Abstract
The growing literature on “climate‐resilient” ecosystem restoration reflects increased interest in restoration interventions and paradigms that better account for climate change. However, this interest has not broadly translated into practice. Current paradigms in resource and environmental management, and associated regulatory structures, can unintentionally contribute to the implementation gap in climate‐resilient restoration. We present examples of regulatory approaches for emerging (“disruptive”) technologies, such as regulatory greenhouses/sandboxes and risk‐weighted regulation, that could support the practice of climate‐resilient restoration. These approaches are intended to support and keep pace with private sector innovation, while still protecting society and nature from unintended consequences. We then compare these regulatory approaches along three dimensions (coerciveness, directness, and automaticity) to discuss key considerations for their application to restoration.