Perspectives on challenges and opportunities at the restoration‐policy interface in the U.S.A.

As we advance into the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, understanding the relationship between science, management, and policy is increasingly important given the paucity of research evaluating the ability of existing policy to address contemporary environmental challenges. Despite their inherent interdependence, restoration ecology as a scientific discipline, ecological restoration as a practice, and the policies driving restoration efforts do not always represent a unified force. Accenting the policies and practices within the United States, we present our perspective on challenges associated with this disunion, including those linked to social dimensions of restoration and limitations associated with existing policy. We provide a review of existing federal policy in the United States and synthesize suggestions that have emerged in the literature to fortify connections between restoration science and policy. We also describe social challenges to meeting restoration goals, including barriers surrounding power dynamics, trust, and communication, as well as divergent incentives, perspectives, and values. We propose potential solutions that exist in transdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing, and evidence‐based, balanced decision‐making that equally considers varying perspectives. With the understanding that current conservation practices are not enough to mitigate environmental degradation, we focus on streamlining problem‐solving strategies to support restoration and face the widespread ecological issues of today.


Introduction
Ecological restoration is growing in importance parallel to trends of unprecedented environmental degradation and biodiversity loss resulting, in part, from the direct and indirect impacts of human-caused climate change (Pimm et al. 1995;Cardinale et al. 2012). With the recognition that inaction is more costly than action (e.g., Chiabai et al. 2011), large-scale response initiatives have emerged (e.g., The Bonn Challenge, Trillion Tree Campaign, and African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative). The United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration builds on existing global restoration strategies and, together, these initiatives represent an international commitment to restore hundreds of millions of acres of degraded land around the globe (Suding et al. 2015;Chazdon et al. 2017;UN 2021). Sweeping restoration initiatives offer incredible opportunities for environmental protection, but also have the potential to expose cracks in existing operational frameworks that could fracture further. Ecological restoration is evolving to operate at immense scales, but relevant policies to guide this scale of restoration are scarce or nonexistent, causing scale discordance (Cash & Moser 2000), which forces practitioners to adapt under preexisting bureaucratic and legislative structures designed for more localized application (Butler et al. 2015). Consideration of the socioeconomic and political frameworks that shape restoration actions could broadly shift approaches to accomplish large-scale restoration goals (Menz et al. 2013;Murcia et al. 2016).
Before considering the confluence of restoration and policy, it is important to review definitions that underlie our understanding. The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) defines ecological restoration as "The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed" (Gann et al. 2019). Although SER broadly identifies restoration success as returning ecosystem processes linked to resilience, success in the field of restoration ecology has been continuously re-evaluated and reinterpreted alongside definitions of ecological restoration that have become more flexible and interdisciplinary (Suding 2011;Perring et al. 2015;Martin 2017). However, most attempts to redefine ecological restoration and restoration success do not consider existing policies and how they may promote or hinder restoration efforts. A renewed emphasis on policy may aid in adapting management practices and restoration for our changing world.
Failure to consider policy in evaluating restoration approaches can, in part, be attributed to the complexity of policy. Policy encompasses laws, regulations, guidelines, strategies, and motivations associated with problem solving. In the context of ecological restoration, federal policy acts as governmental guidance to manage and support the recovery of degraded ecosystems (Sapkota et al. 2018). However, policy is not strictly confined to strategies, guidelines, and legislative frameworks since it is inherently connected to the social dimensions of restoration, like collaboration and capacity building (Baker & Eckerberg 2013). Suggestions for improving restoration highlight social dimensions that impact management activities and embrace transdisciplinary collaboration, powersharing, and diverse knowledge systems (Tengö et al. 2014;Cross et al. 2019;Reyes-García et al. 2019).
There is an undeniable need to scale up restoration efforts to recover landscape-level degradation and preserve and restore biophysical processes but scaling up presents many challenges. Restoration ecology is traditionally perceived as a local science, characterized and influenced by local ecologies, climate, social dynamics, and funding structures. However, restoration oftentimes occurs at multiple scales (Menz et al. 2013;Metcalf et al. 2015) and is thus influenced by policy in unique ways depending on the spatial context. At a more localized scale, policy can guide restoration efforts to enhance regional cohesiveness. Scaling up restoration can cause the oversimplification of guiding policies; limitations in knowledge regarding implementation of restoration across different settings comprises a fundamental challenge to broad legislation (Aronson et al. 2011). While we acknowledge that consensus can be limited by divergent incentives and guidance for different branches of government, the need for strengthening connections and agreement between science that is produced, policymaking, and restoration implementation at multiple scales is inherent in the challenges and potential solutions we describe below.
Building consensus and scaling up restoration relies on appreciating the role of policy and reinforcing political will that aligns with global commitments (Chazdon et al. 2017). Policy is inherently important for defining standards and measurable requirements that can provide a framework to coordinate management approaches across jurisdictional boundaries (Keiter 1993). Policy can also ascribe economic and social value to restoration and enable agencies and institutions to prioritize efforts (Menz et al. 2013;Chazdon et al. 2017;Fagan et al. 2020). Without appreciating the role of policy in ecosystem restoration, global restoration targets will likely fall short. Integrating policy into restoration actions is only possible if attention is brought to the collection of challenges that exist at the juncture of restoration action and policy. Acknowledging and addressing some of the social challenges that abut the restoration-policy interface provides opportunities to evaluate past legacies and identify forward-looking solutions. Suggestions for remediating key issues between restoration and policy have long been discussed (Zedler et al. 2012;Baker & Eckerberg 2013;Favretto et al. 2018;Sapkota et al. 2018).
The United States provides a valuable example to examine the role of policy in ecological restoration given that approximately one third of land in the United States is federally managed. Furthermore, federal land management agencies operating across shared boundaries in the United States are often guided by differing mandates, which highlights an inherent challenge associated with enacting restoration at landscape and regional scales. Here, we describe existing federal policy in the United States in Table S1 while characterizing challenges and synthesizing suggestions to increase information accessibility and streamline strategies for conducting science and restoration with an explicit consideration of existing policy. We acknowledge that other problem-solving strategies inevitably exist in this context, but present our perspectives on a selection of strategies based on our review of relevant literature and domestic federal policy. Our goal is to evaluate some of the myriad social challenges that influence the connection of policy and restoration while discussing potential growth areas at the science-policy interface that may enable the restoration movement to effectively scale up to meet the pressing environmental challenges highlighted by the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. The connecting thread between the identified challenges and strategies is the juncture of ecological restoration and policy. We first provide historical context to existing federal policy in the United States that relates to restoration and describe associated limitations to progress. We then highlight challenges related to power dynamics, trust, and communication barriers, as well as divergent incentives, perspectives, and values. We match these challenges with suggestions, including (1) policy strategies for stimulating change; (2) transdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing; and (3) evidencebased, balanced decision-making that incorporates diverse knowledge systems and equally considers varying perspectives.

Challenges at the Restoration-Policy Interface Restoration Policy in the United States and Challenges to Meeting Restoration Goals
Policy is complex and multifaceted and includes different levels of restoration guidance ranging from agency guidelines to federal legislation. Public lands in the United States are managed by federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, each with large portions of land in need of restoration (Copeland et al. 2018). Though federal agencies carry out a large portion of restoration activities in the United States, public-private partnerships and non-profits play an important role (Gosnell & Kelly 2010). While federal policies and national directives, like executive orders, provide guidance for restoration actions on federal lands, each land management agency operates under unique directives included in priorities, handbooks, manuals, and strategies. To address this complexity, we compiled existing federal policy in the United States described in academic literature (e.g., Oldfield et al. 2019), from government resources (e.g., www.federalregister.gov), and from conversations with legal scholars and peer review experts. We focused our search on federal policies that guide restoration on a broader scale in the United States, identifying 83 policies, orders, and directives that guide much of the restoration happening on federally managed lands in the United States today (Table S1). We describe how each policy connects to ecological restoration with the understanding that specific agency guidance and other levels of policy are also critical to planning and implementing restoration (e.g., Schultz et al. 2012).
Legislation did not widely include explicit restoration language until the early 21st century (e.g., Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, the Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009, and the Ecosystem Restoration Policy of 2016; Table S1), which can likely be attributed to the fact that ecological restoration as a concept and practice was not formalized until the 1980s (Martin 2017). Although these laws mandate restoration activities on public lands, they often lack specific guidance related to the implementation of restoration, or measures of restoration success (e.g., Yonk et al. 2019). A notable exception to this includes several policies containing pointed language promoting the use of native plants for restoration projects (e.g., Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Table S1; Johnson et al. 2010). Although detailed policies can be overly prescriptive and lead to limitations, failing to include regional criteria for accomplishing restoration can misdirect efforts and funding (Yonk et al. 2019). For example, global campaigns for restoration may mislead policymakers to believe that certain resources and biomes are more important to restore than others, or that some restoration approaches are universally beneficial (Temperton et al. 2019). Global restoration initiatives are largely focusing on reforestation and afforestation which, while beneficial for forest biomes and general carbon sequestration goals, ignores or actively degrades ecosystems not dominated by trees. Promoting actions that enhance or preserve biomeappropriate biodiversity and leverage integrative management should be reinforced rather than promoting tree planting alone, for example (Seddon et al. 2019;Temperton et al. 2019).
Misdirection and a lack of relevant criteria for planning and evaluating restoration actions represent components of an overall disjointed implementation of policy in response to environmental issues (e.g., Yonk et al. 2019). Similarly, the development of restoration ecology as a subdiscipline has been a fragmented, ad hoc process (Choi et al. 2008;Campbell et al. 2018). Existing U.S. restoration policy mirrors this ad hoc model, characterized by a largely reactive collection of unique policies addressing diverse environmental challenges as they emerge (Table S1). These policies collectively support a restorative culture, but do not work in concert to adequately ensure the successful implementation of restoration actions on a broad scale. Policies are divided by arbitrary bureaucratic and jurisdictional boundaries, which can limit large-scale restoration efforts (Cyphers & Schultz 2019) because communication, incentive structures, monitoring, and values vary depending on the stakeholders involved. Strategic collaboration is promoted by policies like the Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009, for example, which promotes landscape-scale conservation and created the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project. This type of collaboration-focused policy can circumvent barriers to success (Butler et al. 2015) by providing an overarching set of goals and a collaborative framework for achieving them. Along with the challenges we have described, the UN Decade recognizes potential limitations that could constrain restoration initiatives. For example, policymakers and governance experts may not have the capacity to identify how current policies affect degradation and restoration, the capacity to harmonize policies and catalyze restoration, nor to develop long-term governance mechanisms for restored systems (UN 2021).

Power Dynamics, Trust, and Communication Barriers
Social dimensions of restoration influence innovations and outcomes and warrant closer attention since they precede and play into policy challenges (Alexander et al. 2016;Fischer et al. 2021). Social elements of restoration include collaboration and community engagement, which we highlight here as an example of associated impacts influencing restoration progress. Collaboration is key to restoration success (e.g., Walpole et al. 2017) and hinges on power dynamics that determine hierarchical structures defining restoration approaches which, in turn, influence decision-making (Baker & Eckerberg 2013). Power dynamics are important in this context because relationships rely on trust, which is linked to balanced decision-making (Metcalf et al. 2015;Hemmerling et al. 2020; but see Lacey et al. 2018), and those in power often have the ultimate say as to how resources are utilized and how systems are restored (Gibbons et al. 2008;Metcalf et al. 2015). For example, ecologists and land managers can hold power in identifying the ways in which systems can be restored, while politicians can hold power in determining which projects to prioritize and fund (Suding 2011). Policy often operates through top-down approaches rather than more integrative bottom-up approaches and lags between knowledge production, policy development, and implementation remain a widely recognized challenge (Dubois et al. 2020). Efforts to unify stakeholders in a participatory restoration process rather than operate through a hierarchical approach could improve restoration potential by promoting long-term community engagement (e.g., Whittaker 2020).
Community engagement and collaborative decision-making can lead to long-term, positive management outcomes (e.g., Couix & Gonzalo-Turpin 2015). Including local and Indigenous communities when implementing restoration is critically important, as restoration efforts will not be as effective in the absence of input and buy-in from those directly affected by these actions, and prolonged engagement ultimately determines the ecological and social benefits of restoring systems (Baker & Eckerberg 2016;Sapkota et al. 2018;Reyes-García et al. 2019). Restoration actions are increasingly successful when traditional knowledge is explicitly incorporated into practice, ensuring Indigenous communities are supported and given opportunities to co-lead restoration initiatives (Tengö et al. 2014;Rayne et al. 2020;Reed et al. 2021). We must shy away from a strictly technical, or productivity-based (e.g., goods and services; Cross et al. 2019), understanding of restoration towards one that includes social and political dimensions (Baker & Eckerberg 2013;Baker et al. 2014), especially when considering how to augment far-reaching and long-lasting restoration solutions.
Despite the inherent interdependence of science and policy, the integration of knowledge between ecological and social spheres is often lacking in federal legislation (Rohlf & Dobkin 2005;Stephens & Ruth 2005). Agencies are mandated to use the best available science (Table S1; Doremus 2004), which presents an opportunity to integrate science in the decision-making process (Archie et al. 2012). Yet the integration of science in policy is flexibly defined and understood (e.g., Gosnell et al. 2017). Policy relies on input from the scientific community and research is often impacted by policymakers. Despite this, the transference of knowledge between the scientific community and policymakers lacks continuity, particularly in the context of restoration (Higgs 2005). A review of 1,582 restoration articles from 13 scientific journals published 2000-2008 showed that less than 10% included policy implications (Aronson et al. 2010). The exclusion of policy considerations in academic literature highlights a systemic issue and is problematic because it decreases the accessibility of scientific knowledge relevant for policymakers to make informed decisions. Accessible language and intentional science communication are important for each of these identified linkages between science and policy since there is potential for policy to drive science or react to existing science. The pervasive "loading-dock" model of science, where scientists produce knowledge and hope that it will fall into the right hands (Cash et al. 2006), has only weakened the linkages between science and policy (Jørgensen et al. 2014). Acknowledging the implicit complexity of collaborative processes between practitioners and policymakers (Fazey et al. 2013), and with the understanding that not all restoration science is actionable or has policy applications, we believe an increased emphasis on the transference of knowledge will improve restoration outcomes.

Divergent Incentives, Perspectives, and Values
Although it is important to deemphasize productivity-focused restoration metrics to advance restoration effectiveness, restoration success is often dependent on productivity-based incentive structures that serve as the impetus for implementing restoration. For example, human health and wellbeing provides a pathway to incentivize increased attention and support for restoration activities (e.g., Aronson et al. 2020;Breed et al. 2021). Given that ecosystem degradation is often associated with public health issues (e.g., smoke and particulate exposure) and restoration can provide benefits to public health (Cross et al. 2019), finding pressure points that connect environmental issues to society and facilitate stakeholder buy-in can incentivize interest and action (Yung et al. 2013). Furthermore, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration Strategy (UN 2021) recognizes political will as one of the main barriers to large-scale restoration. Addressing worrisome trends in environmental degradation could benefit greatly from a coalescence between political will and restoration (Aronson & Alexander 2013;Baker & Eckerberg 2016). Individual, communal, and governmental motivations for restoration may vary because perspectives are tied to values associated with ecosystems and the goods and services they provide. Thus, understanding the ways in which we evaluate restoration goals, implementation approaches, and outcomes is important to consider because policy often builds upon prior successes (Suding 2011;Baker & Eckerberg 2016).
Restoration outcomes can be improved by evaluating past failures and successes through both ecological and social lenses. Although success can drive action, without robust monitoring and analysis of restoration outcomes, success cannot be evaluated effectively and potential positive outcomes are lost (Cooke et al. 2018). Not only is there often a lack of monitoring to characterize outcomes and allow for future work to build upon past experiences, but few restoration projects specifically outline criteria for success (Suding 2011). Furthermore, when criteria are defined, they rarely extend beyond species or diversity monitoring to include improvements or benefits to social elements that relate to local economics, aesthetics, recreation, education, ecosystem services, public health, and justice (but see Executive Order 13990; Table S1). This breadth of potential criteria highlights the importance of considering socioecological impacts in shaping definitions of restoration success to broadly improve buy-in, approaches, and outcomes. Consensus on success criteria among scientists, agencies, policymakers, stakeholders, and communities will help in the process of formulating and evaluating restoration standards (Suding 2011), which could then aid in policymaking to develop necessary and realistic restoration standards (e.g., Gann et al. 2019) to apply at scale.
Beyond the likelihood of variable perspectives of success, it is useful to consider that values determine stakeholder involvement. Different motivations, including cultural differences and divergent reward systems (Cortner 2000;Gibbons et al. 2008;Winkler et al. 2020), can impede the formation of widely supported policy. Values and definitions of success can inform incentive structures to drive vastly different restoration approaches and associated policies (Hobbes et al. 2004; Restoration Ecology May 2023 Shaefer et al. 2015). For example, reward systems for academic researchers involve recognition from the scientific community for work that is published (Gibbons et al. 2008) and this recognition is rarely associated with impacts on policy (West et al. 2019). This system likely prevents the research community from asking timely questions or striving to disseminate knowledge in ways that effectively inform policy. Identifying and emphasizing values that resonate between restoration practitioners, scientists, and policymakers would likely improve restoration outcomes and lead to more streamlined problem solving.

Strategies for Addressing Challenges at the Restoration-Policy Interface
Suggestions for remediating key issues between restoration ecology and policy have long been discussed. Here, we take the above-mentioned challenges and synthesize disparate suggestions to address them; primarily focusing on the social dimensions of the restoration-policy nexus, discussing information accessibility, and streamlining strategies for the future. The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration Strategy suggests that it is possible to catalyze restoration by promoting and engaging in a global movement focused on restoration (UN 2021). This growing movement is apparent in the communal consciousness of ecologists and aligns with the idea of a restorative culture (Cross et al. 2019;Young & Schwartz 2019;Aronson et al. 2020) and the land care ethos (Campbell et al. 2018;Fischer et al. 2021). A restorative culture is critical for inspiring political will and spurring change. As restoration comes to the forefront of the global community, we offer suggestions for addressing challenging social dimensions and policy frameworks that ultimately determine restoration outcomes. We complement these suggestions with a table of federal policies that drive much of the ecological restoration on federal lands in the United States (Table S1).

Policy Strategies
Based on the challenges at the restoration-policy interface we have highlighted above, here we focus on pathways for circumventing barriers associated with policy to achieve restoration targets. Due to a lack of guidance or inadequate policy, global restoration commitments have at times resulted in poor restoration outcomes (e.g., Pinto et al. 2014;Cooke et al. 2019). The UN Decade identifies amending legislative and policy frameworks as one pathway to address political will (UN 2021). The rate of innovation in ecological restoration research and techniques (e.g., Masarei et al. 2021), and the diverse and varied challenges at local, regional, and global scales have prevented systematization of the practice and policy that guides restoration, causing a disjointed forgetfulness that has inhibited progress (Campbell et al. 2018). Furthermore, competing priorities, paired with a dearth of foundational knowledge and funding, pose challenges to implementing broad policy change (Archie et al. 2012). Although policy structures benefit from remaining flexible to ensure compliance and allow for contextual adjustments (Aronson et al. 2011;Benson & Garmestani 2011;Cosens et al. 2021), detailed standards and requirements aimed at the recovery of self-sustaining ecological systems may be more powerful (Palmer & Ruhl 2015). For example, SER provides a "Recovery Wheel" in their international standards that provides concrete categories for evaluating restoration progress (Gann et al. 2019). Decentralized, adaptive, participatory governance in which public citizens and a diversity of stakeholders are empowered to be a part of the decisionmaking process could facilitate restoration progress more effectively than relying on hierarchical governance (Sapkota et al. 2018). Flexibility in governance also accommodates changing landscapes, emerging threats, and changing political priorities, thereby ensuring the relevance and utility of future policy structures (Zedler et al. 2012;Dudney et al. 2022).
Overall, increasing oversight could help ensure that commitments are accomplished in such a way that prioritizes ecosystem functioning and the priorities and values of local communities (Sapkota et al. 2018). For example, adapting governance strategies in response to global change may be successful when managing the legitimacy of shifting policies, and ensuring equity and justice for all stakeholders (Cosens et al. 2021). Suggestions for improving restoration policy often focus on increasing issue salience and enacting change by targeting approaches that address existing governmental priorities (Pannell 2004). Policy may help practitioners meet goals when there is alignment with multiple environmental targets, like promoting biodiversity of entire systems while reforesting landscapes (Temperton et al. 2019). Last, policy structures that focus on rewarding positive actions rather than focusing on legal compliance, when possible, may have greater potential to encourage best practices (Pinto et al. 2014).

Transdisciplinary Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing
Transdisciplinary collaboration (integrating multiple viewpoints in a coordinated attempt to overcome challenges at multiple levels; Pohl 2005), which addresses challenges related to power dynamics, trust, and communication barriers discussed above, can strengthen restoration outcomes because broad engagement can improve issue salience and help manage ideological differences (Baker & Eckerberg 2013, but see Polk 2014. The restoration community benefits by emphasizing partnerships that create a community of practice and consider the human dimensions of ecological restoration (Cooke et al. 2019). Creating a community of practice should invite and support voices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to inform decisionmaking during the initiation, execution, and evaluation phases of restoration projects (Reyes-García et al. 2019). The UN Decade Strategy emphasizes cross-governmental and cross-sectoral dialogues as well as integrating Indigenous knowledge into restoration initiatives as pathways for achieving the goals and vision of the UN Decade (UN 2021). Collaboration can be reinforced through knowledge sharing and strategic communication avenues between policymakers, researchers, managers, and stakeholders in a process of coproduction (Beier et al. 2017;Norström et al. 2020;O'Connor et al. 2021). Scientists should be more intentional about including explicit policy implications and connections gleaned from their research (Aronson et al. 2010;Jørgensen et al. 2014). Direct communication can be paired with restoration knowledge hubs where information is amassed (e.g., The Global Restore Project; Ladouceur et al. 2022) and disseminated between stakeholder groups (Menz et al. 2013). Public policy as an academic discipline can be integrated into science curricula in higher education institutions to train transdisciplinarians and further strengthen the utility of policy implications of research (Cosens et al. 2021), as well as pave the way for new ways of thinking (Fazey et al. 2020). Policy education, coupled with communication training for students, scientists, and practitioners should be leveraged to close the communication gap and improve capacity building (Aronson et al. 2020).

Evidence-Based, Balanced Decision-Making
Evidence-based, balanced decision-making, which incorporates different knowledge systems and equally considers varying perspectives, represents an approach to overcome challenges described above related to divergent incentives, perspectives, and values. Restoration requires a strong knowledge base to support effective decision-making (Murcia et al. 2016;Chazdon et al. 2017). The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and other large-scale initiatives incentivize and promote strengthening this knowledge base to improve restoration understanding and implementation (Young & Schwartz 2019;UN 2021). To identify cohesive and clear objectives and set appropriate priorities (Susskind et al. 2012;Chazdon et al. 2017), research and monitoring are needed to help define minimum standards (Sapkota et al. 2018). A coordinated, national restoration science program that compiles and improves foundational knowledge and ensures results are appropriately disseminated could provide evidence to help practitioners and policymakers identify best practices for restoration (Cooke et al. 2019). This is especially pertinent since identifying best practices relies on utilizing available research (Campbell et al. 2018) to build consensus, which can be accomplished through streamlining information with systematic reviews (Pullin et al. 2009;Cooke et al. 2018) or annotated bibliography reports (Carter et al. 2020) that synthesize connections between science and management. Regular systematic reviews in openaccess journals and written at a broadly accessible level, could help standardize monitoring programs (Suding 2011;Cooke et al. 2018) to develop measurable requirements for meeting commitments and ensuring accountability (Zedler et al. 2012;Fagan et al. 2020). A unified monitoring approach supports building concrete criteria for success to assess progress (Suding 2011;Zedler et al. 2012); criteria for success should also include social and environmental justice considerations. Monitoring will also aid in the valuation of ecosystem services or Nature's Contribution to People (Díaz et al. 2018), which builds incentive for restoration (Shaefer et al. 2015) since economic valuation can be more compelling for policymakers (Menz et al. 2013).

Conclusion
The scientific community has long recognized and detailed restoration and policy challenges that inhibit progress (see Caldwell 1970). Here, we share our perspectives on key strategies that have emerged in the literature as potential tools to fortify the connection between restoration and policy to enhance the efficacy and reach of restoration actions now, and in the future. The need for transdisciplinary collaboration, improved communication, balanced decision-making that includes a diversity of stakeholders, and effective knowledge sharing likely depends, at least in part, on the creation of incentive structures to facilitate dissemination and meaningful partnerships. Perhaps then, monitoring standards and adaptable measures of success to improve current practices can be clearly defined. Some of the barriers are large and may appear unbreakable (e.g., funding, education, policy development) but the motivation and global imperative is clearly driving a forward-looking approach to meet current and future restoration needs by building a research and management ethic focused on solutions. While we use the United States as an example to illustrate some of the connections between restoration efforts, needs, and federal policy, challenges and themes are similar across the globe (e.g., Africa: Djenontin et al. 2018;Favretto et al. 2018;Walters et al. 2019; Asia: Barr & Sayer 2012;Australia: Broadhurst et al. 2015;Richardson & Lefroy 2016;Europe: Keulartz 2009;Borgström et al. 2016;South and Central America: Chaves et al. 2015;Schmidt et al. 2019). Together, these challenges provide the global community with opportunities to rethink approaches to issues impacting humanity and the ecologies we are a part of. To accomplish the monumental restoration goals of today, it is essential to evaluate the social dimensions, including policy frameworks, that determine the outcome of broadscale restoration projects.

Acknowledgments
This work was funded by the Bureau of Land Management Plant Conservation and Restoration Program and Northern Arizona University School of Earth and Sustainability. Contributions from DEW were also supported by the Natural Hazards and Ecosystems Mission Areas of the U.S. Geological Survey. We are grateful to Z. Davidson, S. Reed, and K. Clifford for helpful comments that improved the quality of the manuscript, as well as M. Munson for feedback on the supplemental table of domestic policy. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.