Rewilding is a word that we’re hearing increasingly. It crops up in relation to everything from reintroducing lynx into the Highlands to letting your lawn grow wild.

It’s got an ability to inspire that established terms like nature restoration perhaps lack. Which is perhaps why it’s proliferating and even sparking spin-off terms like “seawilding”. But the word can also cause contention. This is not helped by the many varied interpretations of rewilding. So what is rewilding and should it matter to us? We were asked to look at this by the Scottish Government. They wanted a definition that they and the wider public sector could refer to.

It helps to look at the word’s origins to understand it and contentions around it. “Rewilding” emerged in North America among a set of conservationists who wanted to protect areas that they saw as pristine “wildernesses".

This then led to the idea of rewilding, of trying to recreate these types of landscapes where they had been lost.

Since then, the idea has spread globally. Many are inspired by its vision of reinvigorated natural systems that need little human management. However, two aspects can be contentious. First, if it involves reintroducing missing species like wolves, this can produce understandable worries about risks to local people and livelihoods. Second, reducing the impact of people might mean excluding them from specific landscapes and places.

In Scotland, where rewilding visions have been adopted by some private landowners and charities, rewilding visions are very varied, but generally tamer: they usually promise some types of benefit for people and don’t always involve plans for species reintroductions.

Even so, many land managers are uncomfortable with the potential changes to landscapes and livelihoods these ideas could still involve, such as changes that might threaten activities like grouse shooting.

Communities and other groups (farmers, hillwalkers, wildlife enthusiasts, for example) may also have concerns, often related to pre-existing concerns around who gets a say - and benefits from - land management in Scotland.

The definition we provided, as a reference point for the public sector (and available on the Scottish Government website), explains that rewilding uniquely emphasises giving nature more autonomy. We also note that rewilding projects should be done working with - and ideally for - local communities.

So, should rewilding matter to us? Those who are inspired by rewilding are talking about it a lot. But right now it isn’t actually embedded in most management plans and visions for nature management. I think we should consider why “rewilding” is being discussed so widely. Scotland’s landscapes are undoubtedly heavily impacted by humans, with many negative consequences for nature, but also society. So, I do believe efforts to redress this damage are needed. However, discussing this challenge using other words may make the debate clearer and calmer.

Meanwhile, where rewilding initiatives are under way, it will be useful to track progress from rhetoric to reality: to clarify the possibilities of rewilding and how we can reinvigorate natural systems.

Dr Kerry Waylen is senior researcher at The James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen.