Introduction
It has been estimated that more than 430 million people worldwide depend on coral reefs to some extent for their provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services [1]. However, coral reef ecosystems are threatened by multiple anthropogenic pressures that are impacting their values and resilience. Among these pressures, recurrent marine heatwaves driven by climate change are causing coral bleaching and mortality events of increasing scale and severity, which threaten to fundamentally alter coral reefs’ ecology, function, and values [2–4].
Traditional approaches to coral reef protection, encompassing the management of direct, localised pressures (e.g., fisheries, land-based runoff, coral predators), are widely recognised as important but insufficient for preserving coral reefs as oceans warm rapidly [5–7]. Consequently, new technological approaches are being developed and tested to help restore degraded reefs at increasing scales, and to improve the tolerance of corals to warmer waters [8, 9].
Assisted coral recovery (ACR; often referred to as coral restoration) aims to accelerate the replenishment of corals at damaged or degraded reefs and increase reef resilience. ACR encompasses a variety of techniques which foster the growth of juvenile corals or fragments on devices at reefs or in aquaria prior to colonies being deployed or ‘out-planted’ back onto the reef substrate, as well as techniques to stabilise rubble habitats and thereby allow coral regrowth, and techniques to enhance larval settlement onto reef substrate [9–11]. Globally, over the past two decades, ACR projects have been labour-intensive and applied at reef sites rarely exceeding one hectare [10]. However, ACR techniques are advancing rapidly, incorporating new science to breed heat tolerant corals, and engineering to increase the scale of production and spatial extent of future deployments [9, 12–14].
Public perceptions and support for assisted coral recovery
Public perceptions and public acceptance of environmental protection interventions are critical, underpinning political support and public resourcing [15–17]. Whether stated explicitly or otherwise, most ACR initiatives aim to restore and/or protect social, economic, and cultural values and ecosystem services attributed to coral reef sites, alongside ecological values and functions [18, 19]. Understanding and monitoring this multiplex of values to determine the appropriateness of an ecological intervention and/or to evaluate its success or failure is a significant challenge. As the ecological processes and state of coral reefs fluctuate in response to climatic and other pressures, the interrelated social, economic, and cultural values and processes (i.e., human dimensions) too are dynamic and responsive to myriad pressures. Monitoring public perceptions of proposed or initiated ecological interventions can provide insights to some of those human values and their responsiveness to alterations in the natural environment, as well as the public acceptability of risks associated with the intervention [20–22].
To date, research and monitoring of public perceptions and support for coral reef interventions, including ACR, has largely utilised ex situ surveys in which respondents indicate their level of support or concern for specific intervention types (and/or scenarios) that are defined or briefly described [e.g., 20–23] and/or accompanied by imagery [e.g., 17]. Such studies have generally found that most intervention types are broadly supported, with some conditions and predictive factors identified. However, the ways in which such interventions are described or depicted can influence respondent perceptions (e.g., through the use of emotive or normative frames [17]), and studies of this nature can thus be subject to researcher or proponent biases. In situ studies can provide an opportunity to better understand people’s perceptions and understandings that arise from a first-hand observation and experience, and they can potentially help to ‘ground truth’ findings derived from ex situ studies.
Public, stakeholder and rights-holder (including Traditional Owner) understandings and perceptions of ecological restoration interventions do not arise in an information vacuum. It is therefore incumbent on the proponents of interventions to engage with relevant communities and the wider public to build a shared understanding of the risks and benefits of proposed interventions, as well as to foster opportunities for local communities and enterprises to benefit from such initiatives [24, 25]. Demonstration sites offer one approach to engaging community representatives and the wider public in a meaningful way, enabling sharing of perspectives and knowledge alongside the transparent evaluation of an intervention trial at an early stage and relatively small scale [9, 26].
Our study explores public perceptions of ACR trials in situ, involving tourists and local residents visiting sites in the northern Great Barrier Reef (GBR). This work is undertaken as part of a broader suite of research and monitoring activities to (a) better understand public perceptions and support for ACR and other technological interventions to build coral reef resilience, and (b) engage local communities in deliberative risk governance and co-development of benefit pathways from coral reef interventions (within Australia’s Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program; https://gbrrestoration.org/program/engagement/).
Case study context: ACR trials at tourism sites in the northern Great Barrier Reef
In the GBR, ACR trials have expanded rapidly since mass coral bleaching events in 2016 and 2017, supported by changes in Marine Park management policy to enable restoration and other interventions [9, 27, 28]. Such field trials are conducted under a Marine Parks permit for scientific research and are led by a range of organisations including scientific institutions, marine tourism businesses, and not-for-profit and non-government organisations [29]. Most ACR trials occupy areas of reef substrate less than 100m2 and many are deployed in proximity to tourism facilities, including moorings and pontoons that are visited regularly by Reef tourism operations [30].
Numerous types of ACR device are deployed in field trials across the Great Barrier Reef (see examples in Fig 1). Our study explored visitor perceptions associated with three device types present at reef tourism sites in the Cairns-Port Douglas region of the GBR Marine Park (Fig 2). These included: (1) ‘Reef Stars’ (produced by the Mars Assisted Reef Restoration SystemTM [31])–a modular system of hexagonal metal frames with live coral fragments attached, positioned and interlocked on the substrate (usually coral rubble) to provide a stable platform for corals to grow, (2) coral nursery frames (used by the Coral Nurture Program; https://www.coralnurtureprogram.org/)—a metal grill suspended above the substrate, used to attach and grow coral fragments to a suitable size prior to out-planting, and (3) coral seeding devices (CSD; engineered by the Australian Institute of Marine Science [32])–a modular and mass-producible ceramic housing designed to hold and protect juvenile corals that had spawned and settled in an aquarium, prior to being deployed on reef substrate. Other types of ACR devices were in use in the region at the time of our study, including Coralclip(s)® [33], coral nursery trees (used by the Reef Restoration Foundation; https://rrf.org.au/; also shown in Fig 1), and rubble-stabilising mesh. However, these other devices were either not present at our study sites or were deemed unlikely to be observed by enough visitors during our study’s timeframe to produce meaningful results.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Panels a–c show: (a) ‘Reef Stars’, with coral fragments attached, deployed over a coral rubble field, (b) a coral nursery frame, suspended in the water column to aid rapid re-growth of coral fragments, and (c) coral seeding devices (CSDs), which hold and protect juvenile corals, allowing them to grow on a range of substrates, including coral rubble. Panel (d) shows coral trees (not included in the study), used for growing coral fragments that are later re-attached to the reef.
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Map created using ArcGIS software from ESRI [34]. Basemaps supported by ESRI and reprinted under the ESRI Master License Agreement, CC BY 4.0. Original copyright ESRI 2024.
The presence of ACR devices at reef tourism sites presents opportunities for tourists and other visitors to observe and learn about them. Crew from the tourism vessels typically present a range of educational information to passengers about coral reef ecology and threats, as well as their involvement in local reef stewardship, including ACR activities, with an explanation of the devices that are observable at their site(s) (authors’ pers obs.). It is hypothesised that Reef visitors’ observation of ACR devices in situ does not negatively affect visitors’ satisfaction with their coral reef experience, and if accompanied by appropriate educational information, such experiences may help to raise awareness and support for ACR and other coral reef protection efforts. However, these hypotheses have not, to our knowledge been previously empirically tested.
Multiple factors are known to influence coral reef visitors’ satisfaction, including (and not limited to) the weather, the visited site’s physical and aesthetic characteristics (e.g. water clarity, coral assemblages, fish abundance), facilities and infrastructure, tour service quality and hospitality, cultural and personal factors (including seasickness), prior experience and expectations, and social interactions [35–39].
Study aims
Using a visitor survey, our case study sought to assess the influence of seeing ACR devices in situ on Reef visitors’ experiences and risk perceptions about the use of such devices. Specifically, we investigated whether the observation of ACR devices on coral reef sites had any effect (positive or negative) on Reef visitors’: (a) overall satisfaction with their Reef trip, (b) perceptions of the aesthetic beauty of the Reef site(s) visited, (c) concern about the future health of the Reef, and (d) concern about the use of ACR devices on the Reef. We compared the relative effect of seeing ACR devices to other potential factors of influence, including the weather conditions, visitor demography (age and local residence/visitor status), their self-assessed level of knowledge and experience of coral reefs, the perceived condition/health of the reef site(s) visited, and the perceived quality of educational information that accompanied the visitors’ Reef experiences.
Findings from this case study are relevant to ACR practitioners and proponents, including scientists, Traditional Owners, coral reef managers and marine tourism operators who are concerned about public visibility of ACR trials, Reef visitor perceptions and support for ACR, and the potential value of demonstration sites that seek to enhance public understanding and support for resilience-building coral reef interventions.
Materials and methods
Survey design and reef sites
As part of a collaborative partnership approach, our visitor survey, based on a self-administered questionnaire, was co-designed with input from several Reef tourism operators in the Cairns and Port Douglas region who were involved in ACR trials at their reef sites. To enable robust statistical comparisons of the potential effect of observing ACR devices in situ, we sought to collect equivalent samples of visitors who saw ACR devices on their Reef day trip and visitors who did not see ACR devices.
Surveys were conducted on five vessels that visited one or more reef sites (8 sites in total) at which ACR devices were deployed. Due to the varying spatial extent of each reef site (up to several hectares), varied topography, relative space used by the different ACR trials (up to approximately 500m2 at one reef site) and their varying proximity to the vessel or other tourist facilities, not all passengers were able to observe ACR devices on their trip, regardless of the vessel. At some reef sites, the ACR devices were only visible to a small proportion of passengers, for example, those who took part in a guided snorkel or semi-submersible tour. Thus, on each trip, a varying proportion of passengers observed ACR devices in situ.
Images and a description of each type of ACR device were provided on the cover page of each questionnaire for respondents’ reference (as per Fig 1). Coral nursery frames were deployed at five different reef sites (two sites at Opal Reef and three sites at Hastings Reef), while Reef Stars were deployed at two sites (one in the vicinity of Green Island, and one at Moore Reef) and CSDs were deployed at one reef site only (Moore Reef; see Fig 2). We note that at the time of the study, CSDs could only be viewed by small groups of visitors who took part in an ‘adventure snorkel safari’ from one of the participating vessels. These snorkellers were typically accompanied by a tour guide who led them to the location of the CSDs and then pointed them out as a feature of interest. Even then, the devices were occasionally difficult to see amidst the coral rubble, due to their depth (approx. 6m) and their accumulation of algae over time. Other devices were typically observed by reef visitors who participated in snorkelling, scuba diving, and/or guided semi-submersible/glass-bottom boat tours.
Research participants, sampling protocol and ethics
Our target population was English speaking GBR visitors (noting our language capability limitations) over 18 years of age, who took part in a GBR day trip on one of the five selected vessels, visiting site(s) in the Cairns-Port Douglas region at which ACR devices were deployed, during September and October 2023. The survey was timed over the school holidays to maximise the number of potential participants over the sampling timeframe. Questionnaires were distributed in paper form by a member of the research team and/or a member of the vessel crew on the return journey from the Reef site(s) to Cairns or Port Douglas. They were typically distributed to passengers in the main saloon, inside the vessel, which provided seating and tables amenable to completing a questionnaire. Researchers and/or crew would make a brief announcement to passengers about the purpose and terms of the survey before inviting passengers to participate and distributing questionnaires. Completion of the questionnaire took between five and ten minutes for most respondents.
Prior to commencement, the study was reviewed and approved by CSIRO’s Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval #131/21) in accordance with Australia’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007). Consent to participate was given verbally. Respondents were asked if they would like to participate, and if they agreed, they were provided a paper copy of the survey and a pen. Details about the purpose of the study, the handling and uses of the data, respondents’ anonymity and other ethical considerations were provided on the survey cover sheet, and all respondents’ participation was entirely voluntary. Additionally, the survey cover sheet stated that respondents were free to withdraw by stopping the survey at any time. Consent to participate was implied if respondents completed and returned their questionnaire to the researcher on board. Approximately 50 incomplete, returned questionnaires were excluded from the study.
Survey questions
Survey questions focussed on Reef visitors’ experience during their day trip to one or more GBR sites. Likert-style ten-point rating scales were provided for responses to questions about: visitors’ overall trip satisfaction (1 = ‘very dissatisfied’; 10 = ‘extremely satisfied’), perceptions of the visual beauty of the reef site(s) they visited (1 = ‘very ugly, unpleasant’; 10 = ‘exceptionally beautiful’), perceptions of the overall condition of the reef site(s) they visited (1 = ‘very poor, unhealthy’; 10 = ‘excellent condition’), concern about the use of ACR devices on the Reef and concern about the future health of the Reef (1 = ‘not concerned at all’; 10 = ‘extremely concerned’), and their evaluation of the quality of information they received about ACR on their trip (1 = ‘very poor quality’; 10 = ‘excellent quality’).
Additional questions solicited information about respondents’ demography (country of residence, age in categories, gender), their self-assessed level of knowledge and experience of coral reefs (10-point rating scale; 1 = ‘novice, low familiarity with coral reefs, health and ecology’; 10 = ‘expert, highly experienced and knowledgeable about coral reef health and ecology’), their perception of the weather on the day of their trip (5 categories; 1 = ‘terrible’, 2 = ‘poor’, 3 = ‘fair’, 4 = ‘good’, 5 = ‘amazing’), their activities whilst visiting the Reef on the day, their prior awareness of ACR on the GBR, and whether they had seen any ACR devices on their trip to the GBR that day, including the four types of devices, as explained on the cover sheet.
We used ten-point Likert-type rating scales for appropriate questions, as methodological experiments have shown they offer higher statistical discriminating power and test-retest reliability than shorter scale lengths, are less prone to response-style biases than five and seven-point scales, and are preferred by most survey respondents over other scale lengths [40, 41]. We also used categorical responses (with fewer options) for some questions to reduce respondents’ cognitive burden (e.g., when estimating the weather conditions).
Data analyses
We used R Statistical Software (v4.3.1) [42] to perform a series of ordinal logistic regression analyses with respondents’ numerical ratings given in response to the questions outlined above. Assumptions relevant to the ordinal logistic regression tests performed in this study include proportional odds, goodness of fit, and no multicollinearity. We investigated the latter by calculating variance inflation factors (VIF), where values less than five were deemed acceptable. We used a Brant test to check for the assumption of proportional odds (also known as parallel lines) and the Lipsitz test to assess goodness of fit [43, 44]. We also ran a rank-based, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test to examine potential differences in the distributions of ratings of concern about the use of ACR devices between groups of respondents who had seen different types of device.
Sample description
The survey resulted in a total of 708 eligible respondents from five participating vessels, 346 of whom (49%) reported that they saw one or more ACR devices on the reef sites they visited that day. Of those who saw ACR devices, 165 (23%) reported seeing Reef Stars, while 164 (23%) reported seeing coral nursery frames, and 56 (8%) reported seeing CSDs. From one of the vessels (Vessel A) it was possible to observe both Reef Stars and CSDs on the same reef trip, and 39 respondents from this vessel reported seeing both. The number of respondents from each of the five vessels (and proportion that saw any ACR device in %) was: Vessel A: n = 262 (64% saw ACR device(s)), Vessel B: n = 151 (42%), Vessel C: n = 150 (9%), Vessel D: n = 91 (85%), and Vessel E: n = 54 (44%). We note that 20 respondents (6 from Vessel B, 7 from Vessel C, and 7 from Vessel D) reported that they had seen CSDs in addition to other types of device, despite CSDs only being present at the site visited by Vessel A.
From the total sample, 413 respondents (58%) identified as female and 282 (40%) identified as male. Alternate gender response options included ‘other’ (n = 3 respondents) and ‘prefer not to say’ (n = 2). A further eight respondents left the field blank. Due to their low occurrence, the latter two response options were omitted from our regression tests of gender as a predictor variable. The category representing the median age of respondents was 35 to 44 years. Respondents came from 33 different countries; however, 423 (60%) were Australian and 55 (8%) were residents of the Great Barrier Reef catchment region, living between Bundaberg and Cape York, east of the Great Dividing Range (indicated via postcode). Other countries with the largest proportion of respondents included the United Kingdom (n = 56; 8% of the total sample), the USA (n = 54; 8%), China (n = 31; 4%), Germany (n = 24; 3%), and New Zealand (n = 21; 3%).
Results
Satisfaction with reef trip
The mean rating of overall trip satisfaction for the total sample was 8.67 out of ten (±0.048 SE; n = 708), with 60% of respondents (n = 422) providing a rating of nine or ten, indicating they were ‘extremely satisfied’. Ordinal regression tests investigated potential relationships between respondents’ ratings of their overall trip satisfaction and seeing ACR devices, alongside other factors including respondents’: (i) age category, (ii) place of residence (i.e., comparing residents of the GBR catchment region with visitors to the region), (iii) self-rated level of knowledge and experience of coral reefs, (iv) perceived quality of information they received about ACR on their trip, (v) perceived condition of the reef site(s) they visited, and (vi) perceived weather conditions during their Reef day trip (Fig 3A).
[Figure omitted. See PDF.]
Ordinal regression test results plotting survey respondents’ ratings of (a) overall trip satisfaction, (b) perceived beauty of the reef site(s) they visited, (c) concern about the future health of the Great Barrier Reef, and (d) concern about the use of assisted coral recovery (ACR) devices on the reef, with potential predictor variables, including seeing ACR devices at the reef site(s) they visited. Panels a–d show regression coefficients [dots] and standard error [SE] bars, indicating statistical significance of the relationship where the SE bar does not intersect with zero [dotted line] (n = 708). Blue colouring indicates a significant positive relationship and red colouring indicates a significant negative relationship.
Significant positive relationships with overall trip satisfaction were found for (i) weather conditions (which had the strongest effect size; β = 0.777; z = 6.366; p = 0.000), (ii) perceived condition of the reef site(s) (β = 0.555; z = 6.892; p = 0.000), and (iii) perceived quality of information received on the trip (β = 0.193; z = 3.345; p = 0.001). There was no significant relationship between overall trip satisfaction and seeing ACR devices (β = 0.151; z = 0.706; p = 0.480), nor any relationship with respondents’ residency in the GBR region (β = 0.128; z = 0.418; p = 0.676), age (β = 0.021; z = 0.258; p = 0.797), knowledge and experience of coral reefs (β = -0.013; z = -0.257; p = 0.797), or gender (β = -0.280; z = -1.308; p = 0.191; Fig 3A).
Perceived beauty of reef sites
The mean rating for visual beauty of the reef site(s) for the total sample was 8.21 out of ten (±0.059 SE; n = 708), with 46% of respondents (n = 329) providing a rating of nine or ten, indicating they perceived the reef site(s) to be ‘exceptionally beautiful’. Regression test results revealed no significant relationship between respondents’ rating of the visual beauty of the reef site(s) they visited and seeing ACR devices (β = 0.188; z = 0.867; p = 0.386), nor with their residency in the GBR region (β = 0.341; z = 1.046; p = 0.295), gender (β = 0.250; z = 1.159; p = 0.246), or perceived weather conditions (β = 0.184; z = 1.568; p = 0.117; Fig 3B). However, significant positive relationships were found with respondents’ perceived condition of the reef site(s) (with the strongest effect size; β = 1.299; z = 13.084; p = 0.000), and respondents’ perceived quality of information received on the trip (β = 0.220; z = 3.625; p = 0.000), while significant negative relationships were found with respondents’ knowledge and experience of coral reefs (β = -0.110; z = -2.139; p = 0.032) and their age (β = -1.62; z = -2.074; p = 0.038)–i.e., older respondents and those with greater knowledge and experience of coral reefs were slightly more likely to give lower ratings for the visual beauty of the reef site(s).
Concern about future health of the GBR
The mean rating for concern about the future health of the GBR for the total sample was 8.06 out of ten (±0.076 SE; n = 695), and 48% of respondents (n = 331) gave a rating of nine or ten, indicating they were ‘extremely concerned’ about the future health of the GBR. Only one variable, respondent age, was found to have a significant positive relationship with concern about the future health of the GBR (β = 0.180; z = 2.404; p = 0.016)–i.e., older respondents were more likely to give higher ratings of concern (Fig 3C). No significant relationships were found between respondents’ ratings for concern about the future health of the GBR and other variables tested, including perceived weather conditions (β = 0.068; z = 0.619; p = 0.536), perceived quality of information received on the trip (β = 0.029; z = 0.537; p = 0.591), respondents’ knowledge and experience of coral reefs (β = -0.002; z = -0.053; p = 0.958), residency in the GBR region (β = -0.059; z = -0.202; p = 0.840), seeing ACR devices (β = -0.095; z = -0.463; p = 0.643), perceived condition of the reef site(s) visited (β = -0.126; z = -1.882; p = 0.060), or respondent gender (β = -0.262; z = -1.295; p = 0.195; Fig 3C).
Concern about the use of ACR devices
The mean rating for concern about the use of ACR devices on the Reef for the total sample was 2.69 out of ten (±0.095 SE; n = 684). Five per cent of respondents (n = 32) gave a rating of nine or ten, indicating they were ‘extremely concerned’ about the use of ACR devices, while 65% (n = 446) gave a rating of one or two, indicating they were ‘not concerned at all’. Ordinal regression tests revealed a significant negative relationship between respondents’ concern about the use of ACR devices on the reef and seeing ACR devices–i.e., respondents who saw ACR devices deployed at the reef sites they visited were more likely to express lower levels of concern about their use (β = -0.494; z = -2.198; p = 0.028). There was also a small but significant positive relationship between respondents’ ratings of concern about the use of ACR devices and their self-rated level of knowledge and experience of coral reefs (β = 0.160; z = 2.967; p = 0.003)–i.e., respondents with greater knowledge and experience of coral reefs were slightly more likely to give higher ratings of concern (Fig 3D).
Other variables showed no significant relationship with concern about the use of ACR devices, including the weather conditions (β = 0.095; z = 0.760; p = 0.447), respondent gender (β = -0.018; z = -0.080; p = 0.936), age (β = -0.024; z = -0.302; p = 0.762), perceived quality of information (β = -0.080; z = -1.326; p = 0.185), perceived condition of the reef site(s) (β = -0.081; z = -1.112; p = 0.266) and respondents’ residency in the GBR region (β = -0.654; z = -1.815; p = 0.070; Fig 3D).
Differences between device types
We compared mean ratings of concern about the use of ACR devices between groups of respondents who saw different device types, including CSDs (Group A; n = 56 including the 39 who had seen both CSDs and Reef Stars; = 2.24 ± 0.272 SE), Reef Stars (Group B; n = 126 who had only seen Reef Stars; = 2.55 ± 0.199 SE), and coral nursery frames (Group C; n = 164; = 2.19 ± 0.185 SE). An Independent Samples Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA found no significant difference between the three groups’ distributions of ratings of concern about the use of ACR devices (X2 = 5.63, p = 0.06, df = 2).
General perceptions of ACR devices
Respondents were asked: “Do you think this kind of assisted coral recovery on the Great Barrier Reef is worthwhile?” Short response categories (tick-boxes) included ‘yes,’ ‘no’ and ‘unsure’, and a space was provided for respondents to write a brief explanation for their answer. Of the 699 respondents who answered the question, 86% (n = 599) indicated ‘yes’, while 14% (n = 95) indicated ‘unsure’ and less than 1% (n = 5) indicated ‘no’ in the short response. A total of 291 respondents provided a short text explanation for their response. Only two of the five respondents who indicated ‘no’ to the preceding question provided a brief statement. Those statements were: “Seem completely innocuous”, and “A really good idea”–the latter statement being incongruous with their ‘no’ response.
Text responses among respondents who indicated they were unsure about whether this kind of ACR on the GBR is worthwhile (n = 39 in total) were more varied. Example statements included: “I don’t know enough to judge”, “It doesn’t hurt the experience”, “If they help the reef then I am not concerned”, “Could this disturb the natural balance of the reef?”, “They are a sign of the times”, “If they are meant to help reef recovery, then yes I am concerned about how effective they are”, “The ones we saw were anchored in sand and there was no problem that we could foresee”, and “These devices, while useful, will not offset climate change”.
Statements provided by respondents who thought this kind of ACR was worthwhile (n = 250 in total) were similarly varied. Example statements included: “Not sure if there’s any drawbacks of using these devices”, “Yes, these devices are important for the regrowth”, “I have seen a documentary on coral reef repopulation”, “Whatever helps the reef is a good thing”, “We were concerned about leaving nails/wire in the water”, “Seems benefits would outweigh any risks”, “Low impact in appearance”, “Small amount of concern as they are introduced man-made products. But they break down over time which is good”, and “I believe you have to do as much as possible to recover the reef”.
Discussion
Key findings from our study included: (1) no significant influence of seeing ACR devices at reef sites on reef visitors’ overall trip satisfaction, perceptions of the reef’s visual aesthetic beauty, and concern about the future health of the GBR, and (2) concerns about the use of ACR devices were significantly lower among visitors who observed them at reef site(s).
Our findings have implications for those involved in planning, designing, and delivering ACR initiatives and other coral reef protection interventions. Public concerns about the deployment of human-made devices in a natural coral reef setting, particularly within a World Heritage Area inscribed for its natural values, are likely to be an important consideration that influences decisions about the location of such deployments and the potential value of demonstration sites. While most survey respondents indicated a low level of concern overall about the use of ACR devices on reef sites, we note that small groups of opponents can wield significant social and political influence that can undermine political support for environmental interventions and developments [45]. As new techniques and types of intervention are developed and tested, and as the deployment of intervention technologies increases in spatial scale, proponents and decision makers may wish to foster greater public understanding of either positive or negative impacts of such interventions to Reef values by providing greater opportunities for public observation to build familiarity.
Reef tourism operators are already playing a valuable role in influencing public perceptions of ACR, by enabling Reef visitors to observe the devices in situ, and through their delivery of accompanying educational information. While an evaluation of the content and delivery of such information was beyond our study’s scope, our results indicate that the perceived quality of interpretive information has a significant influence on visitor satisfaction and aesthetic perceptions of the reef site(s) they visited (Fig 3A and 3B). These insights are valuable for shaping the design and delivery of the rapidly evolving field of ACR in a way that is more alert to social, economic, and cultural values alongside ecological values. Further research that involves co-designing and evaluating demonstration sites for ACR, including the content and delivery of interpretive material that accompanies reef visitors’ exposure to ACR initiatives, would seem worthwhile. In addition to raising public awareness of Reef threats, ACR and other Reef protection interventions, the provision of high-quality interpretive material may also enhance Reef visitors’ satisfaction, benefitting tourism businesses. Better understanding of these benefits to tourism operators could also help inform positive progress on the types of service provision or collaborative business models needed to help scale restoration activities.
Limitations, knowledge gaps and further research
The influence of other factors such as weather, service quality, and reef condition (among other things) on reef visitors’ trip satisfaction are well documented [e.g., 36]. However, our study is the first to compare the relative effect of observing ACR devices in situ with such factors. While our analysis of survey data finds no evidence that the presence of ACR devices detracts from Reef visitor experiences, we note that the ACR deployments in this study were confined to relatively small areas (and in some cases were hard to find, due to algal growth or coral cover), among an otherwise natural and unaltered coral reef setting. Larger scale deployments to restore damaged or degraded reefs may elicit a different visitor and/or public reaction, particularly if the setting is dominated by artificial assemblages.
Our study was limited in scope, recruiting only English-speaking respondents, and using a limited number of survey questions to enable short completion times and minimise its potential intrusiveness for Reef visitors. The GBR receives a diversity of international visitors each year, and future studies that include non-English speaking participants may identify other demographic and cultural factors that influence reef visitor perceptions of ACR devices. Similarly, our study was limited to only eight Reef sites in a relatively small region (Fig 2), and it was beyond our ability to quantify or control the environmental conditions and myriad other in situ variables that may have contributed to respondents’ experiences and survey responses. Further research and monitoring of public, stakeholder, and rights-holder perceptions and support are therefore needed to accompany different types of interventions at varying scales, and longitudinal studies could enable the assessment of any enduring impacts of ACR on public understanding and acceptance, as well as on coral reef health. Demonstration sites can help to facilitate such studies while providing opportunities for meaningful engagement between ACR proponents and communities. These types of integrated, place-based, and accessible monitoring strategies that include tracking site visitors’ and others’ perceptions of ACR devices in addition to ecological outcomes, we believe, will be increasingly important for restoration proponents in improving transparency and accountability and therefore public, regulator and investor support.
Conclusion
Overall, respondents expressed a very high to extreme level of concern about the future health of the GBR, and most considered ACR efforts to be worthwhile. We note that in the months following our survey’s completion the GBR was subjected to a fifth widespread coral bleaching event since 2016, as part of a global coral bleaching event attributed to unprecedented ocean temperatures [4, 46]. Considering the GBR’s importance as an iconic ecosystem for Australians and the international community [47, 48], its dire outlook in the face of a rapidly changing climate [49, 50], and public sentiment responses to recent major coral bleaching events [51, 52], there is a strong impetus for the rapid advancement and scaling of ACR and other coral reef interventions. However, while public support for specific coral reef interventions is not guaranteed, there is, at the same time, a desire amongst publics to retain a sense of individual and collective efficacy for action, and a sense of hope for the future [53, 54]. Studies such as this provide a clear signal that both these ambitions remain possible.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the Traditional Owners and custodians of the sea country on which our study took place, including the Gunggandji, Yirrganydji, and Eastern Kuku Yalanji peoples.
This study was conducted as part of research activities by the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program’s (RRAP) Best Practice Stakeholder and Traditional Owner Engagement Subprogram (https://gbrrestoration.org/program/engagement/). The study would not have been possible without in-kind support from partners in the Cairns and Port Douglas region, including GBR Biology (Experience Co Ltd), the Reef Restoration Foundation, Passions of Paradise, Wavelength Reef Cruises, Down Under Cruise and Dive, Quicksilver Connections, TropWATER, and the Cairns–Port Douglas Reef Hub (https://www.reefhub.com.au/).
The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or expressed herein, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. 1. Wong AS, Vrontos S, Taylor ML. An assessment of people living by coral reefs over space and time. Glob. Change Biol. 2022; 28(23): 7139–7153. pmid:36168958
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
2. 2. Hughes TP, Kerry JT, Baird AH, Connolly SR, Dietzel A, Eakin CM, et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature. 2018; 556: 492–496. pmid:29670282
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
3. 3. Eddy TD, Lam VWY, Reygondeau G, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Greer K, Palomares MLD, et al. Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services. One Earth. 2021; 4: 1278–1285.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
4. 4. NOAA. NOAA confirms 4th global coral bleaching event. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration media release 15th April 2024. Available from: https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-confirms-4th-global-coral-bleaching-event
5. 5. van Oppen MJH, Gates RD, Blackall LL, Cantin N, Chakravarti LJ, Chan WY, et al. Shifting paradigms in restoration of the world’s coral reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 2017; 23(9): 3437–3448. pmid:28247459
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
6. 6. Bruno JF, Côté IM, Toth LT. Climate Change, Coral Loss, and the Curious Case of the Parrotfish Paradigm: Why Don’t Marine Protected Areas Improve Reef Resilience? Annu Rev Mar Sci. 2019; 11: 307–334. pmid:30606097
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
7. 7. Bowden-Kerby A. Coral-Focused Climate Change Adaptation and Restoration Based on Accelerating Natural Processes: Launching the “Reefs of Hope” Paradigm. Oceans. 2023; 4(1): 13–26.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
8. 8. Suggett DJ, van Oppen MJH. Horizon scan of rapidly advancing coral restoration approaches for 21st century reef management. Emerg Top Life Sci. 2022; 6(1): 125–136. pmid:35119476
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
9. 9. McLeod IM, Hein MY, Babcock R, Bay L, Bourne DG, Cook N, et al. Coral restoration and adaptation in Australia: The first five years. PLoS ONE. 2022; 17(11): e0273325. pmid:36449458
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
10. 10. Boström-Einarsson L, Babcock RC, Bayraktarov E, Ceccarelli D, Cook N, Ferse SCA, et al. Coral restoration–A systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15(1): e0226631. pmid:31999709
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
11. 11. Hein MY, Vardi T, Shaver EC, Pioch S, Boström-Einarsson L, Ahmed M, et al. Perspectives on the Use of Coral Reef Restoration as a Strategy to Support and Improve Reef Ecosystem Services. Front Mar Sci. 2021; 8: 618303.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
12. 12. Randall CJ, Webster N, Negri AP, Quigley KM, Doropoulos C, Bay LK. Fast-tracking knowledge to breed, settle and field deploy corals required for restoration at scale. Report prepared for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Townsville: Australian Institute of Marine Science; 2020. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21254.70726
13. 13. Howells EJ, Abrego D, Liew YJ, Burt JA, Meyer E, Aranda M. Enhancing the heat tolerance of reef-building corals to future warming. Sci Adv. 2021; 7(34): eabg6070. pmid:34417178
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
14. 14. Schmidt-Roach S, Klaus R, Al-Suwailem AM, Prieto AR, Charrière J, Hauser CAE, et al. Novel infrastructure for coral gardening and reefscaping. Front Mar Sci. 2023; 10: 1110830.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
15. 15. van Marwijk RBM, Elands BHM, Kampen JK, Terlouw S, Pitt DG, Opdam P. Public Perceptions of the Attractiveness of Restored Nature. Restor Ecol. 2012; 20(6): 773–780.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
16. 16. Vella K, Baresi U, Lockie S, Taylor B. Challenges and opportunities for assisted regional ecosystem adaptation: International experience and implications for adaptation research. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16(9): e0257868. pmid:34559843
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
17. 17. Le D, Becken S, Curnock M. Gaining public engagement to restore coral reef ecosystems in the face of acute crisis. Glob Environ Change. 2022; 74: 102513.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
18. 18. Hein MY, Willis BL, Beeden R, Birtles A. The need for broader ecological and socioeconomic tools to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration programs. Restor Ecol. 2017; 25(6): 873–883.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
19. 19. Pascoe S, Anthony K, Scheufele G, Pears RJ. Identifying coral reef restoration objectives: A framework. Ocean Coast Manag. 2024; 251: 107081.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
20. 20. Taylor B, Vella K, Maclean K, Newlands M, Ritchie B, Lockie S, et al. Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program: Stakeholder, Traditional Owner and Community Engagement Assessment. A report provided to the Australian Government by the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program; 2019. Available from: https://gbrrestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/T1-Stakeholder-Traditional-Owner-Community-Engagement-Assessment3.pdf
21. 21. Mankad A, Hobman EV, Carter L. Genetically Engineering Coral for Conservation: Psychological Correlates of Public Acceptability. Front Mar Sci. 2021; 8: 710641.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
22. 22. Sie L, Ritchie BW, Lockie S. Australian attitudes toward the protection and restoration of the Great Barrier Reef: Summary Findings. Report for the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program; 2022. Available from: https://gbrrestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022_Biennial-Survey_summary-finding-report_18.07.22.pdf
23. 23. Ng CSL, Toh TC, Toh KB, Sam SQ, Kikuzawa YP, Chou LM, et al. Enhancing reef restoration by assessing stakeholder knowledge, attitudes, and preferences. Restor Ecol. 2023; 31(5): e13854.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
24. 24. Westoby R, Becken S, Laria AP. Perspectives on the human dimensions of coral restoration. Reg Environ Change. 2020; 20: 109.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
25. 25. Suggett DJ, Edwards M, Cotton D, Hein M, Camp EF. An integrative framework for sustainable coral reef restoration. One Earth. 2023; 6(6): 666–681.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
26. 26. Gardeström J, Holmqvist D, Polvi LE, Nilsson C. Demonstration restoration measures in tributaries of the Vindel River catchment. Ecol Soc. 2013; 18(3): 8.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
27. 27. GBRMPA. Great Barrier Reef Blueprint for Resilience. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2017. Available from: https://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/3287
28. 28. GBRMPA. Policy on Great Barrier Reef interventions (Document no. 100513). Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2020. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/11017/3674
29. 29. GBRMPA. Current Permit Applications and Decisions (current permits; online portal). Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2024. Available from: https://www2.gbrmpa.gov.au/access/permits/current-permit-application-and-decisions
30. 30. Howlett L, Camp EF, Edmondson J, Edmondson J, Agius T, Hosp R, et al. Adoption of coral propagation and out-planting via the tourism industry to advance site stewardship on the northern Great Barrier Reef. Ocean Coast Manag. 2022; 225: 106199.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
31. 31. Smith DJ, Mars F, Williams S, van Oostrum J, McArdle A, Rapi S. et al. Chapter 18–Indonesia: Mars Assisted Reef Restoration system. In Vaughan DE, editor. Active coral restoration: techniques for a changing planet. USA: J. Ross Publishing; 2021. pp. 463–481.
32. 32. Whitman TN, Hoogenboom M, Negri A, Randall C. Coral-seeding devices with fish-exclusion features reduce mortality on the Great Barrier Reef. Sci Rep. 2024; 14: 13332. pmid:38858572
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
33. 33. Suggett DJ, Edmondson J, Howlett L, Camp EF. Coralclip®: a low-cost solution for rapid and targeted out-planting of coral at scale. Restor Ecol. 2019; 28(2): 289–296.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
34. 34. ESRI. World Imagery. ARC GIS Online; 2024. Available from: https://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_Imagery/MapServer
35. 35. Moscardo G. Visitor Evaluations of Built Tourist Facilities: Pontoons on the Great Barrier Reef. J Tour Stud. 2001; 12(1): 28–38.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
36. 36. Coghlan A, Prideaux B. Welcome to the Wet Tropics: the importance of weather in reef tourism resilience. Curr Issues Tourism. 2009; 12(2): 89–104.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
37. 37. Uyarra MC, Watkinson AR, Côté IM. Managing Dive Tourism for the Sustainable Use of Coral Reefs: Validating Diver Perceptions of Attractive Site Features. Environ Manage. 2009; 43: 1–16. pmid:18810525
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
38. 38. Marshall N, Marshall P, Curnock M, Pert P, Smith A, Visperas B. Identifying indicators of aesthetics in the Great Barrier Reef for the purposes of management. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(2): e0210196. pmid:30785877
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
39. 39. Pert PL, Thiault L, Curnock MI, Becken S, Claudet J. Beauty and the reef: Evaluating the use of non-expert ratings for monitoring aesthetic values of coral reefs. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 730: 139156. pmid:32416510
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
40. 40. Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol. 2000; 104(1): 1–15. pmid:10769936
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
41. 41. Dawes J. Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used? An Experiment Using 5-Point, 7-Point and 10-Point Scales. Int J Mark Res. 2008; 50(1): 61–104.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
42. 42. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Available from: https://www.R-project.org
43. 43. Brant R. Assessing Proportionality in the Proportional Odds Model for Ordinal Logistic Regression. Biometrics. 1990; 46(4): 1171–1178. pmid:2085632
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
44. 44. Lipsitz SR, Fitzmaurice GM, Molenberghs G. Goodness-Of-Fit Tests for Ordinal Response Regression Models. J R Stat Soc C: Appl Stat. 1996; 45(2): 175–190.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
45. 45. Devlin JF, Yap NT. Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions. Impact Assess Pro. Apprais. 2008; 26(1): 17–27.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
46. 46. GBRMPA. Reef Snapshot: Summer 2023–24. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australian Institute of Marine Science, and CSIRO; 2024. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/11017/4043
47. 47. Goldberg J, Marshall N, Birtles A, Case P, Bohensky E, Curnock M, et al. Climate change, the Great Barrier Reef and the response of Australians. Palgrave Commun. 2016; 2: 15046.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
48. 48. Gurney GG, Blythe J, Adams H, Adger WN, Curnock M, Faulkner L, et al. Redefining community based on place attachment in a connected world. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017; 114(38): 10077–10082. pmid:28874573
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
49. 49. GBRMPA. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2019. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2019. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11017/3474
50. 50. GBRMPA. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2024. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2024. Available from: https://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/4069
51. 51. Marshall N, Adger WN, Benham C, Brown K, Curnock MI, Gurney GG, et al. Reef Grief: investigating the relationship between place meanings and place change on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Sustain Sci. 2019; 14: 579–587.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
52. 52. Curnock MI, Marshall NA, Thiault L, Heron SF, Hoey J, Williams G, et al. Shifts in tourists’ sentiments and climate risk perceptions following mass coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Nat Clim Change. 2019; 9: 535–541.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
53. 53. Dean AJ, Wilson KA. Relationships between hope, optimism, and conservation engagement. Conserv Biol. 2023; 37(2): e14009. pmid:36285591
* View Article
* PubMed/NCBI
* Google Scholar
54. 54. Waters YL, Wilson KA, Dean AJ. The role of iconic places, collective efficacy, and negative emotions in climate change communication. Environ Sci Policy. 2024; 151: 103635.
* View Article
* Google Scholar
Citation: Curnock MI, Arya R, Chamberland E, Chartrand K, Edmondson J, Fisher EE, et al. (2024) Reef visitors’ observation of assisted coral recovery devices in situ reduces concern about their use. PLoS ONE 19(11): e0313345. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313345
About the Authors:
Matthew I. Curnock
Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
E-mail: [email protected]
Affiliation: CSIRO Environment, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2365-810X
Rhea Arya
Roles: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: CSIRO Environment, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Emilee Chamberland
Roles: Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: CSIRO Environment, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9944-6637
Katherine Chartrand
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: TropWATER, James Cook University, Smithfield, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
John Edmondson
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Wavelength Reef Cruises, Port Douglas, Queensland, Australia
Eric E. Fisher
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: GBR Biology, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7588-2114
Rebecca Forster
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5674-1739
Stewart Lockie
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Smithfield, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2109-6342
Jennifer Loder
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: Great Barrier Reef Foundation, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Danielle Nembhard
Roles: Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Smithfield, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
ORICD: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3385-9774
Abigail Scott
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: TropWATER, James Cook University, Smithfield, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Bruce Taylor
Roles: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: CSIRO Environment, Dutton Park, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Jasmina Uusitalo
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation: TropWATER, James Cook University, Smithfield, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
[/RAW_REF_TEXT]
1. Wong AS, Vrontos S, Taylor ML. An assessment of people living by coral reefs over space and time. Glob. Change Biol. 2022; 28(23): 7139–7153. pmid:36168958
2. Hughes TP, Kerry JT, Baird AH, Connolly SR, Dietzel A, Eakin CM, et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature. 2018; 556: 492–496. pmid:29670282
3. Eddy TD, Lam VWY, Reygondeau G, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Greer K, Palomares MLD, et al. Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services. One Earth. 2021; 4: 1278–1285.
4. NOAA. NOAA confirms 4th global coral bleaching event. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration media release 15th April 2024. Available from: https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-confirms-4th-global-coral-bleaching-event
5. van Oppen MJH, Gates RD, Blackall LL, Cantin N, Chakravarti LJ, Chan WY, et al. Shifting paradigms in restoration of the world’s coral reefs. Glob. Change Biol. 2017; 23(9): 3437–3448. pmid:28247459
6. Bruno JF, Côté IM, Toth LT. Climate Change, Coral Loss, and the Curious Case of the Parrotfish Paradigm: Why Don’t Marine Protected Areas Improve Reef Resilience? Annu Rev Mar Sci. 2019; 11: 307–334. pmid:30606097
7. Bowden-Kerby A. Coral-Focused Climate Change Adaptation and Restoration Based on Accelerating Natural Processes: Launching the “Reefs of Hope” Paradigm. Oceans. 2023; 4(1): 13–26.
8. Suggett DJ, van Oppen MJH. Horizon scan of rapidly advancing coral restoration approaches for 21st century reef management. Emerg Top Life Sci. 2022; 6(1): 125–136. pmid:35119476
9. McLeod IM, Hein MY, Babcock R, Bay L, Bourne DG, Cook N, et al. Coral restoration and adaptation in Australia: The first five years. PLoS ONE. 2022; 17(11): e0273325. pmid:36449458
10. Boström-Einarsson L, Babcock RC, Bayraktarov E, Ceccarelli D, Cook N, Ferse SCA, et al. Coral restoration–A systematic review of current methods, successes, failures and future directions. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15(1): e0226631. pmid:31999709
11. Hein MY, Vardi T, Shaver EC, Pioch S, Boström-Einarsson L, Ahmed M, et al. Perspectives on the Use of Coral Reef Restoration as a Strategy to Support and Improve Reef Ecosystem Services. Front Mar Sci. 2021; 8: 618303.
12. Randall CJ, Webster N, Negri AP, Quigley KM, Doropoulos C, Bay LK. Fast-tracking knowledge to breed, settle and field deploy corals required for restoration at scale. Report prepared for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. Townsville: Australian Institute of Marine Science; 2020. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21254.70726
13. Howells EJ, Abrego D, Liew YJ, Burt JA, Meyer E, Aranda M. Enhancing the heat tolerance of reef-building corals to future warming. Sci Adv. 2021; 7(34): eabg6070. pmid:34417178
14. Schmidt-Roach S, Klaus R, Al-Suwailem AM, Prieto AR, Charrière J, Hauser CAE, et al. Novel infrastructure for coral gardening and reefscaping. Front Mar Sci. 2023; 10: 1110830.
15. van Marwijk RBM, Elands BHM, Kampen JK, Terlouw S, Pitt DG, Opdam P. Public Perceptions of the Attractiveness of Restored Nature. Restor Ecol. 2012; 20(6): 773–780.
16. Vella K, Baresi U, Lockie S, Taylor B. Challenges and opportunities for assisted regional ecosystem adaptation: International experience and implications for adaptation research. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16(9): e0257868. pmid:34559843
17. Le D, Becken S, Curnock M. Gaining public engagement to restore coral reef ecosystems in the face of acute crisis. Glob Environ Change. 2022; 74: 102513.
18. Hein MY, Willis BL, Beeden R, Birtles A. The need for broader ecological and socioeconomic tools to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration programs. Restor Ecol. 2017; 25(6): 873–883.
19. Pascoe S, Anthony K, Scheufele G, Pears RJ. Identifying coral reef restoration objectives: A framework. Ocean Coast Manag. 2024; 251: 107081.
20. Taylor B, Vella K, Maclean K, Newlands M, Ritchie B, Lockie S, et al. Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program: Stakeholder, Traditional Owner and Community Engagement Assessment. A report provided to the Australian Government by the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program; 2019. Available from: https://gbrrestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/T1-Stakeholder-Traditional-Owner-Community-Engagement-Assessment3.pdf
21. Mankad A, Hobman EV, Carter L. Genetically Engineering Coral for Conservation: Psychological Correlates of Public Acceptability. Front Mar Sci. 2021; 8: 710641.
22. Sie L, Ritchie BW, Lockie S. Australian attitudes toward the protection and restoration of the Great Barrier Reef: Summary Findings. Report for the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program; 2022. Available from: https://gbrrestoration.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022_Biennial-Survey_summary-finding-report_18.07.22.pdf
23. Ng CSL, Toh TC, Toh KB, Sam SQ, Kikuzawa YP, Chou LM, et al. Enhancing reef restoration by assessing stakeholder knowledge, attitudes, and preferences. Restor Ecol. 2023; 31(5): e13854.
24. Westoby R, Becken S, Laria AP. Perspectives on the human dimensions of coral restoration. Reg Environ Change. 2020; 20: 109.
25. Suggett DJ, Edwards M, Cotton D, Hein M, Camp EF. An integrative framework for sustainable coral reef restoration. One Earth. 2023; 6(6): 666–681.
26. Gardeström J, Holmqvist D, Polvi LE, Nilsson C. Demonstration restoration measures in tributaries of the Vindel River catchment. Ecol Soc. 2013; 18(3): 8.
27. GBRMPA. Great Barrier Reef Blueprint for Resilience. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2017. Available from: https://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/3287
28. GBRMPA. Policy on Great Barrier Reef interventions (Document no. 100513). Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2020. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/11017/3674
29. GBRMPA. Current Permit Applications and Decisions (current permits; online portal). Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2024. Available from: https://www2.gbrmpa.gov.au/access/permits/current-permit-application-and-decisions
30. Howlett L, Camp EF, Edmondson J, Edmondson J, Agius T, Hosp R, et al. Adoption of coral propagation and out-planting via the tourism industry to advance site stewardship on the northern Great Barrier Reef. Ocean Coast Manag. 2022; 225: 106199.
31. Smith DJ, Mars F, Williams S, van Oostrum J, McArdle A, Rapi S. et al. Chapter 18–Indonesia: Mars Assisted Reef Restoration system. In Vaughan DE, editor. Active coral restoration: techniques for a changing planet. USA: J. Ross Publishing; 2021. pp. 463–481.
32. Whitman TN, Hoogenboom M, Negri A, Randall C. Coral-seeding devices with fish-exclusion features reduce mortality on the Great Barrier Reef. Sci Rep. 2024; 14: 13332. pmid:38858572
33. Suggett DJ, Edmondson J, Howlett L, Camp EF. Coralclip®: a low-cost solution for rapid and targeted out-planting of coral at scale. Restor Ecol. 2019; 28(2): 289–296.
34. ESRI. World Imagery. ARC GIS Online; 2024. Available from: https://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_Imagery/MapServer
35. Moscardo G. Visitor Evaluations of Built Tourist Facilities: Pontoons on the Great Barrier Reef. J Tour Stud. 2001; 12(1): 28–38.
36. Coghlan A, Prideaux B. Welcome to the Wet Tropics: the importance of weather in reef tourism resilience. Curr Issues Tourism. 2009; 12(2): 89–104.
37. Uyarra MC, Watkinson AR, Côté IM. Managing Dive Tourism for the Sustainable Use of Coral Reefs: Validating Diver Perceptions of Attractive Site Features. Environ Manage. 2009; 43: 1–16. pmid:18810525
38. Marshall N, Marshall P, Curnock M, Pert P, Smith A, Visperas B. Identifying indicators of aesthetics in the Great Barrier Reef for the purposes of management. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(2): e0210196. pmid:30785877
39. Pert PL, Thiault L, Curnock MI, Becken S, Claudet J. Beauty and the reef: Evaluating the use of non-expert ratings for monitoring aesthetic values of coral reefs. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 730: 139156. pmid:32416510
40. Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol. 2000; 104(1): 1–15. pmid:10769936
41. Dawes J. Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used? An Experiment Using 5-Point, 7-Point and 10-Point Scales. Int J Mark Res. 2008; 50(1): 61–104.
42. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Available from: https://www.R-project.org
43. Brant R. Assessing Proportionality in the Proportional Odds Model for Ordinal Logistic Regression. Biometrics. 1990; 46(4): 1171–1178. pmid:2085632
44. Lipsitz SR, Fitzmaurice GM, Molenberghs G. Goodness-Of-Fit Tests for Ordinal Response Regression Models. J R Stat Soc C: Appl Stat. 1996; 45(2): 175–190.
45. Devlin JF, Yap NT. Contentious politics in environmental assessment: blocked projects and winning coalitions. Impact Assess Pro. Apprais. 2008; 26(1): 17–27.
46. GBRMPA. Reef Snapshot: Summer 2023–24. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australian Institute of Marine Science, and CSIRO; 2024. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/11017/4043
47. Goldberg J, Marshall N, Birtles A, Case P, Bohensky E, Curnock M, et al. Climate change, the Great Barrier Reef and the response of Australians. Palgrave Commun. 2016; 2: 15046.
48. Gurney GG, Blythe J, Adams H, Adger WN, Curnock M, Faulkner L, et al. Redefining community based on place attachment in a connected world. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017; 114(38): 10077–10082. pmid:28874573
49. GBRMPA. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2019. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2019. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11017/3474
50. GBRMPA. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2024. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2024. Available from: https://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/handle/11017/4069
51. Marshall N, Adger WN, Benham C, Brown K, Curnock MI, Gurney GG, et al. Reef Grief: investigating the relationship between place meanings and place change on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Sustain Sci. 2019; 14: 579–587.
52. Curnock MI, Marshall NA, Thiault L, Heron SF, Hoey J, Williams G, et al. Shifts in tourists’ sentiments and climate risk perceptions following mass coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Nat Clim Change. 2019; 9: 535–541.
53. Dean AJ, Wilson KA. Relationships between hope, optimism, and conservation engagement. Conserv Biol. 2023; 37(2): e14009. pmid:36285591
54. Waters YL, Wilson KA, Dean AJ. The role of iconic places, collective efficacy, and negative emotions in climate change communication. Environ Sci Policy. 2024; 151: 103635.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2024 Curnock et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Assisted coral recovery (ACR) initiatives are establishing rapidly in coral reefs worldwide, using a variety of devices and techniques. In the Great Barrier Reef (GBR, the Reef), site-scale ACR field trials are occurring at multiple sites in the Cairns-Port Douglas region through Reef stewardship activities involving GBR tourism operators, Traditional Owners, and not-for-profit organisations. It is hypothesised that these field trials and the presence of ACR devices at reef tourism sites do not negatively affect visitor experiences, and when accompanied by appropriate educational information, can potentially help to raise awareness of Reef stewardship and conservation efforts. We tested these hypotheses using a survey of 708 Reef visitors on five tourism vessels, 346 of whom reported observing ACR devices in situ during their coral reef experience. Ordinal regression tests of survey responses found no statistical relationship between respondents’ observation of ACR devices and (i) their overall Reef trip satisfaction, (ii) the perceived aesthetic beauty of the site(s) they visited, and (iii) their concern about the future health of the GBR. However, Reef visitors who observed ACR devices showed significantly lower levels of concern about the use of these devices on the Reef. The perceived quality of educational information presented to respondents was among the significant factors associated with their reef trip satisfaction and perceived beauty of reef sites. Our findings have implications for ACR practitioners and proponents who are concerned about public visibility, perceptions, and support for ACR initiatives, as the scale of such initiatives is expected to increase.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer