Including the action of inaction in restoration decision‐making: a coastal perspective

Introduction Marine and coastal restoration is essential to achieving global biodiversity and climate targets, yet progress remains slow. One overlooked barrier is that regulatory permitting frameworks for restoration often assess only the risks of undertaking restoration, without considering the risks of inaction. Objectives We aimed to explore whether and how restoration decision‐making should incorporate counterfactual reasoning by explicitly comparing the consequences of action and inaction. Methods We use a series of global examples to demonstrate how current processes focus on the risks of action, and what the implications of this can be. Results We identify how existing legal and governance arrangements can reinforce a bias toward the status quo and propose practical reforms, including explicit assessment of the risks of inaction and improved coordination across agencies to support more balanced and evidence‐based restoration decisions. Conclusions Legal and governance frameworks requiring consideration of the risks of action and inaction associated with restoration can provide a more accurate picture of the true risks associated with restoration projects.