Social and cultural considerations for the restoration of ‘lost’ tree species: The fall and rise of elm

Abstract Attempts to address biodiversity loss have led to ecosystem and species restoration efforts. Tree species restoration is particularly relevant because of increasing threats from pests and pathogens. However, there are different notions of ‘loss’, as well as sociocultural considerations, including social acceptability, which are often neglected in decision‐making for restoration. This paper explores concepts and meanings of ‘loss’, discusses sociocultural aspects and analyses social acceptability in relation to possible restoration routes for elm species in Great Britain (GB). We identified different forms of ecological or species ‘loss’. For this paper, we recognise the following: Biological loss relates to biological extinction at varying scales. Functional loss refers to functional characteristics and traits of a species. Cultural loss refers to cultural connection, and societal loss refers to common utilisation and values. Tree species such as field elm and wych elm have either radically transformed or have almost disappeared from large areas of GB since the 1960s, due to Dutch Elm Disease (DED). Biological presence continues, mainly in the form of small shrub‐like trees, but functional, cultural and social loss continues through the decline of most large, freestanding elms. Some mature elms remain in refuge areas, especially in the north of Scotland where DED has not yet been recorded. A range of restoration routes have been identified for elm in GB, from individual tree management or the creation of biosecure refugia, to the use of genetic technology. These options are each subject to different constraints, address ‘loss’ in diverse ways and face different levels of social acceptability, related in part to sociocultural connections. We conclude that the following must be addressed to ensure socially acceptable routes to restoration: recognition of sociocultural considerations, trade‐offs between public engagement and efficacy, absence of trust, lack of accessible information, evidence gaps, long‐term funding and resources, and platforms for public dialogue. We emphasise the need for multiple notions of ‘loss’ and a shift to consideration of interlinked social, cultural and ecological regeneration as we forge new relationships and practices for tree health and sustainability. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.