A proposed process for applying a structured decision‐making framework to restoration planning in the Atchafalaya River Basin,Louisiana, U.S.A.

Environmental decision‐making issues in the Atchafalaya River Basin (ARB), Louisiana require innovative approaches that combine scientific understanding and local stakeholder values. Management of the ARB has evolved from strong federal control to establish the ARB as a primary floodway of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project to a state and federal collaboration to accommodate fish and wildlife resource promotion, recreational opportunities, and economic development. The management policy has expanded to include a growing number of stakeholders, but the decision‐making process has not kept pace. Current conflicts among many local stakeholder groups, due in part to their lack of involvement in the decision‐making process, impede restoration efforts. The absence of a long‐term collective vision for the ARB by both local stakeholder groups and management agencies further confounds these efforts. This paper proposes a process to apply a structured decision‐making framework, a values‐based approach that explicitly defines objectives, to promote stakeholder‐driven restoration efforts in the ARB and to better prepare for and manage long‐term environmental issues. The goals of this approach are: (1) to create a process founded on stakeholder values and supported by rigorous scientific assessment to meet management agency mandates and (2) to establish a transparent process for restoration planning in the ARB that incorporates current and future non‐governmental stakeholders into the decision‐making process. Similar frameworks have been successful in other river basins; we feel the structure of current restoration efforts in the ARB is well‐suited to adopt a values‐focused management framework.     

Systematic Postproject Appraisals to Maximize Lessons Learned from River Restoration Projects: Case Study of Compound Channel Restoration Projects in Northern California

We conducted systematic postproject appraisals (PPAs) of seven compound channel restoration projects, supplementing available data with new field data and analyses to produce comparable datasets for all seven projects. We describe how systematic PPAs can be developed and illustrate a systematic PPA for compound channel projects organized around performance with respect to geomorphic, habitat, and conveyance objectives. We found that preexisting monitoring programs for a group of similar restoration projects can be supplemented with relatively low‐effort data collection and analyses to produce lessons on a “class” of restoration projects. Using this approach to assess a set of seven compound channel projects, we found that two fully achieved geomorphic objectives, three appear likely to achieve geomorphic objectives with additional time and/or minor interventions, and two did not achieve geomorphic objectives. Further, four projects achieved habitat objectives and three projects appeared likely to achieve objectives if given more time to develop and/or a minor intervention to mitigate limitations on critical ecological processes. Finally, four of the projects satisfied conveyance objectives, and the remaining three appeared likely to satisfy objectives with minor interventions to maintain design roughness and geometry conditions. Based on observations from our new systematic PPA approach applied to compound channels in Mediterranean climates, we suggest application of systematic PPAs for other classes of river restoration projects to evaluate scale and geomorphic setting issues in project design, to refine postproject monitoring guidelines, and to predict vegetation recruitment, growth, and succession patterns to avoid potential vegetation problems.     

What motivates ecological restoration?

Ecological restoration projects are motivated by diverse environmental and social reasons. Motivations likely vary between stakeholders or regions, and influence the approach taken to plan, implement, and monitor restoration projects. We surveyed 307 people involved in the restoration of native vegetation across Australia to identify their underlying motivations. We also elicited information on planning, implementation, and monitoring of restoration projects. We found that biodiversity enhancement is the main motivation for undertaking restoration, with biodiversity offsetting, water quality improvements, and social reasons as important secondary motivations. Motivations varied significantly by stakeholder type and region. Restoration projects primarily motivated by ecosystem service provision (e.g. water quality improvements and social reasons) sought less pristine ecological outcomes than projects motivated by biodiversity enhancement or offsetting. Rigorous monitoring designs (e.g. quantitative, repeatable surveys, and use of performance indicators) were rarely used in restoration projects, except for projects motivated by scientific research. Better alignment of different restoration motivations with the planning and monitoring of restoration projects should deliver greater benefits through setting appropriate objectives and evaluating outcomes against these objectives. These improvements will increase the capacity of the restoration practice to meet international biodiversity commitments and communicate restoration outcomes to stakeholders.     

Behavior change and sustainability of ecological restoration projects

Addressing socio‐economic factors in ecological restoration projects is critical for the effectiveness of restoration practices and scaling of restoration efforts. To achieve sustainability of restoration projects, the drivers of human activity leading to the degradation need to be addressed. An under‐researched concept in ecological restoration is the impact of behavior change of stakeholders and communities involved, despite the strong link prior research has shown to exist between environmental quality and human behavior. This article explores the importance of addressing the behavioral change of stakeholders engaged in restoration to achieve sustainability of efforts; it investigates how behavior change models are linked and represented in global environmental governance documents, and it discusses how behavioral intervention and policy instruments could be included in ecological restoration projects. For future work, the article proposes the integration of behavior change interventions in the design of restoration projects and policies.     

Evaluating where and how habitat restoration is undertaken for animals

Habitat restoration is vital to ameliorate the effects of anthropogenic disturbances on animal habitats. We reviewed the peer‐reviewed literature to examine where and how habitat restoration is undertaken. Our aim was to identify key knowledge gaps as well as research and monitoring needs that can inform future restoration actions. We found: (1) marine and terrestrial actions focus most commonly on restoring vegetation, and freshwater actions focus on restoring the in‐channel habitat; (2) arthropods are the most common focal group; (3) there is often no collection of pre‐restoration data, so certainty in attributing environmental changes to restoration actions is limited; and (4) population and community measures are most commonly used in monitoring programs, which only show if animals are present at restored sites and not whether they are able to grow, survive, and reproduce. We highlight three important considerations for future restoration actions. First, more integration of knowledge among freshwater, marine, and terrestrial systems will help us to understand how, and why, restoration outcomes might vary in different contexts. Second, where possible, restoration projects should be assessed using before‐after‐control‐impact designs, which will provide the strongest evidence if desired restoration responses occur. Third, if the goal of restoration is to develop self‐sustaining breeding populations of target animals, then measures of fitness (i.e. breeding, survival) should be collected. These recommendations will hopefully help guide more effective restoration practices and monitoring in the future.     

Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting

The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.     

Social perspectives on the use of reference conditions in restoration of fire‐adapted forest landscapes

As approaches to ecological restoration become increasingly large scale and collaborative, there is a need to better understand social aspects of restoration and how they influence land management. In this article, we examine social perspectives that influence the determination of ecological reference conditions in restoration. Our analysis is based on in‐depth interviews with diverse stakeholders involved in collaborative restoration of fire‐adapted forest landscapes. We conducted interviews with 86 respondents from six forest collaboratives that are part of the U.S. Forest Service's Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Collaboratives use a variety of approaches to develop reference conditions, including historic, contemporary, and future scenarios. Historical conditions prior to European settlement (nineteenth century or “pre‐settlement” conditions), or prior to more recent grazing, logging, and exclusion of fire, were the predominant type of reference used in all sites. Stakeholders described benefits and limitations of reference conditions. Primary benefits include (1) providing a science‐based framework for bringing stakeholders together around a common vision; (2) gaining social understanding and acceptance of the underlying need for restoration; and (3) serving to neutralize otherwise value‐laden discussions about multiple, sometimes competing, resource objectives. Limitations stem from (1) concerns over social conflict when reference conditions are perceived to contradict other stakeholder values and interests, (2) differing interpretations of reference condition science, (3) inappropriate application or over‐generalization of reference information, and (4) limited relevance of historical references for current and future conditions in some ecosystems. At the same time, collaboratives are adopting innovative strategies to address conceptual and methodological limitations of reference conditions.     

The Use of Case Studies in Establishing Feasibility for Wetland Restoration

Establishing restoration feasibility is a multifaceted process that requires consideration of the ecological, social, and economic conditions of a given site. Examining completed restoration projects that report successes and failures may enhance this complex decision‐making process. We describe five completed wetland restoration projects and identify commonalities among them to inform the process of establishing feasibility for proposed restoration projects. Most of the case studies identified the need to gather preexisting and historical information, develop scenarios through hydrologic modeling, study the restoration materials, use best professional judgement for unanswered questions, establish multigroup collaboration, gain public support from stakeholders, and monitor postrestoration. We applied these lessons to a study that evaluated the feasibility of restoring Dyke Marsh Preserve, a tidal freshwater marsh in Virginia that the National Park Service is mandated to preserve. We found that the use of case studies substantially increased confidence in the decision‐making process by focusing discussions on the most important ecological, social, and economic aspects of a potential restoration.     

The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

Much of the practice of restoration is conducted by businesses—contractors, consultants, designers, engineers. Restoration businesses interact with a variety of stakeholders to complete projects on time and on budget, and to achieve ecological and business objectives. Our research explores the business perspective in restoration; it is based on data collected from businesses (contractors, consultants, design engineers), agencies, and nongovernmental organizations involved in a Superfund cleanup project in Montana, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever. Our findings highlight several areas restoration businesses must navigate. First, restoration businesses must juggle potentially competing goals, maintaining ecological integrity while achieving profitability objectives. Second, these businesses must manage the risk that arises from variability in the natural environment as well as individuals' risk tolerances. Third, they must navigate the disconnect between “science” and “practice,” including how to best monitor restoration projects. Fourth, they must make decisions about new techniques and innovations. Fifth, on‐the‐ground implementation must acknowledge that personnels' motives and expertise might conflict with original plans. We discuss these findings in relation to relevant scholarly research, offering implications for theory and practice. For example, the business of ecological restoration requires learning over time to be profitable while achieving the desired ecological and social outcomes; restoration businesses leverage monitoring in pursuit of adaptive management and engage “frontline personnel” as important voices in the restoration process. Understanding the business of restoration adds an important perspective in the complex dynamics of social‐ecological systems.     

A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success

We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This first requires clearly stated and justified restoration goals and targets; this may seem “obvious” but in our experience, this step is often elided. Indicators or proxy variables are the typical vehicle for monitoring; these must be justified in the context of goals and targets and ultimately compared against those to allow for an evaluation of outcome (e.g. success or failure). The monitoring phase is critical in that a project must consider how the monitoring frequency and overall design will allow the postrestoration trajectories of indicators to be analyzed. This allows for real‐time management adjustments—adaptive management (sensu lato)—to be implemented if the trajectories are diverging from the targets. However, as there may be large variation in early postrestoration stages or complicated (nonlinear) trajectory, caution is needed before committing to management adjustments. Ideally, there is not only a goal and target but also a model of the expected trajectory—that only can occur if there are sufficient data and enough knowledge about the ecosystem or site being restored. With so many possible decision points, we focus readers' attention on one critical step—how to choose indicators. We distinguish generalizable and specific indicators which can be qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative. The generalizable indicators can be used for meta‐analyses. There are many options of indicators but making them more uniform would help mutual comparisons among restoration projects.     

Multi-criteria decision analysis to select metrics for design and monitoring of sustainable ecosystem restorations

The selection of metrics for ecosystem restoration programs is critical for improving the quality and utility of design and monitoring programs, informing adaptive management actions, and characterizing project success. The metrics selection process, that in practice is left to the subjective judgment of stakeholders, is often complex and should simultaneously take into account monitoring data, environmental models, socio-economic considerations, and stakeholder interests. With limited funding, it is often very difficult to balance the importance of multiple metrics, often competing, intended to measure different environmental, social, and economic aspects of the system. To help restoration planners and practitioners develop the most useful and informative design and monitoring programs, we propose the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, broadly defined, to select optimal ecosystem restoration metric sets. In this paper, we apply and compare two MCDA methods, multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), and probabilistic multi-criteria acceptability analysis (ProMAA), for a hypothetical river restoration case study involving multiple stakeholders with competing interests. Overall, the MCDA results in a systematic, quantitative, and transparent evaluation and comparison of potential metrics that provides planners and practitioners with a clear basis for selecting the optimal set of metrics to evaluate restoration alternatives and to inform restoration design and monitoring. In our case study, the two MCDA methods provide comparable results in terms of selected metrics. However, because ProMAA can consider probability distributions for weights and utility values of metrics for each criterion, it is most likely the best option for projects with highly uncertain data and significant stakeholder involvement. Despite the increase in complexity in the metrics selection process, MCDA improves upon the current, commonly-used ad-hoc decision practice based on consultations with stakeholders by applying and presenting quantitative aggregation of data and judgment, thereby increasing the effectiveness of environmental design and monitoring and the transparency of decision making in restoration projects.     

Paying for Restoration

The question of how society is going to pay for restoration has received little open discussion. We review existing literature and examples to explore two questions: How should ecological and economic considerations be balanced in determining expenditures on restoration projects? and How is society going to pay for the substantial costs involved? We discuss a number of different techniques for determining the amount of money to allocate to restoration efforts, including ecosystem replacement costs, quantifying ecosystem services, contingent valuation, and surrogate market price techniques. We then review different strategies for paying for restoration including private funding by the party responsible for the damage, public funding through taxes, voluntary contributions, and various public/private partnerships. We conclude by discussing other considerations in developing strategies to pay for restoration, including uncertainty, time‐scale, evaluating success, and regional planning.     

Defining ecological restoration of peatlands in Central Kalimantan,Indonesia

Indonesia declared an ambitious plan to restore its degraded and fire‐prone peatlands, which have been a source of significant greenhouse gas and haze. However, the progress has been slow and the plan cannot succeed without sustained social supports and political will. Although many previous studies argued for the need to see ecological restoration in socio‐economic contexts, empirical assessments have been lacking for how restoration is operationalized on the ground. We interviewed 47 key informants involved in four different projects in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, and assessed their definitions, goals, and practices of peatland restoration. Most of the actors we interviewed defined peatland restoration primarily in an ecological context following the global concept of ecological restoration. However, all four restoration projects were designed without determining reference and trajectory conditions. Their intermediate goals and practices were more focused on engaging local communities and developing sustainable livelihood options than improving the ecological conditions of peatlands. To be internally consistent, peatland restoration needs to recognize a social dimension in its process, as well as in its goal. Setting clear trajectory conditions is also important to clarify achievable goals and measurable intermediate outcomes. We propose the following definition of peatland restoration: a process of assisting the recovery of degraded peatland ecosystems to achieve the appropriate trajectories defined through multi‐stakeholder collaboration within social‐ecological contexts. We hope to generate healthy debates to further refine the definition that encompasses both social and ecological dimensions to generate broader support for sustaining and expanding peatland restoration projects in Indonesia.     

Towards a decision support system for stream restoration in the Netherlands: an overview of restoration projects and future needs

Stream restoration is one of the answers to the lowland stream deterioration. For making proper choices in stream restoration; one firstly needs to understand the complex spatial and temporal interactions between physical, chemical and biological components in the stream ecosystem. Several ecological concepts on the four dimensions, scale and hierarchy in a stream ecosystem are integrated into the 5-S-model. This model provides the theoretical backbone of the first outline of a decision support system for stream restoration. Stream restoration is developing fast in the Netherlands. In 1991, 70 projects were counted, in 1993 there were 170, and this number increased in 1998 to 206. Positive signs in this increase in the number of stream restoration projects are the increase in the amount of money, in background studies, in improvement of the selection process of stretches to be tackled, and the broadening of the objectives and measures. Negative signs are amongst others that measures often deal only with stream hydrology and structures in-stream. The catchment takes no part. Furthermore, bottlenecks often relate to finances and agreement between people and/or organisations. Finally, the first steps towards a decision support system for stream restoration are made. The system presented provides only information based on which measures should be taken. `Where and how' these measures need to be taken remains a challenge for the future.     

Managing fire‐dependent vegetation in Byron Shire,Australia: Are we restoring the keystone ecological process of fire?

Fire is a keystone ecological process in many ecosystems. In such ecosystems, the exclusion of fire can lead to fundamental shifts in vegetation structure, composition and distribution and poses a major threat to the biodiversity dependent on these habitats. Programmes to manage and restore native vegetation have increased rapidly over recent decades, and while many such programmes have demonstrable success managing a range of environmental threats, their effectiveness in identifying and addressing the major threat of fire exclusion in fire‐dependent vegetation is questionable. This study sought to identify impediments to the management of fire‐excluded vegetation at the assessment and planning stage of ecological management programmes in Byron Shire in north‐east New South Wales. Sixty ecological management and restoration plans for sites known to be fire‐excluded in the shire were reviewed to determine the rate at which fire exclusion was identified and addressed in planning over the last decade. Document analysis found the majority of plans failed to accurately identify fire exclusion or to recommend the reintroduction of fire in fire‐excluded management sites. Absence of standardised guidelines that require comprehensive consideration of fire exclusion in ecological management and restoration plans is suggested as a key factor in the low response rates observed. Furthermore, it was found that existing implicit prompts to address inappropriate‐fire regimes generally, including government policies, project objectives and site‐assessment prompts had little effect on identification and response rates, further confirming the need for more‐explicit assessment prompts relating to fire‐frequency issues. Without improvements of the current ecological assessment and planning process to increase identification and management of fire exclusion in the study area, fire‐dependent biodiversity values will continue to decline wherever fire exclusion remains unmanaged. It is recommended that explicit assessment and planning templates are developed and implemented to effectively manage fire exclusion and conserve the fire‐dependent biodiversity of Byron Shire and the far north coast of NSW.     

Ecological restoration success: a policy analysis understanding

This article discusses how ecological restoration success can be understood and evaluated using a policy analysis lens. First, this article details a conceptual tool that helps to develop a more encompassing set of criteria to assess restoration activities that provide socioeconomic benefits. Second, by broadening the understanding of restoration success and how it can be evaluated, it allows a more critical view of evaluation itself and its uses as a policy tool. A table is presented that can help practitioners reveal preferences and clarify the aims and objectives of particular initiatives. The table also sensitizes practitioners to the complexity of the links between restoration rationales and evaluation criteria, which in turn may open up much needed discussion and dialogue between restoration participants about the underlying values an actor may wish to promote. It heightens awareness of the fact that evaluation methods need to recognize that restoration is driven by multiple rationales often in the same project, both process driven and output oriented, which in turn can change over time. Adding process and output criteria together may also raise issues of priority. Evaluation criteria thus need to be assigned in ways that reflect these multiplicities, while at the same time recognizing that some restoration values might be conflictual and that there may be winners and losers. Furthermore, judgement about “failure” of a project can change as new goals emerge in delivery and implementation. Ecological restoration evaluation should therefore be ongoing, contextual, and not a one‐off event.     

Applying an animal‐centric approach to improve ecological restoration

Traditionally, ecological restoration is based on re‐establishing patterns of vegetation communities with the expectation that wildlife will recolonize, restoring the ecological function. However, in many restoration projects, wildlife fails to recolonize, even when vegetation is restored, in many cases because revegetated habitats lack the critical features required by wildlife. We present a new approach to restoration, based on a detailed understanding of ecological process, the mechanisms by which wildlife respond to landscape patterns. Our animal‐centric approach involves measuring the risk‐sensitive decision‐making of individual animals as they balance searching for food, mates, and breeding sites with avoiding being eaten by predators and relates this to fine‐scale habitat and landscape structure. The outcome of these decisions can be measured in occupancy of habitat, the information on which conventional restoration is based. Incorporating landscape genetics allows retrospective assessment of the outcome of dispersal decisions by individual animals on a deeper time frame and at regional scales. Fine‐scale connectivity models can be parameterized with these multiscale spatial and temporal data to direct restoration efforts. We are translating this novel approach to practice in the large Midlands restoration project (4 years, AUD $6 million) in Tasmania, Australia, in partnership with Greening Australia. More than 200 years of intensive agricultural practice in this National Biodiversity Hotspot has resulted in extensive landscape modification, high densities of feral cats, and decline of many native mammals. Our research–practice partnership will alter the way that restoration is done, leading hopefully to successful restoration of wildlife, gene flow, and ecological function.     

Have we been successful? Monitoring horizontal forest complexity for forest restoration projects

Forest management today often seeks to restore ecological integrity and enhance human well‐being by increasing forest complexity, resilience, and functionality. However, effective and financially expedient monitoring of forest complexity is challenging. In this study, we developed a practical and inexpensive technique to measure horizontal forest complexity. This monitoring method uses intuitively understandable data (imagery) and facilitates stakeholder participation in the adaptive management process within collaborative projects. We used this technique to determine if current restoration projects are successfully achieving their spatial restoration goals. We focused on the Colorado Front Range Landscape Restoration Initiative (CFRLRI) as a representative of the typical collaborative restoration projects underway in formerly fire‐dependent dry conifer forests. The developed monitoring method is practical and cost‐effective by using free aerial imagery to map, quantify, and analyze the distribution of canopy cover pre‐ and post‐treatment. We found the CFRLRI has successfully reduced canopy cover (from 44 to 26% on average) and increased some aspects of horizontal forest complexity. The application of these monitoring techniques has allowed the CFRLRI collaborative group to objectively quantify changes to horizontal forest complexity, and has facilitated stakeholder communication about forest spatial patterns. These methods could be adapted for use by other similar forest restoration projects around the world by utilizing increasingly available satellite or aerial imagery.     

Contribution of genetics to ecological restoration

Ecological restoration of degraded ecosystems has emerged as a critical tool in the fight to reverse and ameliorate the current loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Approaches derived from different genetic disciplines are extending the theoretical and applied frameworks on which ecological restoration is based. We performed a search of scientific articles and identified 160 articles that employed a genetic approach within a restoration context to shed light on the links between genetics and restoration. These articles were then classified on whether they examined association between genetics and fitness or the application of genetics in demographic studies, and on the way the studies informed restoration practice. Although genetic research in restoration is rapidly growing, we found that studies could make better use of the extensive toolbox developed by applied fields in genetics. Overall, 41% of reviewed studies used genetic information to evaluate or monitor restoration, and 59% provided genetic information to guide prerestoration decision‐making processes. Reviewed studies suggest that restoration practitioners often overlook the importance of including genetic aspects within their restoration goals. Even though there is a genetic basis influencing the provision of ecosystem services, few studies explored this relationship. We provide a view of research gaps, future directions and challenges in the genetics of restoration.     

Local provenancing in subtropical rainforest restoration: For better or worse? A review of practitioners’ perspectives

The adaptive potential of restored communities is important to their long‐term sustainability, particularly in the face of changing environmental conditions such as climate change. The genetic diversity of rainforest plants in restoration projects and their suitability to current and future environmental site conditions are important considerations for restoration practitioners and seed suppliers. Presented here are the results from a survey of rainforest restoration practitioners in North East New South Wales and South East Queensland, Australia. The survey canvassed practitioners’ perspectives on local provenancing, genetic diversity and other aspects of restoration that have the potential to influence the long‐term success of restored rainforest communities. All respondents to this survey typically included a planting component in their restoration projects (whether for reconstruction or to supplement assisted regeneration). Planting represents an anthropogenic selection and translocation of genotypes to a restoration site. As a result, considerations of genetic origin and the potential implications to the restored rainforest community are relevant to most restoration projects. This industry survey's results showed that genetic diversity and local provenancing are concepts of importance to practitioners. However, there seems to be a lack of clarity within the industry about how to define local provenance and how the concepts of local provenancing and genetic diversity influence each other. The results indicated that local provenancing remains the preferred provenancing strategy amongst practitioners, with inclusion of non‐local provenance seed not regarded as an effective means of improving genetic diversity. This is despite researchers highlighting the limitations of local provenancing, particularly in highly fragmented landscapes, and despite the publication of numerous alternative provenancing strategies. Rainforest restoration may benefit from practitioners questioning the appropriateness of local provenancing to their restoration projects and considering that in some circumstances exclusive reliance on local provenance stock may in fact be worse, not better, for the long‐term sustainability of restored communities.