Reef visitors' observation of assisted coral recovery devices in situ reduces concern about their use

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.

Fig 1. Underwater photographs of assisted coral recovery (ACR) devices deployed at reef study sites.

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.

Fig 2. Study region with approximate locations of reef tourism sites sampled, at which specific types of assisted coral recovery devices were deployed.

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.

Fig 3

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.