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

Matthew I Curnock; Rhea Arya; Emilee Chamberland; Katherine Chartrand; John Edmondson; Eric E Fisher; Rebecca Forster; Stewart Lockie; Jennifer Loder; Danielle Nembhard; Abigail Scott; Bruce Taylor; Jasmina Uusitalo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313345

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

PLoS One. 2024 Nov 8;19(11):e0313345. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313345. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ CSIRO Environment, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
² TropWATER, James Cook University, Smithfield, Cairns, Queensland, Australia.
³ Wavelength Reef Cruises, Port Douglas, Queensland, Australia.
⁴ GBR Biology, Cairns, Queensland, Australia.
⁵ Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
⁶ The Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Smithfield, Cairns, Queensland, Australia.
⁷ Great Barrier Reef Foundation, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
⁸ CSIRO Environment, Dutton Park, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

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.

Copyright: © 2024 Curnock et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

MeSH terms

Animals
Anthozoa*
Australia
Conservation of Natural Resources* / methods
Coral Reefs*
Humans
Surveys and Questionnaires
Tourism

Grants and funding

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/), with funding provided by the partnership between the Australian Government’s Reef Trust and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, delivered in partnership with CSIRO, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and the Queensland Government’s Reef Water Quality Program. We note that one co-author is an employee of one of the study’s funding organisations (J. Loder; Great Barrier Reef Foundation), who contributed to the study’s conceptual design and preparation of the manuscript. This co-author was not directly associated with the project’s funding or its administration and was not involved in the data collection and analysis, nor in the decision to publish the article.