The more I focus on rewilding, the more I realize that I'm invariably confused by measurements (simple mind, I know, I know). I wanted to get some clarity - and maybe ask for some, too.
Very helpful analysis. Though the maps you provided of rewilding efforts in different European countries made me think that very little was being achieved in England (only Knepp) until I re-read that section and realised you were focusing on some rewilding projects in those countries rather than the total area of land being rewilded. Not sure if I'm making myself understood here... In any case, I agree with the square kilometre metric as being the ideal!
Thanks, this is a helpful analysis. I agree km2 is a most useful metric, though so too is a percentage of a nation's land area -- or even an entire nation (e.g. 100,000 km2 is a bit bigger than Portugal). In Canada we lost a record 18.5 million hectares to wildfires in 2023 = 185,000 km2 = about two Portugals = 2% of Canada's land area. It seems helpful to be able to compare a rewilding (or wildfire) scale to a tangible area that one knows or has a sense of.
Very helpful analysis. Though the maps you provided of rewilding efforts in different European countries made me think that very little was being achieved in England (only Knepp) until I re-read that section and realised you were focusing on some rewilding projects in those countries rather than the total area of land being rewilded. Not sure if I'm making myself understood here... In any case, I agree with the square kilometre metric as being the ideal!
Thanks, this is a helpful analysis. I agree km2 is a most useful metric, though so too is a percentage of a nation's land area -- or even an entire nation (e.g. 100,000 km2 is a bit bigger than Portugal). In Canada we lost a record 18.5 million hectares to wildfires in 2023 = 185,000 km2 = about two Portugals = 2% of Canada's land area. It seems helpful to be able to compare a rewilding (or wildfire) scale to a tangible area that one knows or has a sense of.