“…Funds must be directed toward actions that have clear evidence of population benefit (e.g., survival, reproductive success, time to recolonization), with priority given to threatened species that are at risk of long-term population loss due to altered fire regimes, or to regions where invasive predators threaten many species (Geary et al, 2021;Selwood et al, 2022). Further, artificial habitat structures can result in maladaptive or negative outcomes for target species, such as benefiting nonnative competitors (e.g., house mice) or predators, facilitating animal or plant disease spread, providing inappropriate thermal environments, or even acting as greenwashing mechanisms (Cowan et al, 2020;Firth et al, 2020;Roy et al, 2009;Watchorn et al, 2022;Watchorn et al, 2023). Whilst we found no evidence of negative outcomes in this study, further experiments that thoroughly assess these potential risks would be valuable.…”