Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C.
European Commission-JRC-Institute for Environment and
2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification
Sustainability. 204 pp.
and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett
Proen^a V, Pereira HM. 2010a. Appendix 2: Mediterranean
8(8):857-74.
forest. In: Leadley P, Pereira HM, Alkemade R, Fernandez
Van den Berg AE, Koole SL. 2006. New wilderness in the
Manjarres JF, Proen?a V, Scharlemann JPW, Walpole MJ, Eds.
Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature
Biodiversity scenarios: projections of the 21st century change
development landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 78:362-72.
in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. CBD tech
nical series no. 50. pp. 60-67. Van Vuuren DP, Sala OE, Pereira HM. 2006. The future of vas
cular plant diversity under four global scenarios. Ecol Soc
Proen^a V, Pereira HM. 2010b. Ecosystem changes, biodiversity
11 (2):25.
loss and human well-being. In: Nriagu JO, Ed. Encyclopedia of
environmental health. Burlington: Elsevier, p 215-24. Vera FWM. 2000. Grazing ecology and forest history. New York:
CABI. 527 pp.
Proenga V, Pereira HM, Vicente L. 2008. Organismal complexity
Vera FWM. 2009. Large-scale nature development—the Oos
is an indicator of species existence value. Front Ecol Environ
6:298-9. tvaardersplassen. Br Wildl 20(5):28-36.
Rasker R, Hackman A. 1996. Economic development and Verburg
the PH, Overmars KP. 2009. Combining top-down and
bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the fu
conservation of large carnivores. Conserv Biol 10:991-1002.
ture of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE
Rey Benayas J, Bullock J. 2012. Restoration of biodiversity and
model. Landsc Ecol 24:1167-81.
ecosystem services on agricultural land. Ecosystems,
doi: 10.1007/sl 0021 -012-95 52-0. Williams M. 2000. Dark ages and dark areas: global deforestation
in the deep past. J Hist Geogr 26:28-46.
Rey Benayas JM, Martins A, Nicolau JM, Schulz JJ. 2007.
Abandonment of agricultural land: an overview of drivers andWilkinson DM. 1999. The disturbing history of intermediate
disturbance. Oikos 84:145-7.
consequences. CAB Rev 2:1-14.
Rey Benayas JM, Bullock JM, Newton AC. 2008. Creating Wilson CJ. 2004. Could we live with reintroduced large carni
vores in the UK? Mamm Rev 34:211-32.
woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conserva
tion, and agricultural land use. Front Ecol Environ 6:329-36. Young J, Watt A, Nowicki P, Alard D, Clitherow J, Henle K,
Rounsevell MDA, Reginster I, Araujo MB, Carter TR, Den Johnson R, Laczko E, McCracken D, Matouch S, Niemela J,
doncker N, Ewert F, House JI, Kankaanpaa S, Leemans R, Richards C. 2005. Towards sustainable land use: identifying
Metzger MJ, Schmit C, Smith P, Tuck G. 2006. A coherent set and managing the conflicts between human activities and
of future land use change scenarios for Europe. Agric Ecosyst biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodivers Conserv
Environ 114:57-68. 14:1641-61.

This content downloaded from 139.14.10.56 on Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

You might also like