Abstract Global restoration targets often rely on restoration prioritization maps that highlight areas with high ecological potential, yet real‐world implementation frequently diverges due to land tenure, governance and local socio‐economic conditions. Following a large‐scale forest fire in 2017 that burned over 500,000 ha, Chile's Ministry of Environment designated 270,677 ha as priority zones for landscape restoration in the Maule Region of central Chile. Using this context as a case study, we show how smallholders play a decisive role in shaping where and how restoration actually occurs on‐the‐ground. A comparison with official records and field data from 1922 ha of forest restoration implemented between 2017 and 2024 reveals a clear disconnect: only 12.7% of this restored area overlapped with the 270,677 ha designated by the government as priority zones. Instead, 87% of the total restored area occurred on lands owned by private smallholders, even though they collectively own only about one‐fifth of the total land within these priority zones. To bridge the gap between model‐driven prioritization and real‐world conditions, we propose three practical steps: (i) integrate land tenure and governance into spatial planning, (ii) redesign incentives to support smallholders and (iii) adopt adaptive, co‐produced frameworks. Refining outreach and incentives for corporate and state landholders is also key to broader engagement. Synthesis and applications . Chile's experience highlights that smallholders are not refining top‐down restoration priorities; they are revealing where restoration is actually feasible. They restore in places where tenure, logistics and livelihoods align, exposing the existing limitations of widely used prioritization models and clarifying where restoration can realistically occur. Recognizing the role of smallholders in driving and sustaining restoration efforts can strengthen the legitimacy, feasibility and long‐term success of large‐scale restoration efforts. Empowering landowners is essential to closing the gap between ambitious global targets and effective local action.
Bravo‐Monasterio et al. (Sun,) studied this question.