# data[].attributes.body
Volunteer in local beach or reef cleanups. If you don't live near the coast, get involved in protecting your watershed.

-Teagan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here are some things YOU can do:

Corals are already a gift, don't give them as presents.

Conserve water. The less water you use, the less runoff and wastewater that will eventually find its way back into the ocean.

Volunteer in local beach or reef cleanups. If you don't live near the coast, get involved in protecting your watershed.

Become an informed consumer and learn how your daily choices such as water use, recycling, seafood, vacation spots, fertilizer use, and driving times can positively (or negatively) impact the health of coral reefs.

There are also many things you can do to ensure that you are environmentally conscious when you visit coral reefs or coastal areas. These include things such as hiring local guides to support the economy, removing all trash from an area, never touching or harassing wildlife in reef areas, and avoiding dropping your boat anchor or chain nearby a coral reef.

Finally, stay informed and spread the word! Educate yourself about why healthy coral reefs are valuable to the people, fish, plants, and animals that depend on them. Your excitement will help others get involved.

Infographic Text

10 ways to protect CORAL REEFS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national oceanic and atmospheric administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even if you live far from coral reefs, you can still have an impact on reef health and conservation

# data[].attributes.body
Marine debris can be harmful to coral reefs.

# data[].attributes.body
Use planktons to give energy and nutrients to the coral ecosystem

# data[].attributes.body
-Kara

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How NOAA Uses Coral Nurseries to Restore Damaged Reefs | response.restoration.noaa.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
DECEMBER 5, 2014 -- The cringe-inducing sound of a ship crushing its way onto a coral reef is often the beginning of the story. But, thanks to NOAA’s efforts, it is not usually the end. After most ship groundings on reefs, hundreds to thousands of small coral fragments may litter the ocean floor, wh…

# data[].attributes.headline
Increase shading by using surface films (meaning a small film over the oceans surface for shade) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Increase shading by using surface films (meaning a small film over the oceans surface for shade) 

# data[].attributes.body
EPA protects coral reefs by implementing Clean Water Act programs that protect water quality in watersheds and coastal zones of coral reef areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
identify such actions;

use their programs and authorities to protect and enhance coral reef ecosystems; and

ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the condition of coral reef ecosystems.

EPA protects coral reefs by implementing Clean Water Act programs that protect water quality in watersheds and coastal zones of coral reef areas. EPA also supports efforts to monitor and assess the condition of U.S. coral reefs, and conducts research into the causes of coral reef deterioration. EPA is developing tools to help adapt coral reefs to better handle changing conditions. Much of EPA's work to protect coral reefs is conducted in partnership with other federal agencies, states, and territories. For example, EPA is an active member of the interagency U.S. Coral Reef Task Force.

Clean Water Act and Coral Reefs

EPA strategically applies its Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory and non-regulatory programs to reduce land-based sources of pollution that degrade coastal waters and coral reefs that live in them. Improving coral reef health by addressing local stressors will enhance their natural resilience. EPA:

Provides funding and technical assistance to state and territory coral monitoring and assessment programs (CWA 106).

Targets nonpoint source (CWA 319) funds to implement water quality improvement projects in watersheds that discharge into coral reef locations.

Works with states to improve the environmental protections provided by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System sewer and stormwater management permits (CWA 402).

Works with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to avoid and minimize impacts to coral reefs from discharges of dredged or fill material avoid and minimize impacts to coral reefs, and to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts (CWA 404; see also Coral Reef Guidance: 1999 Memorandum to the Field).

Supports derivation and adoption (by states) of water quality standards to increase protection of corals. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA consults with NOAA to ensure that new/revised criteria are fully protective of ESA-listed coral species and their critical habitats.

Supports the development of biological assessment methods and biological criteria for states, tribes, and territories to use in evaluating the health of coral reefs and associated water quality.

Works to reduce trash from entering coastal waters through EPA's Trash-Free Waters program.

Ensures that dredging and ocean disposal of dredged material is conducted in a manner that does not adversely impact coral reefs (CWA 403 criteria).

Works with the Coast Guard to regulate the transportation of municipal and commercial waste on vessels and to issue regulations for the manufacture, maintenance, and efficiency of marine sanitation devices (boat toilets), as well as the establishment of "no discharge zones" for vessel sewage (CWA 312).

Recent Products

This paper, representing a collaboration between US EPA, US Coast Guard, and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, discusses the current state of knowledge about vessel ballast water as a potential mode of transmission of Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease (SCTLD) and provides a framework for future research in this area.

The purpose of this document is to illustrate how the Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Tool can be set up to evaluate and compare watersheds for sediment and nutrient runoff into coral reef ecosystems. This document helps set up the tool, select appropriate indicators for evaluating where conditions promote the likelihood of sediment and nutrient runoff, and interpret the outputs for purposes of prioritizing management activities.

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force

EPA is actively engaged in the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF). The USCRTF was established by Executive Order 13089 to lead U.S. efforts to preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. It is instrumental in building partnerships and strategies for on-the-ground action to conserve coral reefs. The USCRTF is co-chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of the Interior with regular participation from twelve federal agencies, seven states and territories, and three freely associated states.

EPA chairs and participates on several USCRTF working groups, including the Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Working Group, Enforcement Working Group, and the Watershed Partnership Initiative Working Group. Recent products of these working groups that EPA helped to develop include:

EPA Resource Guide for Managers of Coastal Watersheds with Coral Reefs

The EPA Resource Guide for Managers of Coastal Watersheds with Coral Reefs provides a general overview of the most relevant EPA programs and tools that can help watershed managers address land-based sources of pollution that impact coral reefs. The guide is intended primarily for watershed managers that participate in the USCRTF, but may serve as a useful resource for others.

Corals and Climate Adaptation Planning (CCAP) Adaptation Design Tool and User's Guide

The Corals and Climate Adaptation Design Tool can be used by coral reef managers to incorporate climate-smart design into their programs and projects at any stage of planning and implementation. The tool has been used with partners in Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico and West Maui, Hawai'i.

Handbook on Coral Reef Impacts: Avoidance, Minimization, Compensatory Mitigation, and Restoration

This Handbook on Coral Reef Impacts provides a review of the federal authorities, existing policies, and federal, state, and territory roles and responsibilities; a compendium of current best practices-science-based methodologies for quantifying ecosystem functions or services; and a general overview of basic protocols available for use when assessing impacts to coral reef ecosystems and mitigating or restoring for unavoidable impacts to coral reef ecosystems, including the use of appropriate compensatory action to replace the lost functions and services.

USCRTF Watershed Partnership Initiative Priority Ecosystem Indicators

The (56 pp, 1.5 MB, USCRTF Watershed Partnership Initiative Priority Ecosystem Indicators document (PDF)About PDF)provides coastal managers, coral reef managers, and watershed coordinators faced with modest budgets a suite of recommended ecological indicators and measurements to include in their watershed-specific monitoring plans. The recommended ecological indicators and measurements help determine the efficacy and evaluate the success of management efforts to reduce land-based sources of pollution on coral reef ecosystems.

USCRTF Watershed Partnership Initiative Programmatic Checklist

A user-friendly (6 pp, 575 K, programmatic checklist (PDF)About PDF)developed to help managers and watershed coordinators identify programmatic needs for the successful implementation of a ridge to reef watershed management plan.

International Coral Reef Initiative

The U.S. Federal Government is a member of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI),a partnership between Nations and organizations which strives to preserve coral reefs and related ecosystems around the world. ICRI has declared 2018 as the third International Year of the Reef (IYOR).IYOR is a global effort to build awareness and understanding of coral reef ecosystems to support conservation, research, and management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What EPA is Doing to Protect Coral Reefs | US EPA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
identify such actions; use their programs and authorities to protect and enhance coral reef ecosystems; and ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the condition of coral reef ecosystems. EPA protects coral reefs by implementing Clean Water Act programs that protect water quality in watersheds and coastal zones of coral reef areas.

# data[].attributes.body
Scientists have found macroalgae (seaweed) can help protect some corals from bleaching, and the removal of the canopy-forming seaweed should be carefully timed to help coral reefs thrive.

“When algae become too abundant it can be bad for corals, as algae compete for space and can directly harm both juvenile and adult corals.

“However, algae is not all bad, as the canopy provided by upright macroalgae might reduce direct sunlight and provide refuge for corals during heat events. We wanted to see if this was true,” said Ms. Smith.

-Teagan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
James Cook University research officer Hillary Smith was part of a team that examined what happened when they removed macroalgae at a site near Townsville before a severe bleaching event in early 2020.

"When algae become too abundant it can be bad for corals, as algae compete for space and can directly harm both juvenile and adult corals.

"However, algae is not all bad, as the canopy provided by upright macroalgae might reduce direct sunlight and provide refuge for corals during heat events. We wanted to see if this was true," said Ms Smith.

She said the scientists found there was no overall difference in bleaching prevalence in plots where macroalgae had been removed and control plots where it had not been removed.

"However, bleaching prevalence varied with the different morphology (shape and form) of corals. Mounding corals (such as brain corals) were more likely to experience bleaching in removal plots compared to controls, indicating that these corals do get some degree of protection from the macroalgae canopy," said Ms Smith.

She said a follow-up survey months after the bleaching event had ended found that corals in plots where the macroalgae had been removed had recovered to a greater extent than those where macroalgae had been left to grow.

"The greater recovery of coral communities in removal plots might result from reduced competition with macroalgae," said Ms Smith.

Associate Professor Scott Heron, a co-author of the study, said such findings were becoming increasingly important.

"With the escalating frequency and intensity of anomalously-high temperature events, climate-driven coral bleaching and mortality is now occurring somewhere in the world every year. This is the biggest risk to reef ecosystems over the coming decades.

"It's in no way a theoretical problem - broad-scale coral bleaching events have already had major effects on the Great Barrier Reef in 2016, 2017, 2020, and again this year in 2022," he said.

"When corals die, macroalgae can proliferate quickly, so it's important to understand how these two groups interact on reefs," Ms Smith said.

She said environmental managers were looking at more and more novel options to boost coral reef resilience and the team's work pointed to a nuanced approach to macroalgae removal being helpful.

"Our study suggests that the timing of removing macroalgae on the Great Barrier Reef may maximise benefits. Algae removal before the annual mass spawning period in September/October will reduce competition for space between algae and baby corals.

"Conversely, it seems that allowing some regrowth of the algae canopy prior to the maximum summer heat in February and March will give some protection to mounding corals."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Algae can help protect coral reefs - but it's all in the timing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
James Cook University research officer Hillary Smith was part of a team that examined what happened when they removed macroalgae at a site near Townsville before a severe bleaching event in early 2020. "When algae become too abundant it can be bad for corals, as algae compete for space and can directly harm both juvenile and adult corals.

# data[].attributes.body
Mia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CSIRO Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform, CSIRO Land and Water, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Coral bleaching contributes to widespread reef loss globally, including Australia's World Heritage site, the Great Barrier Reef. Synthetic biology offers the potential to isolate and cultivate strains of coral that can naturally withstand higher sea surface temperatures associated with climate change. A national survey was conducted ( N = 1,148 Australians) measuring psychological predictors of support for a synthetic biology conservation solution to coral loss. The analysis showed a partially mediated path model was useful in explaining a significant amount of variance in public support for the development of genetically engineered coral for conservation ( R ² = 0.40) and in willingness to visit parts of the Great Barrier Reef where genetically engineered coral had (hypothetically) been introduced ( R ² = 0.24). Participants were moderately strongly supportive of technology development and were most keen to implement genetically engineered coral with between 50 and 70% of reef remaining intact; recent estimates of coral cover across the Great Barrier Reef are well below that already. There was a negative association between perceived risks of genetically engineered coral and public support; however, perceived benefit of genetically engineered coral in protecting the reef and relative advantage of a synthetic biology solution over existing protection strategies were the most influential predictors of public support. The findings suggest that the general public are not averse to the development of a synthetic biology solution for restoring the reef, and they may be especially influenced by whether the synthetic biology solution is shown to be efficacious, particularly in comparison to other conservation solutions. However, support for a synthetic biology intervention is conditional and many participants expressed concerns about possible long-term impacts on humans, animals, and the environment as a result of deploying engineered coral.

Introduction

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is a complex ecosystem that is home to a plethora of sea flora and fauna, including hundreds of species of coral. The GBR has experienced, and continues to experience, widespread pressures including rising sea surface temperatures, crown-of-thorns starfish predation, land run-off and cyclone damage ( Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2019). It has been estimated that if the current rate of coral depletion continues, up to 75% of the world's coral will face high-to-critical threat levels by 2050 ( Burke et al., 2011). Thus, there is a need for development of proactive coral restoration methods, to be used in conjunction with behavioral and institutional changes associated with lowering global greenhouse gas emissions ( Taylor et al., 2019). The development of heat tolerant corals is one restoration approach, amongst a range of prevention and restoration options ( Bay et al., 2019); the appeal of this gene-based solution is its potential to scale-up and positively influence marine habitat sustainability.

While current advances in thermal-tolerant corals involves selective breeding approaches, application of a genetic solution at scale will require more novel methods such as synthetic biology. Synthetic biology (synbio) is a new and emerging area of research, which offers a potential suite of solutions to mitigate some of the negative impacts that coral reefs face due to environmental and biological factors. Rather than targeting extraneous factors contributing to coral reef degradation, synthetic biology can re-design DNA structures of the coral itself, making it more resilient to threats. Specifically, the synthetic biology technology identifies natural gene variants in existing coral that enhance their ability to withstand higher temperatures and introduces these into other coral species that are not as heat resistant ( Bay et al., 2019).

Although technological advances in coral breeding continue to be developed and tested in laboratory settings, there has been a dearth of research exploring stakeholder perspectives toward novel solutions in the reef. The GBR holds special cultural, social and economic value to many communities in Australia, including those whose livelihoods depend on the reef, such as eco- and marine tourism industries ( Marshall N. et al., 2019). Importantly, the GBR region is a source of livelihood and a place of deep cultural significance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the region, some of whom are the Traditional Owners and custodians of the GBR region and have been for over 60,000 years ( Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2020b). It is therefore critical to understand relevant stakeholder perspectives alongside technology development and ground-truth real-world implementation considerations.

Public Sentiment Toward Protecting the Great Barrier Reef

As a World Heritage area, the Great Barrier Reef is an international icon and research on public sentiment toward the reef has often reflected on the role that place plays in the lives of people, their attachment to the place, as well as economic and emotional connectedness ( Lewicka, 2011). More recently, with the increasing frequency of extreme climate events causing mass coral bleaching ( Stuart-Smith et al., 2018; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2020a), the public benefits derived from these areas (e.g., tourism and recreation) are being negatively affected. This has led to greater investment in promoting conservation goals in the area, helping stakeholders navigate social and economic benefits derived from the region and interact with the environment in a more ecologically sustainable way ( Dobbs et al., 2011; Goldberg et al., 2016).

Public desire to protect the GBR is strong, not just in Australia, but globally. For example, recent social science research has found that there is a general willingness to support action to protect the reef among GBR residents, international tourists, and the broader Australian populace ( Curnock et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2019; Westoby and McNamara, 2019). It has been proposed that significant coral bleaching events have increased the public's awareness of the threat of climate change on the reef and simultaneously reminded people of the reef's value and the importance of protecting it ( Curnock et al., 2019; Westoby and McNamara, 2019). In turn, rising protective sentiment and increased concern among the population could well be leveraged to initiate collective action. Unsurprisingly, the Australian general public tend to be more supportive than unsupportive of a range of different methods for reef restoration, although a considerable proportion remain neutral in their support ( Taylor et al., 2019). Of relevance to the current study, approximately 40% of participants in Taylor et al.'s (2019) study indicated acceptance (i.e., higher than the mid-point of the scale) of genetically modified heat resistant coral to restore the GBR. However, compared to some of the other manual reef restoration options (e.g., rubble stabilization, manual removal of pests such as crown-of-thorns starfish), genetic modification was generally viewed as a riskier option and elicited higher levels of opposition amongst participants.

An important limitation of past research on protective action in the reef is understanding public motivation to accept novel technologies in such a contested space ( Lane and Robinson, 2009). What's more, public willingness or intention to engage meaningfully with the place once a novel solution is implemented is also not yet understood. Yet, the literature suggests that the sociocultural implications of a biotechnical intervention in the GBR would be wide-ranging, affecting livelihoods, industry, and deeply held values about the natural wonder (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2016; Marshall N. A. et al., 2019).

Perceived Threat as a Motivator

As recent coral bleaching events have increased public awareness of threats to the reef, raising protective sentiments and the potential for collective action, it is useful to explore psychological theories relevant to fear appeals and protective behavior ( Curnock et al., 2019; Westoby and McNamara, 2019). Fear appeals are thought to influence risk-related attitudes, intentions and behaviors ( Tannenbaum et al., 2015). They are comprised of three main components: fear of the threat, threat noxiousness (severity), and perceived efficacy of threat mitigation ( Witte, 1992). When people are faced with a threat and feel vulnerable to it, they will go through an evaluative process to determine whether the threat is strong enough to warrant action, whether recommended responses will ameliorate the threat, and the relevant response costs (e.g., time and effort) associated with action ( Rogers and Mewborn, 1976). Empirical research utilizing fear appeal perspectives, particularly protection motivation (PM) research, has advanced our understanding of risky or preventive behaviors across a multitude of environmental contexts, from understanding responses to biosecurity and natural disasters (e.g., floods, wild fires, and earthquakes) (e.g., Grothmann and Reusswig, 2006; Martin et al., 2007; Blunt, 2012; Tang et al., 2018) to explaining pro-environmental behavior (e.g., Marquit, 2008; Mankad et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2016; Kothe et al., 2019).

In the present context, this study argues that a fear appeal need not necessarily refer to a direct personal threat, but that the framing would work equally well when referencing perceived threat toward a broader environmental conservation issue. It is proposed that when confronted with a threatening environmental event (i.e., significant reef loss), people would still evaluate the level of threat severity from a personal perspective. It is further argued in this study that while direct personal vulnerability to the conservation threat of coral reef loss would not make sense, a more appropriate and implicit framing of vulnerability toward a broader environmental threat could be measured by evaluating the threshold at which a mitigating solution (genetically engineered coral) is needed/introduced into the reef. Typically, the outcome of this threat appraisal process is an intention to accept or engage with (or not) the protective response ( Rogers, 1983). This motivation to engage or accept a protective response is further influenced by one's belief that carrying out the recommended actions can successfully remove the threat (i.e., response efficacy). It is argued that the threat appraisal process will be an important framework for understanding motivations to not only support novel synbio interventions in the reef to mitigate a significant threat (i.e., coral degradation and loss), but will also influence one's behavioral intention to support a genetic intervention (i.e., through willingness to visit the GBR where the genetic solution has been deployed).

Relative Advantage

A limitation of fear appeals in explaining motivation toward engaging in recommended behaviors is the inability to adequately capture mental trade-offs involved in complex decision-making in the context of viable alternatives. For example, why would people choose a synthetic biology solution to coral degradation over a manual solution? Given the perceived risks and benefits, at what point would a genetic solution be acceptable? Numerous solutions to the degradation of the GBR, and indeed coral reefs worldwide, have been proposed and many are being implemented or trialed around the world ( Taylor et al., 2019). Some examples of these solutions include: increased shading using surface films or cloud brightening; increasing heat resistance of corals using natural breeding techniques or genetic modification; infrastructure solutions (e.g., rubble stabilization or human-made reef structures); and pest control using biological agents or manual removal ( Taylor et al., 2019). Several of these new approaches carry their own advantages and limitations, as well as unknown long-term consequences.

A diffusion of innovation theory perspective would suggest that trade-offs are evident in assessing the relative advantage of an innovation; that is, the degree to which the innovation is seen as better than what is currently available or being deployed ( Valente and Rogers, 1995; Rogers, 2004). Rogers' relative advantage attribution considers increases in efficiency, efficacy, economic appeal, and future benefit. Past research has consistently demonstrated that relative advantage can directly and positively influence the rate of innovation adoption ( Pannell et al., 2006; Kuehne et al., 2017).

The relative advantage of an innovation will, of course, depend on individuals' unique set of needs, the innovation context and the ultimate goals of the innovation relative to the individual ( Rogers, 2003; Pannell et al., 2006). Part of this assessment is also the consideration of riskiness, whether in terms of efficacy, unexpected/unintended outcomes or costs associated with changing from one innovation to another ( Marra et al., 2003; Pannell et al., 2006). Risk and uncertainty feature strongly in the literature on new, emerging and controversial technologies (e.g., nanotechnology, carbon capture, and storage; Barnett et al., 2007; Kirk et al., 2019; Kuzma, 2019).

In the reef context, one may need to determine the relative advantage of using a (perceived) risky technology to solve reef degradation (i.e., gene-based heat-tolerant coral). People must weigh up the innovation's impact on sociocultural values and economic benefit, from their own perspective. If heat-tolerant coral were to replace damaged parts of the GBR, would tourists continue to visit the reef as a "natural wonder" and would it still hold the same national heritage value?

Present Study

The present study examines public perceptions toward the genetic engineering of coral, using synthetic biology to combat the effects of rising sea temperatures on these organisms. The study explores a range of potential influences on participants' willingness to support the technology's development and intended willingness to visit parts of the reef, assuming genetically engineered coral were to be introduced. It was hypothesized that threat severity, response efficacy, perceived costs (negative relationship) and perceived benefits would significantly influence support for a synbio-based heat tolerant coral. It was further hypothesized that support for technology development would positvely influence willingness to visit the reef (containing genetically engineered coral). In the present study, "threat" was operationalized as coral reef loss/degradation and the recommended "response" was genetically engineered heat-tolerant coral. Moreover, since stated acceptance or support for technologies is likely to be influenced by the quality and quantity of information presented ( Costa-Font et al., 2008), it is argued that a more engaging explanation of the technology that aligns with how humans process and understand information (e.g., through visual media) is needed. Therefore, to convey complex reef restoration technology (i.e., genetically engineered coral), the authors purposefully designed visually appealing, engaging, and simple-to-understand technology "storyboards."

Materials and Methods

Participants

One thousand one hundred and forty-eight ( N = 1,148) members of the Australian public participated in this study. The sample was representative of the national population across age (years: 18-24 = 13%, 25-34 = 16%, 35-44 = 14%, 45-54 = 19%, 55-64 = 17%, 65 + = 21%) and gender (53% female, 47% male) ( Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Approximately 3% of the sample were of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander origin, which mirrors the general Australia population. Education ( Mode = Bachelor's degree; 28%) and household income ( Mode = $50,000-$99,999, 28%) were also measured. Most participants (63%) were employed, working full-time (43%).

Measures

The survey comprised a subset of items designed to measure key factors likely to influence support for genetically engineered coral and willingness to visit the reef after the hypothetical deployment of genetically engineered coral. To minimize the length of the survey and reduce response fatigue, single item measures were utilized for some variables, with high face validity. The use of single-item measures has been recommended for variables that have a simple, clear object and a single attribute ( Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007).

Threat severity was measured by asking participants "To what extent do you think coral reef loss is a problem?" (1 = not a problem at all to 5 = a very big problem). In this study, threat was defined as "significant coral loss in the Great Barrier Reef." This measure was derived from original protection motivation theory and previous research in environmental science using protection motivation framing ( Grothmann and Reusswig, 2006; Martin et al., 2007; Mankad et al., 2019).

Implicit threat vulnerability was measured by asking participants "Using the sliding scale below, please indicate when you think it would be most appropriate to introduce genetically modified coral into the Great Barrier Reef" (0% no reef remaining to 100% reef remaining, in 10% increments). This measure was developed to identify at which point participants were willing to bear the perceived risks of genetically engineered coral and support intervention. Higher scores, by virtue of suggesting that genetically modified coral should be introduced sooner (when there is more reef remaining) rather than later (when there is less reef remaining), may implicitly reflect a higher level of perceived vulnerability.

Response efficacy was measured by asking participants "To what extent do you believe that this new technology would help reduce or eliminate coral reef loss?" (1 = would not help at all to 5 = would be very helpful). This item was developed using protection motivation principles ( Rogers and Mewborn, 1976; Rogers, 1983), where participants were asked to consider how effective the recommended solution was to the identified threat (significant coral loss).

Perceived costs (risks) were measured using three items: "To what extent would you be concerned about the long-term effects of the technology on humans and animals?", "To what extent would you be concerned about the long-term effects of the technology on the natural environment?" and "To what extent would you be concerned about whether the consequences of the technology can be effectively controlled or managed?" (1 = not concerned, 3 = moderately concerned, 5 = extremely concerned; and α = 0.92). Items were combined after first checking inter-item consistency and reliability, and an average "perceived costs" score was calculated. This measure operationalized "costs" as perceived psychological losses (e.g., perceived lack of control) or unknowns associated with the technology and its use. In Rogers' (1983) original framing, costs were defined as response costs associated with the recommended threat-reducing behavior or action (i.e., broader than economic costs; Rippetoe and Rogers, 1987; Rainear and Christensen, 2017).

Perceived benefit (relative advantage) was measured with a single item: "I think that this new technology would be better than current methods of protecting the reef from coral loss" (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). This measure was conceptually informed by Rogers' diffusion of innovation model for technology uptake ( Valente and Rogers, 1995; Rogers, 2004). This measure was included to acknowledge the importance of "relative advantage" in the uptake of novel behaviors and its strong influence on support for novel technologies in past literature ( Pannell et al., 2006; Kuehne et al., 2017).

Support for the technology was the first dependent variable (DV1) in the study, assessed by asking participants: "Overall, based on the information provided and your own general knowledge, to what extent would you support the development of this technology?" (1 = would not support to 5 = would strongly support). This was a measure of attitudinal intention, aligned with Rogers (1983) protection motivation framing.

Willingness to visit the reef was the second dependent variable (DV2) in the study, measured by asking participants: "To what extent would you be willing to visit parts of the Great Barrier Reef where genetically engineered coral has been introduced?" (1 = not willing to 5 = very willing). This item was included to measure a more defined behavioral intention to engage with the proposed technology, beyond stated support.

Procedure

Participants were recruited via an external third-party research agency, with each participant receiving a small token for participation. To participate in the study, respondents were required to be an Australian resident and over the age of 18 years.

A standard introductory email invitation was sent to potential participants take part in an online survey. Upon clicking the survey link, an introductory statement was displayed explaining the general purpose of the study and inviting participants to complete the survey. Participants were then randomly assigned into one of seven different technological scenarios, of which genetically engineering heat-tolerant coral was one. Those who agreed to participate provided consent by ticking a checkbox and continuing with the survey. Initial demographic information (gender, age, postcode, and state of residence) was collected to achieve quotas, thereby ensuring a representative sample of the Australian population on age, gender and location.

At the beginning of the survey, participants were provided with a general definition of synthetic biology, describing synbio as a new field of research bringing together genetics, chemistry and engineering, allowing scientists to design and build new biological organisms that could potentially perform new functions. The introductory definition also stated that synbio could use DNA to create new characteristics, or remove certain functions, in plants, animals and other organisms (e.g., bacteria, fungi, and algae); a pop-up box with a definition for DNA was also made available for participants, if needed.

After the synbio definition was provided to participants, a visual storyboard was presented, describing the technological innovation to participants. This storyboard provided textual and visual information about the genetic engineering of coral. Participants were then asked to complete a series of questions. Further demographic information was requested at the end of the survey (e.g., education and employment status).

The survey took, on average, 15 minutes to complete. The study was reviewed and approved by the relevant Social and Interdisciplinary Human Research Ethics Committee.

Technology Storyboard

A key part of this project, and an extension of previous literature, was the presentation of a problem-solution framing to convey information about the synthetic biology technology and how it could be used to enhance thermal tolerance in coral. The information presented in the technological storyboards ( Figure 1) was sequenced as follows:

Figure 1. Technology storyboard for genetically engineering coral; this storyboard was the "technology" reference for all responses within the survey.

* An introduction to the problem.

* Current methods of managing the problem.

* A novel synthetic biology solution for the problem.

It was determined, through consultation with biophysical scientists and broader considerations of the potential for undue psychological influence, that specific risks would not be included as part of the technology storyboards ( O'Neill and Nicholson-Cole, 2009). While it is unlikely that this technology is risk-free, uncertainty in regard to defining and quantifying specific risks at this point in technology development was considered presumptive. The potential for inaccurate risks to be portrayed clouding participant interpretations of the information provided was high. Methodologically, the priority was to examine the influence of emergent underlying risk perceptions, rather than the influence of one's reaction to stated risk.

The technological storyboards were pilot-tested with members of the general public in focus group discussions ( n = 31). Additional comprehension checks were built into the survey to ensure that the information conveyed in the technological storyboard was being understood by participants. The average comprehension score was 2.25 out of a maximum of 3 correct answers, with a standard deviation ( SD) = 0.91 and a range 0-3. These values indicate that, in general, people understood the information conveyed in the storyboard.

Analytic Approach

There were two dependent variables in the study: (1) intention to support the development of genetically engineered coral; and (2) willingness to visit the reef after the introduction of genetically engineered coral. Descriptive statistics were calculated to examine the distribution of psychological correlates and support variables throughout the population; in subsequent statistical reporting, mean is denoted by M and standard deviation is denoted by SD. A follow-up t-test was used to determine whether means significantly differed between support for development of the technology and willingness to visit the reef. A t-test measures whether the means of two groups or variables are significantly different to each other, at a conventional two-tailed probability level ( p < 0.05). The degrees of freedom are also reported as they help to determine the statistical significance.

Path analysis was used to estimate the relationships among the observed variables, and to reveal the relative effects of each variable in explaining support measures. Unlike a structural equation model, only the structural relationships among the observed variables are modeled in a path model. There were no latent variables and no measurement model. The path analysis afforded the ability to assess indirect as well as total effects (i.e., combined direct and indirect effects). Direct effects refer to the relationship between two variables without any intervening variables. Indirect effects reflect the effect of a variables on a dependent variable via one or more intervening variables. The chi-square, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR were used to evaluate model fit. Modification indices (MI) are reported to indicate the improvement to model fit if certain changes are made to the model. The modification index value reflects the chi-square value, with 1 degree of freedom, by which the model fit would improve if a particular path was added.

Results

Psychological Correlates of Support for Genetically Engineering Coral

Descriptive analyses and correlations between factors were calculated to evaluate participants' level of perceived threat, associated perceptions of a synthetic biology solution in addressing the threat, and intentions to support the development of a genetic solution for coral degradation. The study examined not only support for development of genetically engineered coral, but also willingness to interact with the technology directly, measured using behavioral intention to visit regions where genetically engineered coral had (hypothetically) been introduced. A table of mean scores is provided in Table 1; however, note that implicit threat vulnerability is not presented in this table due to its unique measurement scale. On average, participants believed the threat of significant coral loss in the GBR was severe. Perceptions of technology efficacy, perceived costs (risks) and relative advantage were moderate to high. The distribution indicated that extremely high and low responses were less prevalent, and most people scored around, or slightly higher than, the mid-point of the scale.

Table 1. Mean scores for independent and dependent variables in the study (excluding implicit threat vulnerability), ranging from 1 - 5, with higher scores reflecting stronger responses.

The correlation table ( Table 2) demonstrates the relationships among the variables included in this analysis, with significant relationship between all variables, suggesting an appropriate mix of variables. Understandably, there was a strong positive correlation between perceived efficacy of the technology and perceived benefits (relative advantage). The more people believed that genetically engineered coral would be effective in mitigating significant coral loss, the more strongly they believed the genetic solution would be better than current methods of protecting the reef from coral loss. There was also a strong correlation between perceived efficacy of the technology and perceived benefits (relative advantage) with intention to support.

Table 2. Correlation table showing the relationships between all independent and dependent variables in the study.

Overall, as illustrated in Table 1, support for the development of genetically engineered coral as a potential solution to significant coral loss in the GBR was moderate to high, with similarly moderate to high levels of willingness to visit parts of the GBR where genetically engineered coral had been (hypothetically) introduced. The positive correlation between the two dependent variables was significant, indicating a moderate positive relationship ( Table 2). The correlation table further shows that there is no multicollinearity and relationships are generally present in the hypothesized direction. Interestingly, there was no significant correlation between perceived costs (risks) and willingness to visit the reef, indicating the absence of a direct relationship between those variables.

Implicit Threat Vulnerability

An important consideration in the acceptance of genetically engineered coral was one's belief regarding if, and when, the synbio technology should be introduced. While not an outright measure of threat vulnerability, this variable was included to reflect a cognitive trade-off between perceived threat severity and perceived vulnerability (how likely is it that the threat will eventuate).

Figure 2 shows that participants were most keen to implement a genetically engineered coral solution when there was between 50-70% of reef remaining intact. Approximately one in ten people were not comfortable with genetically modified coral being introduced at all.

Figure 2. Distribution of participant responses ( N = 1148) when asked to determine when it would be most appropriate to introduce genetically modified coral into the Great Barrier Reef based on the percentage of remaining reef (i.e., level of reef degradation). The "No Introduction" subgroup ( n = 113) represents those who were not comfortable with genetically modified coral being introduced at all.

Intention to Support Genetically Engineered Coral

A key dependent variable in the present analysis was stated support for the development of genetically engineered coral, as a possible solution to coral degradation. Descriptive analyses showed that, in general, participants were moderately to strongly supportive of technology development. As Figure 3 illustrates, responses favored the higher end of the stated support scale, with a mean ( M) = 3.69 ( SD = 1.04).

Figure 3. Frequency distributions for the two dependent variables: "Intention to support development of technology" and "Willingness to visit the reef after introduction of genetically engineered coral." Note that "technology" refers to genetically engineered coral; responses were made using a 5-point scale where higher scores indicated greater intention and willingness.

Willingness to Visit the Reef After Introduction of Genetically Engineered Coral

The second dependent variable examined in this study was one's stated willingness to visit the GBR should genetically engineered coral be implemented as a solution in the reef. This variable was an implicit measure of support, which targeted behavioral intention. Figure 3 shows that participants expressed moderate to strong behavioral intentions to visit the reef after the implementation of genetically engineered coral. A follow-up t-test found that the average score for willingness to visit the reef ( M = 3.79, SD = 1.13) was significantly higher than intention to support technology development ( M = 3.69, SD = 1.04; t ₁₁₄₇ = 3.32, p = 0.001).

Path Model

As shown in Table 3, the hypothesized path model did not fit the data well. A review of the modification indices suggested the addition of direct relationships between: threat severity and willingness to visit reef (MI = 80.09, p = 0.000), efficacy of technology and willingness to visit reef (MI = 36.41, p = 0.000), and perceived benefits (relative advantage) and willingness to visit reef (MI = 29.55, p = 0.000). Once these three additional direct paths were included, the fit of the model improved and revealed a good fit to the data. Thus, a partially mediated model was accepted as the final model. This model is shown in Figure 4. All associations amongst the variables were in the predicted direction and a significant amount of variance was explained in the dependent variable and mediator. That is, 24% of the variability in willingness to visit reef and 40% of the variability in intention to support development of the technology was explained by the explanatory variables.

Table 3. Fit statistics for the hypothesized and final path models.

Figure 4. Partially mediated path model ( R ² = 0.46), showing direct and indirect effects of psychological correlates (blue boxes) on attitudinal intention to support the technology (green box) and behavioral willingness to visit the reef (gray box). Green arrows and blue arrows represent a direct positive relationships between psychological correlates and the dependent variables; orange arrow represents a direct negative relationship between psychological correlates and "intention to support"; and the gray arrow represents a mediated relationship between the dependent variables. ** refers to significance at the p < 0.01 and *** refers to significance at the p < 0.001 level.

Discussion

Global advances in synthetic biology (synbio) has the potential to accelerate and scale up selective breeding of heat-tolerant coral. This can offer a longer-term gene-based conservation solution to mitigate the damaging effects of coral bleaching ( Bay et al., 2019). The present research adopts a behavioral science approach to understand public attitudes and perceptions toward the development of, and possible future implementation of, novel synbio solutions in the reef. The data identifies drivers of technology support and engagement. Results show that: (a) participants generally agreed that genetically engineered coral could address the identified threat; (b) there was a perceived benefit in implementing the gene technology and a relative advantage over other methods of addressing coral loss; and (c) there were also perceived costs (risks) associated with technology implementation. However, this lack of opposition is conditional and many participants also expressed parallel concerns about the long-term impacts of genetically engineered coral on humans, animals, and the natural environment, and whether the consequences of the technology could be effectively managed. The results also suggest that stated support for technology development notwithstanding, participants were more willing to engage with the technology were it to be implemented in the GBR as a solution to coral degradation.

Technology Benefits and Effectiveness Are More Important Than Potential Risks

Participants' support for genetically engineered coral was primarily influenced by: (a) their belief that a synbio solution significantly superseded current methods of coral loss prevention; and (b) the technology's perceived effectiveness in mitigating the coral loss problem. Pankratz et al. (2002) argue that perceived advantage of a novel technological solution is related to increased uptake of an innovation, but is especially useful when assessing policy adoption of an intervention. Although this study examined perceived benefit at the individual level, Pankratz et al. (2002) further suggest that at the organizational level, if a technology is perceived as being superior to its predecessor, there is greater likelihood of securing funding and support. Therefore, it may be useful for future end users of the technology (e.g., marine park managers) to know that innovative synbio coral technology is perceived as advantageous by the Australian public and that this belief is also linked with higher technology support and a greater willingness to visit the reef post-intervention.

Results from this study also demonstrate the cultural value and importance of the GBR amongst the sample. While perceptions of threat severity were not influential in predicting support for the synbio technology, people still believed coral reef loss to be a severe threat in Australia and believed it was necessary to implement a viable solution sooner rather than later. It is also interesting to note that when asked about perceived costs and benefits, scores hovered slightly above the mid-point of the scale (∼3.5 on a 1-5 scale) for both variables; that is, respondents, on average, were a little more than moderately concerned about the potential risks while still slightly agreeing that the technology would be better than current methods. It is possible that people may hold equally strong, but divergent, views on the need for a "radical" solution to save a dying reef while also experiencing an inherent precaution toward the unknown consequences of this technology.

This high level of uncertainty with respect to the technology may also be a by-product of the fact that this study's presentation of the technology did not explicitly communicate any risks and instead focused on explaining the problem situation and potential benefits of the proposed technological solution. While the reasoning for this was to allow individuals to elicit their own perception of risk rather than introducing hypothetical risks or priming, this approach may have potentially biased responses in favor of the synbio/genetic solution presented. However, the authors argue that this method still allowed for a robust examination of public perceptions of the proposed technology, particularly as the path model found good discrimination and fit between the causal variables in predicting support for genetically engineered coral.

Protective Sentiment Toward the Reef and Support for a Novel Solution

The present results are consistent with prior research that suggests perceived threat could raise a sense of value and protective sentiments toward the reef and simultaneously motivate collective action to protect and conserve the reef ( Curnock et al., 2019). Additionally, prior research has found that some tourists travel to the GBR mainly because they wish to see the reef before it is too late ( Piggott-McKellar and McNamara, 2017), highlighting the important motivational role of threat perceptions. The study shows that while perceived threat severity (i.e., the belief that coral reef loss is a problem) was not a strong attitudinal driver of technology support, it was the equal strongest predictor of willingness to visit the reef along with technology support.

The importance of protecting the reef is further reflected in participants' stated threshold for synbio intervention in the reef (implicit threat vulnerability). Many felt that the right time to introduce a genetic solution to coral reef loss was when approximately 50-70% (which in fact corresponds to 25-35% in absolute terms) of coral reef was remaining in the GBR. Similarly, one's desire to visit the reef post-intervention was also higher when they also believed that coral reef loss was a problem in the GBR. In reality, coral cover is not 100% even on healthy reefs. Density of cover depends on many factors (e.g., water temperature, location, and human activities; Bruno et al., 2009). Early published quantitative surveys of coral cover cite baseline at around 50% ( Bruno et al., 2014; Eddy et al., 2018). Eddy et al. (2018) report the earliest quantitative estimate of coral cover in some parts of the GBR was as low as 28% in 1985. Thus, in "real" terms, if coral cover is scaled more absolutely as a 0-50% scale (based on early published quantitative survey values), the "real" threshold point at which participants were most supportive of implementing a genetically engineered coral solution was between 25 and 5% of coral cover remaining. Current estimates reported by the Australian Institute of Marine Science have cited the range of coral cover across the GBR at between 10 and 30% in 2018/2019 ( Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2019), significantly below participants' stated threshold for a genetic solution. One could argue that if a synthetic biology solution was to be implemented on the reef today, it might be met with less public resistance than, perhaps, 20 years ago when coral reef cover in the GBR was significantly higher. The inference here is that threat perceptions raise protective sentiments toward the reef to the extent that they may catalyze actions to save it ( Curnock et al., 2019).

Response Costs and Mental Trade-Offs

The measure of implicit threat vulnerability in this study enabled the detection of a reef loss threshold for technology implementation amongst participants. It provides some understanding of the point at which people were willing to make a decisional trade-off between perceived risks of the technology and perceived benefits. To understand this further, the study also examined perceptions of response costs or risks associated with the introduction of genetically engineered coral in the GBR, in addition to the perceived benefits of the technology. Original protection motivation framing defined costs as " any 'costs' of adopting the recommended preventive response" ( Rogers, 1983, p. 169), including mental difficulty and complexity in decision-making, which requires a significant cognitive cost or load. The measurement of perceived costs in the present study asked participants to weigh up their concerns about long-term effects of genetically engineered coral on humans, animals, and the natural environment. Participants were also asked the extent to which they were concerned that the consequences could be effectively controlled or managed. Although higher perceived costs did predict lower support for the development of synbio coral, there was no relationship between perceived costs (risks) and willingness to engage with the technology in situ. This suggests a potential distinction made by participants between initial support for the development of synbio coral versus their behavioral intention to engage with the technology should it be implemented.

Willingness to Visit the Reef

While participants were at least moderately supportive of developing a genetic solution for restoring and protecting coral loss in the GBR, it was interesting to see a higher stated willingness to visit areas of the GBR where genetically engineered coral may be introduced. This suggests a significant conceptual distinction between attitudinal support for the technology and a behavioral willingness toward engaging with the reef post-intervention. Further, it also exemplifies that individuals are employing mental trade-offs when deciding and contextualizing their support for the technology development. An inherent acknowledgment exists that this conservation technology comes with uncertainty and potential risks, however, the value of the reef is such that people would be willing to tolerate some risk and still be more likely than not to visit parts of the GBR where genetically engineered coral has been introduced. An explanation of this position may be that although people vary on their level of support or acceptance for a synbio solution to the coral loss problem, other factors can independently influence one's behavioral interaction with the technology, such as sociocultural values associated with the reef ( Piggott-McKellar and McNamara, 2017; Curnock et al., 2019). The national importance of the GBR and associated public protective sentiment may, thus, encourage public engagement with an uncertain technology more readily than an arena where the perceived need is lower. However, in equal measure, this may also mean greater public scrutiny around technology efficacy and the promise of delivery.

Limitations

This study provides a preliminary view of how the public might respond to the introduction of genetically engineered coral. While an effort was made to explain the technology by using both visual diagrams and simple text (in the form of a storyboard), it is recognized that the presentation of information was simplistic and survey research methods carry with them inherent limitations (see Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 2012 for a discussion of common method variance). However, the main limitation of the current research that must be acknowledged is the lack of targeted sampling of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives toward the use of genetically engineered coral in the GBR specifically. Along the GBR coast, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are the Traditional custodians of the GBR and any changes to the delicate balance of the GBR ecosystem would impact this group significantly. Thus, while these results are meaningful and comprise an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sample that is proportional to that of the broader Australian population, it is important to acknowledge that the results reflect a bias toward non-Indigenous perspectives of the GBR. Similarly, the current research did not specifically target residents living in the GBR region. Long-term GBR locals - like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities living along the GBR coast - may be sensitive to changes to the GBR, especially if they rely on the reef for their livelihood (e.g., tourism operators and fishers). Future research may therefore seek to undertake a more place-based analysis of public perceptions by surveying residents living in the GBR region.

Conclusion

The perceived need for a viable solution for coral reef loss in Australia is clearly high, and the inextricable link that Australians have with the World Heritage site make it not only an ideal candidate for novel solutions, but also one fraught with incredibly complex social institutions ( Lane and Robinson, 2009; Curnock et al., 2019; Westoby and McNamara, 2019). This study demonstrates that public decision making about acceptance of synthetic biology technologies is predicated on multiple and interrelated factors about the technology's efficacy and intended benefits, rather than a set of static beliefs and values around risk. This suggests that, all things considered, the public are open to learning about synthetic biology technology for reef conservation and are willing to consider it as a potential solution to a defined problem. If this synthetic biology solution continues to be developed and emerges as a viable solution for reef restoration and conservation, it is recommended that engagement with the public focus more on technology efficacy and intended benefits. Developers should also seek end user feedback for areas of technology uncertainty and risk, to integrate into all stages of research development and plans for implementation. This research also makes a novel contribution to the broader literature on public engagement with science through the creation of a storyboard to communicate complex science. The authors contend that without the presentation of the storyboard (e.g., the use of a textual description alone), it would have been difficult for many participants to form an understanding and appraisal of the complex technology. These findings provide the science communication and research communities with valuable insights to inform future public messaging campaigns.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by CSIRO Social and Interdisciplinary Science Human Research Ethics Committee. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

AM: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resource visualization, supervision, validation, roles and writing-original draft, writing-review, and editing. EH: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resource visualization, validation, roles and writing - original draft, writing - review, and editing. LC: conceptualization, resource visualization, writing - original draft, writing - review, and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This research was funded by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of CSIRO Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform biotechnology scientists for assisting with storyboard development, in particular Patrick Buerger and Owain Edwards, for their generosity in reviewing earlier versions of this manuscript.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.710641/full#supplementary-material

Footnotes

References

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Engineering Coral for Conservation: Psychological Correlates of Public Acceptability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coral bleaching contributes to widespread reef loss globally, including Australia's World Heritage site, the Great Barrier Reef. Synthetic biology offers the potential to isolate and cultivate strains of coral that can naturally withstand higher sea surface temperatures associated with climate change.

# data[].attributes.body
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ocean/corals/hope-for-corals.html#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20coral%20nursery,stimulating%20recovery%20of%20these%20ecosystems.

# data[].attributes.body
Using 3D printers to create Carbonate skeletons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coral Relief: How 3D Printing Is Reviving the Ocean's Key Ecosystems

# data[].attributes.body
The EPA is protecting coral reefs by implementing clean water programs to protect water quality in coral reef areas. The EPA is developing tools for coral reefs to adapt to the conditions.

Noah

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
identify such actions;

use their programs and authorities to protect and enhance coral reef ecosystems; and

ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the condition of coral reef ecosystems.

EPA protects coral reefs by implementing Clean Water Act programs that protect water quality in watersheds and coastal zones of coral reef areas. EPA also supports efforts to monitor and assess the condition of U.S. coral reefs, and conducts research into the causes of coral reef deterioration. EPA is developing tools to help adapt coral reefs to better handle changing conditions. Much of EPA's work to protect coral reefs is conducted in partnership with other federal agencies, states, and territories. For example, EPA is an active member of the interagency U.S. Coral Reef Task Force.

Clean Water Act and Coral Reefs

EPA strategically applies its Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory and non-regulatory programs to reduce land-based sources of pollution that degrade coastal waters and coral reefs that live in them. Improving coral reef health by addressing local stressors will enhance their natural resilience. EPA:

Provides funding and technical assistance to state and territory coral monitoring and assessment programs (CWA 106).

Targets nonpoint source (CWA 319) funds to implement water quality improvement projects in watersheds that discharge into coral reef locations.

Works with states to improve the environmental protections provided by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System sewer and stormwater management permits (CWA 402).

Works with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to avoid and minimize impacts to coral reefs from discharges of dredged or fill material avoid and minimize impacts to coral reefs, and to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts (CWA 404; see also Coral Reef Guidance: 1999 Memorandum to the Field).

Supports derivation and adoption (by states) of water quality standards to increase protection of corals. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA consults with NOAA to ensure that new/revised criteria are fully protective of ESA-listed coral species and their critical habitats.

Supports the development of biological assessment methods and biological criteria for states, tribes, and territories to use in evaluating the health of coral reefs and associated water quality.

Works to reduce trash from entering coastal waters through EPA's Trash-Free Waters program.

Ensures that dredging and ocean disposal of dredged material is conducted in a manner that does not adversely impact coral reefs (CWA 403 criteria).

Works with the Coast Guard to regulate the transportation of municipal and commercial waste on vessels and to issue regulations for the manufacture, maintenance, and efficiency of marine sanitation devices (boat toilets), as well as the establishment of "no discharge zones" for vessel sewage (CWA 312).

Recent Products

This paper, representing a collaboration between US EPA, US Coast Guard, and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, discusses the current state of knowledge about vessel ballast water as a potential mode of transmission of Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease (SCTLD) and provides a framework for future research in this area.

The purpose of this document is to illustrate how the Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Tool can be set up to evaluate and compare watersheds for sediment and nutrient runoff into coral reef ecosystems. This document helps set up the tool, select appropriate indicators for evaluating where conditions promote the likelihood of sediment and nutrient runoff, and interpret the outputs for purposes of prioritizing management activities.

U.S. Coral Reef Task Force

EPA is actively engaged in the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF). The USCRTF was established by Executive Order 13089 to lead U.S. efforts to preserve and protect coral reef ecosystems. It is instrumental in building partnerships and strategies for on-the-ground action to conserve coral reefs. The USCRTF is co-chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of the Interior with regular participation from twelve federal agencies, seven states and territories, and three freely associated states.

EPA chairs and participates on several USCRTF working groups, including the Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Working Group, Enforcement Working Group, and the Watershed Partnership Initiative Working Group. Recent products of these working groups that EPA helped to develop include:

EPA Resource Guide for Managers of Coastal Watersheds with Coral Reefs

The EPA Resource Guide for Managers of Coastal Watersheds with Coral Reefs provides a general overview of the most relevant EPA programs and tools that can help watershed managers address land-based sources of pollution that impact coral reefs. The guide is intended primarily for watershed managers that participate in the USCRTF, but may serve as a useful resource for others.

Corals and Climate Adaptation Planning (CCAP) Adaptation Design Tool and User's Guide

The Corals and Climate Adaptation Design Tool can be used by coral reef managers to incorporate climate-smart design into their programs and projects at any stage of planning and implementation. The tool has been used with partners in Guánica Bay, Puerto Rico and West Maui, Hawai'i.

Handbook on Coral Reef Impacts: Avoidance, Minimization, Compensatory Mitigation, and Restoration

This Handbook on Coral Reef Impacts provides a review of the federal authorities, existing policies, and federal, state, and territory roles and responsibilities; a compendium of current best practices-science-based methodologies for quantifying ecosystem functions or services; and a general overview of basic protocols available for use when assessing impacts to coral reef ecosystems and mitigating or restoring for unavoidable impacts to coral reef ecosystems, including the use of appropriate compensatory action to replace the lost functions and services.

USCRTF Watershed Partnership Initiative Priority Ecosystem Indicators

The (56 pp, 1.5 MB, USCRTF Watershed Partnership Initiative Priority Ecosystem Indicators document (PDF)About PDF)provides coastal managers, coral reef managers, and watershed coordinators faced with modest budgets a suite of recommended ecological indicators and measurements to include in their watershed-specific monitoring plans. The recommended ecological indicators and measurements help determine the efficacy and evaluate the success of management efforts to reduce land-based sources of pollution on coral reef ecosystems.

USCRTF Watershed Partnership Initiative Programmatic Checklist

A user-friendly (6 pp, 575 K, programmatic checklist (PDF)About PDF)developed to help managers and watershed coordinators identify programmatic needs for the successful implementation of a ridge to reef watershed management plan.

International Coral Reef Initiative

The U.S. Federal Government is a member of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI),a partnership between Nations and organizations which strives to preserve coral reefs and related ecosystems around the world. ICRI has declared 2018 as the third International Year of the Reef (IYOR).IYOR is a global effort to build awareness and understanding of coral reef ecosystems to support conservation, research, and management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What EPA is Doing to Protect Coral Reefs | US EPA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
identify such actions; use their programs and authorities to protect and enhance coral reef ecosystems; and ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not degrade the condition of coral reef ecosystems. EPA protects coral reefs by implementing Clean Water Act programs that protect water quality in watersheds and coastal zones of coral reef areas.

# data[].attributes.headline
diving responsibly when going to the Coral Reefs.  

# data[].attributes.subject
diving responsibly when going to the Coral Reefs.  

# data[].attributes.body
Making sure that when you go diving, you do not kick or stand on the coral since it could damage the reef.
-Donghyun

# data[].attributes.body
Research where your seafood comes from and if it's caught sustainablty. parrotfish eat algae off coral reefs, cleaning the reefs and helping the corals stay healthe and thriving.

-Airi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Land & Water Stories

Here are some simple, effective actions you can take to help save coral reefs and the fish, animals and plants that depend on them.

Maluku Islands Reef Scenic with Diver, Hard Corals, Reef fishes. © Jeff Yonover

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Want to help coral reefs? Here are some simple, effective actions you can take to help save coral reefs and the fish, animals and plants that depend on them.

# data[].attributes.body
Low-Voltage Mineral Deposition technology (LVMD), widely known as Biorock, has previously been suggested as support for coral reef restoration

In this technology, very low voltage induces an electrical current that initiates precipitation and accretion of hard minerals (aragonite and calcite) on a metal in seawater. This technology has been discussed mainly for its biological value, while this paper wants to highlight also its engineering value as artificial reef material.

Coral and boulder reefs suffering from degradation have severe implications on biodiversity, protection from flooding, and cultural value and therefore understanding how to persevere and re-establish these ecosystems is central for sustainable intervention in the marine environment.

-Teagan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Department of the Built Environment, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Saitama University, Saitama, Japan

Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University - Foulum, Aarhus, Denmark

Marine Biology Laboratory of Province, Bari, Italy

Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University Esbjerg, Esbjerg, Denmark

Low-Voltage Mineral Deposition technology (LVMD), widely known as Biorock, has previously been suggested as support for coral reef restoration, as hypothesized high porosity, wide pore-size distribution and connectivity, and good strength properties may facilitate biological functions (for example larvae settlement) and durability. In this technology, very low voltage induces an electrical current that initiates precipitation and accretion of hard minerals (aragonite and calcite) on a metal in seawater. This technology has been discussed mainly for its biological value, while this paper wants to highlight also its engineering value as artificial reef material. Indeed, some of the properties that makes it valuable in one domain are also supporting its use in the other. Because the metal on which the precipitation takes place can be of any shape and size, so can the artificial reef and its mechanical strength characteristics are above the ones of corals and similar to concrete, indicating adequate durability. Coral and boulder reefs suffering from degradation have severe implications on biodiversity, protection from flooding, and cultural value and therefore understanding how to persevere and re-establish these ecosystems is central for sustainable intervention in the marine environment. By comparing chemical-physical characteristics of Coral Porites Exoskeleton (CPE), one typical reef building coral type, LVMD and High-Voltage Mineral Deposition (HVMD), we show that they possess highly similar properties including chemical composition, density, total porosity, pore-size distribution, physical and chemical heterogeneity, total and external surface areas, and comparable mechanical strength.

Introduction

Reefs can be either biogenic concretions (such as coral reefs) or of geogenic origin (rocky, boulder reefs). They are hard compact substrata on solid and soft bottoms, which rise from the sea floor nearshore and in the littoral zone ( European Commission, 2007). In both cases, they are important ecosystems, functioning as nurseries, hosting high biodiversity and biomasses. They also provide an important ecosystem benefit by protecting coasts from erosion and flooding, by trapping sediments and absorbing up to 97% of wave energy ( Ferrario et al., 2014) as low-crested breakwaters ( Gallop et al., 2014). Attributes that allow reefs to perform their coastal protection and ecological services include: surface roughness, depth of the crest, slope and surface of the assembly contribute directly to wave dissipation. Additionally, coral reefs are like factories of calcium carbonate and their natural degradation in time provides a continuous supply of sediments to the beach ( Sheppard et al., 2005). Rates of carbonate production from coral reefs are some of the highest in the world (1,000-4,000 g calcium carbonate m ²/y; Mallela and Perry, 2007). The balance between carbonate production and erosion is symptomatic of the health of the system. Erosion causes a loss of the three-dimensional structure and a flattening of the reef surface; it is generated by bio-erosion by fish and bio-eroding organisms, but physical and chemical erosion may be dominant ( Perry et al., 2013). The necessary strength of the reefs to survive wave forces and mechanical erosion is to be found in the structure (and porosity) of the material at micro- and macro-scales. Finally, the abundance of microhabitats provides shelter and sustains a complex ecosystem, where many different organisms perform important roles improving water quality and regulating nutrients supply, and where symbiotic and mutually beneficial relations among species thrive. Additionally, attachment of spore and/or coral larvae to substrate is effected by the pore size in coral reefs ( Whalan et al., 2015).

Both coral and boulder reefs suffer from degradation with clear negative implications on biodiversity, fisheries, protection from flooding and coastal storms, cultural and aesthetic value. It is estimated that more than 50% of the coral reef are in medium and high risk of degradation ( Burke et al., 2011) due to unsustainable coastal development, contamination, nutrient enrichment, overfishing and ocean warming (inducing bleaching and mortality). Particularly, under future climate-related effects (ocean warming and acidification, sea level rise, increase of extreme events), even in view of positive coral adaptation to thermal stress, between one- to two-thirds of the world's coral reefs are projected to be subject to long-term degradation ( Frieler et al., 2013; Lenton et al., 2019). Even if present-day corals have had residual capacity to acclimate and/or adapt, half of the coral reefs may avoid high-frequency bleaching from now to 2100 ( Logan et al., 2014). Regrettably, there is no unequivocal evidence of corals adapting rapidly enough ( Hoegh-Guldberg, 2012). Boulder reefs do not necessarily have a better fate: they have been used as a source of construction materials. An example could be the events in Denmark prior to the amendment to the Danish Raw Materials Act on 1 January 2010 that banned the removal of stones and boulders from sea beds. It is conservatively estimated that 40 km ² of exposed stone surface has been removed from stone reefs in coastal Danish waters ( Støttrup et al., 2014). The extent of loss of the services provided by reefs largely depend on how well threats are reduced and managed. Within protection and restoration practices, one clear separation exists between engineered structures for coastal protection and artificial reefs. Coastal protection structures, such as breakwaters and groins, are designed using well-established engineering tools and models (e.g., USACE 2002; Sabatier, 2002) with the purpose of meeting the needs of the population living on the coast with limited or no regards to natural benefits. Artificial reefs, on the other hands, are structures placed on the seabed to mimic functions of natural reefs, enhancing the population of living marine resources, including protection and regeneration of habitats; guidelines have been derived from general regional regulations addressing the compatibility of the used materials with the marine environment ( Fabi et al., 2015). Particularly, to avoid degradation and pollution from unsuitable materials the London Convention and Protocol/UNEP, 2009 indicates that the materials should (1) be inert, (2) take into consideration resistance to the chemical and physical forces, (3) have a lifetime of minimum 30 years, and (4) be suitable for colonization by benthic communities. Both ecological and engineering schools of thought could be merged into integrated designs for a more effective and holistic approach that could provide viable long-term strategies for coastal management. Degraded reefs can be structurally and functionally restored using biological, physical and artificial techniques, incorporating a nature-based principle into engineered breakwaters ( World Bank Group, 2016). Therefore, the suitability of the materials needs to be addressed considering requirements from both expertise.

In this contest, the low-voltage mineral deposition technology (LVMD, in some biological applications known as Biorock), uses direct current to grow underwater limestone structures on a metal frame of any shape and size in the sea. These structures are self-repairing and can function as breakwaters to protect the coast if the design is optimized to this purpose. LVMD can be speeded up by increasing the voltage (HVMD) and allowing the precipitation also of Magnesium Hydroxide (Brucite), instead of calcium carbonate (Araginite). In addition, the process has shown stimulatory effects on different forms of marine life ( Vaccarella and Goreau, 2012). Particularly, reef-building corals, soft corals, oysters and salt marsh grass have shown growth rates 3.17 times faster than controls, which could be an advance when faster restoration is needed. The first study to investigate the Biorock as building material, presents results of standard compression tests for twenty samples of electrodeposited material accreted during different tests in real sea in Port Aransas and St. Croix ( Goreau, 2014). The results indicate a strength comparable or superior to concrete, suggesting a strength adequate to survive wave forces. Biorock has been comparable to coral reefs, being highly porous, permeable (well-connected pore-network), with high surface areas and good strength ( Hilbertz, 1979).

Our hypothesis is that the electrochemical deposited material (LVMD or HVMD) over a cathode could provide the long acclaimed and awaited dual function of protection and restoration of coastal environments, combining both an ecological and engineering school of thought. The ultimate objective of this paper is to introduce the opportunity of "tuning" the mineral deposition technology to grow slow and strong, or faster and more fragile, depending on the imposed electrical voltage but in both cases producing a material suitable for this application. By doing so we present the set of methods, that allows the comparison of these materials for both their engineering and biological functions.

In this study we quantified and compared the properties valuable for biological and engineering functions for: (i) LVMD (slow grown), (ii) HVMD (fast grown), (iii) a natural reef building coral, i.e., coral porites (CPE). We do so by presenting the results on the three samples of different origin in parallel (Chapter 2), so that the comparison between natural (CPE) and artificial (LVMD and HVMD) materials is central. At first, we compare physical-chemical structures trough the analysis with ICP OS, XRD and SEM (section "Physical-Chemical Structure"). Then we present the physical phase distributions and surface areas (section "Physical Phase Distribution and Surface Area") using EGME, the pore-size distributions using MIP (section "Pore-Size Distribution") and finally mechanical strengths by mean of direct compression to compression tests results with concrete (section "Mechanical Strength"). The Discussion of the results follows in Chapter 3 and the main conclusions are presented in Chapter 4. Given the variety of methods used in this study, Chapter 5 is dedicated to the details of all systems used to obtain the results here presented.

Results

The materials compared in this study are calcium carbonates of different origins:

1. Coral Porites Exoskeleton from Tanzania (CPE).

2. Biorock mineral deposition from an installation in Thailand (LVMD).

3. Mineral Deposition (scale deposits) of precipitated material on submarine power cable induced by High Voltage in the South of Italy (HVMD).

The initial mass of each material was approximately 300 g of CPE, 25 g of LVMD and 2,000 g of HVMD. Table 1 summarizes the relevant conditions in which the materials had accumulated in terms of water temperature, water depth, and when applicable, applied voltage.

Table 1. The investigated calcium babonates and their origin. For HVMD, Underwater Photo-by S.T.E.S. (Sub Techinal Edil Service).

While the CPE grows naturally under the calcification process of the corals, LVMD and HVMD are manmade, with the first being a controlled process and the second, uncontrolled. The CPE is a reef building coral and includes different species growing in tropical waters. It is reported that it grows its skeleton about the central axis between 0.3 and 1.2 cm/y in average, depending on location, climate and colony type ( Elizalde-Rendon et al., 2010; Neviaty et al., 2016; Tortolero-Langarica José de Jesús et al., 2016).

The Biorock technology precipitates calcium carbonate over the cathode establishing a direct current between two electrodes in sea water (typically 1.2-2.5 V). Besides the applied potential, the main parameters affecting the accretion are water temperature, pH, conductivity, and suspended sediments. The reduction of water taking place at the cathode results in an increase of pH close to the cathode surface. When the pH increases the carbonate equilibrium is shifted toward carbonate (CO ₃ ²⁻), and CaCO ₃ precipitates at the surface of the electrode ( Karoui et al., 2013). CaCO ₃ can form two different polymorphs at typical seawater conditions: aragonite and calcite. Preliminary experiments have shown that increasing the current above a certain level results in electrodeposition of magnesium hydroxide [Mg(OH) ₂, brucite] rather than CaCO ₃. Naturally, brucite is also often found in association with calcite and aragonite. The deposition of brucite takes place when the pH of the surface of the electrode reaches 9.2 ( Barchiche et al., 2004). Despite the reported growth rates of Biorock varying significantly depending on conditions, it is clear that a well-functioning installation in warm waters (such as the one from where LVMD was taken) can have growth rates up to 2 cm/y ( Goreau and Prong, 2017; Margheritini et al., 2020).

HVMD, in this case, resulted from parasitic currents after the probable disappearance of insulation of the high voltage Italy-Greece submarine power cable (max tension = 400 k Volts). While the water temperatures in the cases of CPE and LVMD correspond to warm tropical shallow waters, the formation of HVMD occurred in deeper and cooler waters in the Mediterranean Sea. The growth rate was estimated based on the observations made after monitoring: a 6 cm accretion was formed after roughly 2 years.

We investigated a wide array of physical and chemical properties for the two artificially developed materials compared to natural coral reef. The selected properties were deemed relevant for potentially applying the materials in coral reef repair including supporting an bioactive marine ecosystem at the reef. Chemical and mineralogical composition, internal and external surface areas, pore structure and size distribution, material structure and densities, and mechanical strength were obtained using state-of-the-art measurement and visualization methods, Table 2 and Figure 1.

Table 2. Physical-chemical properties of CPE, LVMD, and HVMD.

Figure 1. Surface Structure of CPE (A,D,G,J), LVMD (B,E,H,K), and HVMD (C,F,I,L).

Physical-Chemical Structure

The physical and chemical structure of the three materials was investigated through the following parameters:

a. Contents of chemical compounds and mineral composition.

b. SEM imaging.

c. Chemical surface distribution.

The calcomagnesian compounds differ in their chemical composition: CPE shows 99.1% Calcium and 0.9 Magnesium; LVMD 78% Calcium, 22% Magnesium and HVMD a variable 37-61% of Calcium and 68-39% of Magnesium, respectively. The chemical composition reflects directly in the mineral composition where CPE being 99.7% aragonite; LVMD 80.8% aragonite, 18.9% brucite and 0.3% calcite; and HVMD 46.6% aragonite, 52.3% brucite, and 1.1% calcite. It is expected that the chemical and mineral compositions have an influence on the strength of the materials, disclosing details on the different hardness of the minerals present in the samples: while brucite is 2.5-3 in hardness from the Mohs scale, calciate is 3 and aragonite features 3.5-4, being the hardest of the three minerals.

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) images at × 100 magnification show the perforated surface of the CPE shaped by the corallites which are the circular system of holes forming a skeletal cup, made by an individual stony coral polyp, that are circa 1,500 μm in diameter. These are clearly not present in the LVMD and HVMD because they haven't been formed by hard corals polyps but by precipitation of minerals induced under electrolysis of seas water. Therefore, they feature a smoother surface with fissures. Zooming into ×5,000 magnification in Supplementary Appendix we can notice crystals from all the samples, with particularly big prismatic crystal in the LVMD and small one in the HVMD sample, and acicular crystals for CPE. In literature, the mineral structure of Coral Porites was studied in detail, revealing a complex growing mechanisms influenced by the day and night light cycles. Three distinct regions were defined in the mineral orientation: (1) randomly orientated granular, porous nanocrystals; (2) partly oriented nanocrystals which were more granular and porous; and (3) densely packed aligned needle-like crystals. The first type would be produced during the day, while at night the calcification process slows down and generates long aligned needles forming an acicular habit ( van de Locht et al., 2013).

The chemical surface visualization for Calcium confirms the results of the chemical composition analysis and reveals a more homogeneous distribution for CPE and LVMD than HVMD.

Physical Phase Distribution and Surface Area

The Physical phase distribution of the three materials was investigated through the parameters:

d. Bulk density.

e. Solids density.

f. Total porosity.

The CPE has the highest solids density (2.83 g/cm ³) followed by the LVMD (2.70 g/cm ³). The HVMD material is the material with lowest density (2.24-2.54 g/cm ³). The difference between the two artificial materials is caused by the speed of the process for mineral deposition under sea water electrolysis. In the case of LVMD the process is slow at very low voltages, and, this results in a denser product. In case of HVMD, the process happens with excess energy, higher electrical currents and more rapidly, resulting in the deposition of more brucite and less aragonite and a much lower density. CPE, on the other hands, has a solid density closer to the one of LVMD. Measurements of the bulk density and total porosity are present only for CPE and HVMD because the sample of LVMD was too small to have comparable results with the other two specimens (for the bulk density 1 cm ³ of material was carved, dried in the oven and weighed). Nevertheless, the bulk density of HVMD is higher than the one of CPE, supposedly because of the macropores.

The bulk density of CPE is lower than HVMD (1.3-1.4 g/cm ³ vs. 1.6-1.9 g/cm ³) and the total porosity is instead consistently higher (50.5-54.1% vs. 25.2-28.6%). The LVMD appears to have a very high bulk density and consequently a relatively low total porosity.

The surface areas where investigated by mean of:

g. Total specific surface area.

h. External specific surface area.

i. Internal calculation.

We used the retention of Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether (EGME) for the adsorption of polar liquids probing the total surface area together with the physisorption of nitrogen gas (BET-N ₂) for the gas adsorption methods, yielding the external surface area of the mineral particles. For the BET-N ₂, if the material has intracrystalline porosity, then the measured surface area should be independent of the particle size, since the surface area of the pores will prevail. If the material has little or no intracrystalline porosity, then there may be a particle-size dependence, which is strongest at the smallest sizes. Total surface area can show a significant influence on many physical and chemical properties of materials. In addition to cation exchange capacity and absorption, it may be the dominant factor in controlling their mechanical behavior.

The total surface area measured with EGME shows the largest area for the LVMD (25.88 m ²/g), followed by the HVMD (17.96 m ²/g) and the smallest area corresponding to the CPE (11.81 m ²/g). Samples with high total surface area have high water holding capacities, or in other words, increased adsorption capacities.

The highest external surface area is clearly found in the HVMD (8.14 m ²/g), followed by the LVMD (2.49 m ²/g) and CPE (0.17 m ²/g). By calculation, the internal area is 11.64 m ²/g for CPE, 23.39 m ²/g for LVMD and 9.82 m ²/g for HVMD. This shows a large ratio of internal-to-external surface area in CPE and LVMD in comparison to HVMD.

For porous materials, the external surface area is negligible compared to the internal one. As mentioned, this is the case for the coral sample. Closed pores have no relevance for surface phenomena and they influence only the bulk density. Nitrogen adsorption and BET is then the only way to obtain the surface area of porous materials when interconnection of pores is present, taking into account that it overestimates values when micropores are present. The effective porosity is, in this sense, the total porosity less the isolated porosity. In the CPE, all the pores are interconnected.

Pore-Size Distribution

The pore size distribution was investigated by mean of:

j. Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP).

This determines the volume of open pores between 0.006 and 360 μm together with the pore entrance size distribution. Corals porites have an average pores size distribution of 200-250 μm. In this study, the pore volumes are observed in the microporous (≤1 μm) and macroporous (>1 μm) regions. As Table 2 shows, CPE yields the highest pore volumes: 1.40⋅10 ⁻² mL/g for pores ≤1 μm and 28.5⋅10 ⁻² mL/g for pores >1 μm, showing significantly large pores in the macroporous region. This is caused by the large volume of pores in the 40-100 μm region, as seen in Figure 1. The pores are reasonably interconnected as they have been formed by the polyps during their lives and growth. By comparison, the LVMD shows a pore volume 0.79⋅10 ⁻² mL/g for pores ≤1 μm and 4.41⋅10 ⁻² mL/g for pores >1 μm while the HVMD features, respectively, 7.85⋅10 ⁻² mL/g and 3.37⋅10 ⁻² mL/g. While LVMD displays an even pore-size distribution, which is known to improve the strength of a material, HVMD displays more uneven majority of pore volumes in the respective <0.1 μm and >10 μm ranges. The pore-size distributions are visually demonstrated in the SEM images in Figure 1, which clearly exhibit the macropores present in CPE. The cumulative size-distribution of the pores may be observed in Supplementary Appendix.

Mechanical Strength

The mechanical strength is a very interesting parameter to consider because it relates to one of the most important functions of reefs, which is the coastal protection function and therefore the ability to withstand wave forces. In the tests, we compared a standard 3.5 kN concrete with our three materials [Concrete with compressive strength of 25 MPa, corresponding to a compressive strength class C20/25 ( British Standards Institution, 2013)]. The strength is determined based on scaled down compression test-puncture resistance. Results given in kN as function as displacement. Standard compression is given in MPa = N/mm2 as function of displacement. The outcomes of these tests confirm the results from Doctor H. Hilbertz Wolf with LVMD indicating a compression strength above 3.5 kN; additionally, CPE show the lower resistance to compression followed by HVMD with a compression strength just above 1 kN, i.e., 3 times smaller than the stronger samples. These results can be correlated to the investigated pore-size distributions, including the large presence of macropores in CPE and uneven pore-size distribution in HVMD.

Discussion

The material between the macro-pores in the CPE is denser (2.83 g/cm ³ vs. 2.24-254 g/cm ³) and harder (aragonite vs. brucite) than the one between the fractures and porosities of the HVMD sample.

The pore size distribution differs in the three materials: while CPE and LVMD are similar in the sense that their pore volumes ≤1 μm are smaller than the pore volumes > 1 μm; the opposite is true for the HVMD sample. Again, this again might be partially explained by the different conditions (and speeds) in which the two artificial materials were formed. It is interesting to notice that while CPE presents a peak just before 100 μm, HVMD has a peak (even if smaller) just before 0.1 μm; LVMD has a much more uniform pore size distribution compared to the other two materials. Indeed, the rapid-growth marine deposit showed a more bimodal pore-size distribution (micro- and macropores, almost no connecting meso-pores) and different mineral composition, which may affect both ecosystem functions and large-scale strength.

The pore size distribution can be connected to the mechanical properties of the materials, but other functions related to the ecosystem health may also be influenced by it. For example, it is known that many reef-building corals have evolved in tight symbiosis with photosynthetic algae that live in their tissues. The exoskeleton has therefore the function of growing toward sun light and, by some more recent studies, at the same time, absorbing ultraviolet radiation that could induce tissue damage while reflecting the photosynthetic active radiation ( Reef et al., 2009). This seem to be a property of calcium carbonate and its structure. Additionally, the ability of a material to be colonized by marine life and therefore its sustainability, is also determined by its pore size distribution.

Conclusion

We have identified the properties that could promote the use of electrochemical deposited materials (LVMD or HVMD) for (artificial) submerged reefs with the dual function of restoration of marine environments and coastal protection. These properties are: physical-chemical structure, phase distribution and surface area, pore-size distribution and mechanical strength. We hypothesize that the artificial materials analyzed can combine both ecological and engineering school of thought as they can be designed to be the very similar to coral reefs (the quintessential natural coastal protection system) in shape and size, to even mimic porosity, mineral composition, surface roughness and mechanical strength. Additionally, by tuning the applied electrical voltage it should be possible to obtain a rapid grown but less strong reef mainly composed by brucite, while when allowing more time and lower voltage, a stronger deposition of calcite and aragonite would occur.

While no significant differences were found between the two electrodeposited artificial materials and coral Porites in terms of physical and chemical properties, it must be noticed the compression strength of the artificial materials is significantly higher than the one of coral Porites. Chemical and mineral compositions do not have the only influence on the strength of the materials: HVMD with higher percentage of brucite, less hard than calcite and aragonite (hardest), in compression tests showed weaker mechanical resistance than LVMD, but not than CPE; in fact, CPE is the weakest of the three materials despite having the highest percentage of aragonite. A concurring and seemingly more important parameter is the pore size distribution, where even pore-size distribution promotes material resistance. In this respect, LVMD has the best resistance and the most even pore size distribution and only the second higher percentage of hardest material, aragonite. HVMD showed a more bimodal pore-size distribution and different mineral composition, which may affect ecosystem functions and strength. Thus, a combination of rapid-growth and slow-growth processes is likely necessary for timely combined applications of artificial reefs for habitat restoration and coastal protection. The key aspect of their compatibility with the marine environment lays in their chemical and mineral composition, mostly calcium carbonate and aragonite. The success of the material for colonization by benthic communities (widely documented in the literature), had been hypnotized to be hidden in the capability of the electrical current of stimulating biological growth ( Kihara et al., 2018), as well as in the similarity of the chemical and mineral composition to natural corals and hard shell marine organisms, the surface porosity that facilitate larvae settlement. This study also sheds some light into these hypothesis adding further knowledge into the material structures and their similarities at micro and macro levels.

More importantly, these artificial materials could be applied in the realization of artificial reefs in full respect of the guidelines of the 2009 London Convention and Protocol/UNEP regarding the rightness of materials for artificial reefs. The restoration abilities of these applications reported in literature indicate that such installations could generate an enhancement of the ecosystem that goes beyond restoration of pre-existing conditions. LVMD and HVMD are inert as long as there is an ongoing electrolysis process that maintains the precipitations rates of calcium carbonate over the cathode. Nevertheless, even in case of discontinuity of the process, the dissolution of calcium carbonate mimics very closely the natural processes of dissolution of coral and shells that happens in the ocean.

Finally, the acquisition of such a practice for artificial reefs could open the road for even more advantages in some areas in the World. For example, where the management of surplus electricity generation from renewable energy is an issue. Therefore, we recommend further testing and development for the application of electrochemical deposition for coastal management, restoration and protection strategies.

Materials and Methods

A broad set of analysis has been performed on the three samples in order to characterize their mechanical properties, chemical composition and structure. Apparatuses used in this study are listed in Table 3, indicating the material property subject of the specific investigation, the reference method used and the sample size and quality necessary for the analysis.

Table 3. Methods used for the characterization of CPE, LVMD, and HVMD.

* Scanning Electron Microscropy (SEM) with Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) Mapping. SEM is an imaging technique used to investigate material composition and surface topography. Signals of secondary electrons give information on surface topography, such as surface roughness and uniformity, while backscattered (secondary) electrons identify contaminants on the surface. Small samples of approximately 1 cm ³ are used to conduct the measurements. The SEM measurements were conducted at two magnifications: ×100 and ×5,000. EDS enables subsequent characterization of surface distribution by reading peaks on the electro-magnetic emission spectrum.

* ICP-OES (Inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry) was used to determine the chemical composition of the samples. Samples are acidified preferably with 1-5% HNO ₃ in order to keep metals in solution and as solid materials destructed with nitric acid only (concentration HNO ₃ below 10%, ideally 1%), or if necessary with HNO ₃/H ₂ O. This step can be performed as a closed destruction in a microwave-oven. Each element has an own characteristic emission spectrum that is measured with a spectrometer. The light intensity on the wavelength is measured and with the calibration calculated into a concentration.

* X-ray diffraction (XRD) was used to examine the crystal structure of the different materials. The XRD spectra ( Figure 2) were obtained using an Aeris Powder diffractometer form Panalytical fitted with a Ni-filter and Cu Ka radiation source (λ = 1.54 Å). The diffraction patterns were recorded in the 2θ interval 15°-65°. The HighScore Plus software package was used to perform Rietveld refinement deconvoluting the XRD patterns in order to obtain quantitative data for the composition.

Figure 2. XRD profiles and patterns for the three materials.

* Phase distribution: dry bulk density ρb is the natural (in-situ) density of the material including voids, and describes the compaction level of the material (g solids/cm ³ intact material). Solids density ρs is the density of the pure solids (excluding voids, a material constant), g solids/cm ³ solids. From this, the total porosity (volume content of pores or voids) of the material can be calculated as Φ = 1 - (ρb/ρs) cm ³ voids/cm ³ intact material.

* Total, water-active (hydratable), and external surface areas of the materials (SA_EGME, SA_H2O, and SA_N2, m2/g dry material) were measured by gas adsorption, using EGME, water vapor, and nitrogen (N2) as the sorbing gases. Pore size distribution and content of micro- and meso-pores were measured by low-pressure mercury intrusion porosimetry. All basic physical characterization measurements were carried out by international standard methods for soil and sediment materials ( Kihara et al., 2018). It is noted that water-active surface area is calculated from a water vapor sorption isotherm at 20% relative humidity, partial water vapor pressure of p/po = 0.2, and normally the water vapor and EGME sorption methods agree well in regard to describing total specific surface area of different clay, soil and sediment materials ( Quirk and Murray, 1999).

* Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP): Pore size distributions and the content of micro- and mesopores are achieved by the low-density mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP). The method is limited to pores above 3.5 nm. MIP is a non-intrusive method that does not wet the material due to high contact angles. Air is removed from the material sample applying a vacuum, where-after the sample is gradually penetrated with mercury at low pressures so as not to damage the structure of the sample. Pressure is increased in steps, while the incremental mercury volume in the porous media is measured, allowing the distribution of the pore sizes to be determined.

* Mechanical strength for all samples was determined using adapted approach to compression test. Due to the small amount of LVMD sample it could be subjected only to scaled down compression test (puncture resistance test). The test consisted of small piston continuously applying force to the sample, which is casted in a concrete matrix. The applied force and displacement are simultaneously logged to obtain the resistance as the maximum applied force before breaking. To validate the test, a standard concrete of compression class C20/25 was tested under standard testing conditions (prisms with dimensions of 4 × 4 × 4 cm), as well as, 1 × 1 × 1 cm concrete and HVMD samples, using standard compression equipment.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

LM: EUDP project coordinator, CPE and LVMD samples collection, compression tests, bulk densities, ICP analysis, writing and editing the manuscript, and conceptualization. PM: coordinated the Danish-Japanese measurement program and participated in writing the manuscript. RJ: planning the compression tests and participated in writing the manuscript. KF: pore size distributions analysis, solid densities, SEM rendering, and writing the manuscript. YA: planning, execution and analysis of the mechanical strength, participation in writing/giving feedback to mechanical strength sections, and rendering. KK: SEM tests. LJ: total specific and external specific surface area analysis, solid densities, and participated in editing of the text. RV: LVMD sample collection and participated in editing of the text. TB: XRD samples analysis. MS: EUDP project coordinator, XRD samples analysis, and participated in editing of the text. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

The authors thank EUDP (Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program) for supporting the research on application of the mineral deposition technology within the project "New material for marine substructures" (Grant No. 50520010).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The reviewer PF declared a shared affiliation with several of the authors, LM, PM, RJ, KF, YA, TB, and MS, to the handling editor at the time of review.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Thomas Goreau for his inspirational research.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.652986/full#supplementary-material

References

Vaccarella, R., and Goreau, T. J. (2012). "Restoration of seagrass mats ( Posidonia oceanica) with electrical stimulation," in Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration, eds T. J. Goreau and R. K. Trench (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 161-167. doi: 10.1201/b14314-15

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innovative Material Can Mimic Coral and Boulder Reefs Properties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Low-Voltage Mineral Deposition technology (LVMD), widely known as Biorock, has previously been suggested as support for coral reef restoration, as hypothesized high porosity, wide pore-size distribution and connectivity, and good strength properties may facilitate biological functions (for example larvae settlement) and durability.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conserve water. The less water you use, the less runoff and wastewater that will eventually find its way back into the ocean. Volunteer in the local beach or reef cleanups. If you don't live near the coast, get involved in protecting your watershed.

# data[].attributes.subject
Conserve water. The less water you use, the less runoff and wastewater that will eventually find its way back into the ocean. Volunteer in the local beach or reef cleanups. If you don't live near the coast, get involved in protecting your watershed.

# data[].attributes.body
Many coral reefs are overrun with non-native algae, which smothers coral and blocks light from getting to them. Through algae removal and reintroduction of natural predators, we clear the invasive species and help coral reefs thrive.

# data[].attributes.body
So 3D printing comes from an industry term called additive manufacturing. It's as simple as it sounds. It's literally adding and building layers on top of each other. So the printer will start layering the outline of the structure and will continue to build upon that. It layers it in hexagon shapes. The printer knows how it should interpret the design and how it should add the layers of material.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3D-printed terracotta coral reefs could save the ‘rainforests of the sea’ | BBC Science Focus Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The artificial corals mimic the natural complexity of a reef and aim to attract marine organism to support the regrowth.

# data[].attributes.body
By planting genetically advanced coral polyps in areas where they have a good chance of thriving, coral reefs will be able to be re-seeded.

- Angela

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The results are in, and the prognosis isn't good-but there is hope. Half of the world's coral reefs have disappeared in the last 70 years, and the rest could be gone by the end of the century if we don't take action. Racing against the clock, researchers at WHOI and elsewhere are developing innovative solutions to rebuild reefs and improve coral resiliency-before it's too late.

Through the Reef Solutions Initiative, Super Reefs, and dozens of independent research projects, these multi-disciplinary efforts are part of a rapidly growing international coral reef observation, diagnostics, and interventions network.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Potential Solutions for Corals in Crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The results are in, and the prognosis isn't good-but there is hope. Half of the world's coral reefs have disappeared in the last 70 years, and the rest could be gone by the end of the century if we don't take action.

# data[].attributes.body
NOAA established a contract-based emergency response system to address ship groundings and other physical impacts to corals. This system has responded to hundreds of incidents, saving tens of thousands of corals.

# data[].attributes.headline
Growing and Planting Healthy Corals - Jihao

# data[].attributes.subject
Growing and Planting Healthy Corals - Jihao

# data[].attributes.body
NOAA facilitates, leads, funds, and implements efforts to grow corals in protected conditions. We work with our partners to collect detached corals—whether broken fragments or fully-formed colonies—and grow them in dense coral nurseries. The corals are then reattached to reefs piece by piece with cement, zip ties, and nails.

More than 20 coral nurseries are active throughout the Caribbean. Each year, they provide more than 40,000 healthy corals for reef restoration throughout the region. Active reef restoration is relatively new in the Pacific Islands Region (Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa). Efforts are focused on working with local resource managers to develop restoration plans to increase capacity.

NOAA is also exploring the use of innovative techniques for growing and planting resilient, genetically diverse populations of key coral species that can adapt to evolving environmental conditions. A recent NOAA-commissioned study evaluates how novel interventions could accelerate natural evolution and buy coral reefs time to adapt while ocean conditions continue to change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reef Cubes: The Plastic-Free Blocks Helping to Save the Oceans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Artificial reefs are vital for protecting offshore wind farms from tidal erosion. But the plastic-based reefs can also be detrimental to the ocean. One company is working to reduce the amount of plastic present in the ocean with its innovative plastic-free blocks-called Reef Cubes.

# data[].attributes.body
Rising seawater temperatures are affecting coral reefs. Through genetic engineering could help coral reefs resist rising seawater temperatures and ph.
Noah

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PLoS One. 2022; 17(1): e0252739.

Elizabeth V. Hobman, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,# 1 ,* Aditi Mankad, Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - review & editing,# 1 Lucy Carter, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing,# 1 and Chantale Ruttley, Writing - review & editing 2

Christian R. Voolstra, Editor

Abstract

Rising seawater temperatures are contributing to coral degradation in the Great Barrier Reef. Synthetic biology technologies offer the potential to enhance coral resilience to higher water temperatures. To explore what the public think of genetically engineered coral as a future solution, qualitative responses to an open-ended question in a survey of 1,148 of the Australian public were analysed. More respondents supported the technology (59%) than did not (11%). However, a considerable proportion indicated moderate support (29%). Participants commented about the (moral) right to interfere with nature and uncertainty regarding the consequences of implementing the technology. Participants also mentioned the need to take responsibility and act to save the reef, as well as the benefits likely to result from implementing the technology. Other themes included a desire for further testing and proof, more information, and tight regulation and controls when introducing the technology.

Introduction

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia holds significant value-both economic and non-economic [ 1]. Home to more than 1,200 species of hard and soft corals [ 1], the GBR is estimated to directly and indirectly contribute $11.6 billion to the Australian economy each year [ 2]. Further, the GBR is integral to Australian identity, with 85% of Australians proud of its heritage status [ 3]. It also holds significant heritage value to the traditional owners of the reef-the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples [ 4].

Coral bleaching

Unprecedented coral loss has occurred over the past five years, due to rising seawater temperatures and increasing seawater acidity, crown-of-thorn starfish predation, poor water quality due to land-based sediment/nutrient/contaminant run-off, and localised cyclone damage [ 1, 5]. Significant coral loss has been estimated across the GBR, especially in the northern region, with an estimated 65% decline in coral cover since 2013 and an observed 10% coral cover in 2017, the lowest coral cover in 30 years of monitoring [ 4]. This level of coral loss reflects a widespread threat to more than 3,000 reefs that make up the GBR and the marine ecosystems that these reefs support [ 6]. While the Reef shows resilience in recovering after disturbances, the long-term trend for the GBR is one of decline due to the predicted increase in the frequency of chronic and acute disturbances, including coral bleaching events [ 7- 9]. Many factors play a role in coral bleaching and increasing sea surface temperatures associated with climate change presents the most immediate threat to the reef [ 1]. Since 1994, annual sea surface temperatures have been above average [ 10] and it is predicted that the chance of a marine heatwave will double that of today's likelihood, if global mean temperatures reach the predicted 1.5 degrees increase over pre-industrial levels [ 11- 14].

Current and emerging mitigating strategies

Effective reef management has mitigated some of the impacts of coral degradation on the GBR. These practices include initiatives like no-take (i.e., no removal of any sea flora or creatures) and no-entry zones (i.e., no human access), which have improved the reef's ecosystems and resilience [ 15]. However, given that bleaching impacts coral at a cellular level and its primary cause is increasing sea temperatures, researchers have argued that solutions should also target the organism and not just the surrounding physical environment [ 16].

Synthetic biology is a new and emerging area of research that offers a potential suite of solutions to mitigate some of the negative impacts that coral reefs face due to environmental and biological factors. Rather than targeting extraneous factors contributing to coral reef degradation, synthetic biology can re-design DNA structures of the coral itself, making it more resilient to threats, such as increasing water temperatures (i.e., 'heat resistant coral'). Specifically, the synthetic biology technology aims to identify natural gene variants in existing coral that enhance their ability to withstand higher temperatures and to introduce these gene variants into other corals to make them more heat resistant. While assisted and directed breeding of heat tolerant coral has been successfully demonstrated [ 17], using a synthetic biology approach to engineer heat tolerant coral has not yet been demonstrated. Additionally, public acceptability of this type of new intervention, remains to be empirically tested.

Public perception of the reef

Prior research has shown that the public are concerned about coral reef degradation and feel the need to act urgently. For example, (n = 1,804) tourists visiting the GBR after a widespread coral bleaching event in 2017 responded with more negatively-valenced emotional words when asked " what are the first words that come to mind when you think of the Reef", compared to (n = 2,877 tourists) visiting in 2013, prior to the event [ 18]. By contrast, positively-valenced and neutral emotional words did not differ before and after the 2017 event. These results suggest that the public are becoming increasingly aware of the degradation to the GBR and are potentially experiencing what is known as 'ecological grief' (i.e., "the grief felt in relation to...ecological losses...due to...environmental change") [ 19]. While these negative emotions increased over time, it was also observed that ratings of value associated with the GBR (i.e., biodiversity value, scientific and educational value, lifestyle value, and international icon value), pride in the GBR, and GBR identity all increased from 2013 to 2017. There was also a concomitant increase in willingness to act and learn, despite decreases in personal responsibility, sense of agency, self-efficacy, and optimism.

Public perception of new technology

Synthetic biology has the potential to contribute positively to the advancement of science across multiple domains. But regardless of its promise, the critical factor to its ultimate acceptance and usage is how the public perceives and responds to it. As past experiences have shown, public reaction to novel science can impede or even halt the development of certain technologies. For example, legalising the use of surplus human blastocysts (early-stage embryos obtained during in-vitro fertilisation) for stem cell research (instead of assisted pregnancies) was severely impacted by public opinion and only introduced after lengthy public debate [ 20]. Similarly, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production have faced widespread public criticism (and subsequently negatively impacted acceptance), without the public fully understanding the nuances of the technology [ 21]. Based on public demand, most countries in the European Union now require mandatory labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods, and consumer advocates openly oppose the use of biotechnology in crop production [ 22].

Given the potential for adverse public reaction, it is important to obtain an early understanding of how people perceive emerging technologies, such as synthetic biology. What concerns and questions do they have? What are they imagining as potential problems? In general, how supportive are they of further development of the technology? Insights into questions such as these could then be used to improve the technology's design, application, and implementation-in ways that address or align with public concerns so that people may ultimately be more comfortable in accepting their use.

Given the increasing severity and occurrence of coral bleaching-coupled with the Australian public's strong affinity with the GBR [ 4]-it is essential that we understand whether and why the public would accept synthetic biology solutions for the GBR, prior to the technology being released or even developed in the first instance. By exploring these issues as early as possible, it will enable researchers to prepare for, and manage, likely public concerns in a responsible and effective manner. The current study is the first to investigate public's reaction to synthetic biology in coral. We draw on prior research on synthetic biology technologies in other domains to gain some insight into how people may react to this technology in this context.

While limited, most of the research on public perceptions of synthetic biology has been conducted mainly in the European Union and the United States of America [ 23- 31]. This research, conducted across varying synthetic biology technologies, suggests that there is greater public enthusiasm for technologies that clearly address important societal, medical, or sustainability needs [ 20]. For example, technologies focused on human health development and/or improvement are viewed favourably, whereas technologies that bring back extinct animals or technologies used for recreational purposes (e.g., glowing fish) are viewed least favourably and are considered an unacceptable use of this technology [ 25, 26]. These findings indicate that people likely care about what the technology is going to be used for.

Related research reveals that people are comprehensive in their appraisal of synthetic biology by considering: (1) the potential benefits and risks to animals, humans, and the ecosystem; (2) moral, emotional or value-related issues (e.g., unnaturalness, creating life, playing God); and (3) regulatory/control aspects [ 27- 30, 32]. Value predispositions (i.e., religiosity and deference towards scientific authority) and trust in scientists also have been found to be significantly correlated with support for synthetic biology [ 27, 28]. Focussing further on perceived risks, some research also has reported public concern regarding the potential for secondary use, misuse and/or unintended consequences of synthetic biology, including bioterrorism, loss of biodiversity, or the evolution of more resilient pests [ 30, 33, 34]. Beyond empirical results, psychological theories have also been developed to describe factors associated with individuals' support or acceptance (or otherwise) of novel scientific innovations and technologies more generally. For instance, a comprehensive framework has been proposed to explain technology acceptance of novel, sustainable energy technologies (e.g., wind farms, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen vehicles, nuclear energy) [ 35]. This framework proposes that technology acceptance is influenced by several factors including but not limited to perceived costs, risks and benefits associated with the technology, what other people think (i.e., social norms), emotional reactions, and perceptions of trust in the owners of the technology.

A qualitative exploration of public responses may reveal the factors that are more or less relevant to understanding public support for synthetic biology technology in the GBR context. Thus, in the current study, we undertook an exploratory assessment of self-generated reasons for public support (or lack thereof) for a synthetic biology solution (i.e. heat resistant coral) to the problem of coral loss due to climate-related factors. Once these factors are identified, it may then be possible to theorise and experimentally test the causal influences on technology acceptance in this sphere. Thus, the focus of this study was to investigate the public's awareness of and support for an emerging (but as yet undeveloped) synthetic biology technology that involves modifying coral to enhance its resistance to increasing water temperatures. It aimed to address the following questions:

What potentially influences peoples' decisions about the acceptability of developing genetically engineered coral?

What specific concerns do people hold regarding genetically engineered coral?

Method

Participants

One thousand one hundred and forty-eight ( N = 1,148) members of the public participated in this study. Imposed quotas ensured that the sample was representative of the Australian population on age (18-24years: n = 146; 25-34 years: n = 182; 35-44 years: n = 168, 45-54 years: n = 217; 55-64 years: n = 193; 65 years or over: n = 242), gender (535 males, 610 females, 3 other), and state of residence. A range of educational and employment levels were represented.

Procedure

Participants were recruited via an external third-party research agency with each participant receiving a token incentive for participation. To participate in the study, respondents were required to be an Australian resident and over the age of 18 years. The study was conducted during a 3-week period from November to December, 2018. The research received ethics approval from the CSIRO Social and Interdisciplinary Science Human Research Ethics Committee.

A standard introductory email was sent to potential participants, inviting them to take part in an online survey. Once participants clicked on the link to the survey, an information page was displayed explaining the general purpose of the study and inviting individuals to participate in the survey. Those that agreed to participate provided consent by ticking a checkbox and continuing with the survey. Demographic information (age, gender, postcode, state of residence) was collected (at the commencement of the survey) to monitor and achieve quotas, thereby ensuring a representative sample of the Australian population on age, gender and location.

Towards the start of the survey, participants were provided with the following definitions:

Synthetic biology is a new field of research bringing together genetics, chemistry and engineering. It allows scientists to design and build new biological organisms, so that they may perform new functions.

Synthetic biology can use DNA to create new characteristics, or remove certain functions, in plants, animals and other organisms (e.g., bacteria, fungi, algae).

Additionally, a pop-up box also provided the following definition of DNA (for those who hovered over the word 'DNA'):

DNA are molecules that carry genetic instructions used in development, general functioning and reproduction in all living things.

Participants then received information on the problem of coral loss in the GBR and a possible synthetic biology solution (i.e. genetic engineering of heat resistant coral). A power-point style presentation, or 'technology storyboard', was presented to participants to convey this information; this technology storyboard also provided textual and visual information about the novel technological solution. The technology storyboard was developed by the authors in collaboration with the scientists who are developing the technology, as well as CSIRO communication specialists (to view the technology storyboard, see https://research.csiro.au/synthetic-biology-fsp/public-attitudes/). It should be noted that the information on the technology focussed on the benefits and did not explicitly detail potential negative consequences. The reasons for only presenting the benefits and not the negative consequences were two-fold-first, we wanted to see if and what negative outcomes people would raise themselves; and second, the technology is currently at such an infant stage of development that the potential negative outcomes are unknown at this stage.

Before viewing the technology storyboard, participants were asked whether they had heard of gene editing before. For those who had heard of it before, a knowledge of gene editing of coral was assessed by asking this subset of participants: "How much would you say you know about gene editing of coral?" (1 = no knowledge, 2 = a little knowledge, 3 = some knowledge, 4 = a lot of knowledge, 5 = extensive knowledge).

Support for the coral technology was assessed by asking participants: "Overall, based on the information provided and your own general knowledge, to what extent would you support the development of this technology?" (1 = would not support to 5 = would strongly support).

After responding to this question, participants were asked the following questions: In deciding whether you'd support this technology, what influenced your decision? What is your main reason for supporting it, or not supporting it? An open text box was provided for participants to type their responses. They then completed a series of additional questions about the technology. Descriptive demographic information was requested at the end of the survey (e.g., education, and employment status). The survey took on average 15 minutes to complete.

Analytic approach

The qualitative analysis was conducted by the first author using the full data set ( n = 1148) and validity of thematic coding was cross-checked by the third author (who coded 120 responses, for which kappa ranged from 0.88 to 1.00 across the final set of themes). A detailed thematic coding scheme was developed iteratively for responses to the open-ended question: "In deciding whether you'd support this technology, what influenced your decision? What is your main reason for supporting it, nor not supporting it?". To achieve parsimony and improve the meaningfulness of results, similar thematic codes were combined prior to analysis. Only codes that were mentioned by at least 20 respondents were included in the final analysis. The codes were computed into several dummy-codes (0 = did not mention this theme, 1 = did mention this theme) and entered as predictors of support for the synthetic biology technology, in ordinary least squares regression. Note that the relative importance of the themes can be assessed by considering both: (a) the percentage of respondents who mentioned the theme and (b) the degree of change in support for the technology (as reflected in the unstandardized coefficients). In essence, important factors are those mentioned by a greater percentage of respondents and associated with a larger change in support ratings.

Results & discussion

Knowledge of gene editing of coral

As shown in Fig 1 , most participants (n = 811, 70.6%) had not heard of gene editing of coral before, indicating that awareness of this synthetic biology technology was relatively low. Proportionally more males were aware of the technology (n = 182, 34.0%) than females (n = 152, 24.9%) (χ ²(1) = 11.43, p = 0.001). Age was significantly negatively correlated to awareness ( r = -0.09, p = 0.001) such that older people tended to be less aware. Education was not correlated to awareness ( r = 0.04, p = 0.128).

Of the people who had heard of it before (n = 337, 29.4%), self-reported knowledge was toward the lower end of the scale (Mean = 2.06, SD = 0.72). Less than 4% knew a lot or held extensive knowledge; the remainder held some or less knowledge. Thus, overall knowledge of genetically engineered coral was low across the sample.

These results mirror that of previous public attitude surveys in the United States of America showing that many people had heard nothing at all about synthetic biology (67% in 2008 with 1,003 adult respondents; to 43% in 2010 with 1,000 adult respondents [ 31]). While awareness appears to be increasing across the years [ 20], even if people have heard of the concept of synthetic biology, most do not feel generally well informed about it (e.g., 74.9% of 2,487 adults from a 2014 survey (conducted in the United States of America) reported that they were not informed about synthetic biology, and another 9.8% were neither informed nor uninformed [ 28]).In Australia, in 2017, a little under half (48%) of a sample of 1,255 of the Australian population had heard of synthetic biology but only 5% knew enough to explain it to a friend [ 36]. Our study extends on this research by revealing that awareness and knowledge of a specific synthetic biology technology application-that is, genetically engineered coral-also is relatively low across the Australian population.

Support for gene editing of coral

Despite possessing low awareness and knowledge (prior to viewing information about the technology), participants generally supported the development of genetically engineered coral (Mean = 3.69, SD = 1.04, on a scale from 1 = would not support to 5 = would strongly support) (see Fig 2 ). Most people (~59%, n = 682) supported the development of this technology by selecting either a '4' or '5' on the response scale. Approximately 11% ( n = 128) indicated less (selecting '2') or no support (selecting '1') for the development of heat tolerant coral. A good proportion (~30%) of people were moderately supportive (selecting '3').

In terms of demographic correlates of support, age was significantly negatively related ( r = -0.093, p = 0.002) to support, as was sex ( r = -0.075, p = 0.012)-indicating that females were less supportive of the technology (Mean = 3.61, SD = 1.04) compared to men (Mean = 3.77, SD = 1.02). Educational level was not significantly related to support ( r = 0.03, p = 0.269).

These results are somewhat consistent with previous quantitative and qualitative research in the United States of America where synthetic biology applications for environmental benefits are viewed quite favourably by the public (as are applications that address societal and medical needs [ 24]). Support for synthetic biology appears to strongly depend on its specific application [ 25, 26]. But even in the absence of an application, when a general definition of synthetic biology is provided (i.e., "Synthetic biology is the use of advanced science and engineering to make or redesign living organisms, such as bacteria. Synthetic biology involves making new genetic code, also known as DNA, that does not already exist in nature" [ 28] pg. 2 of supplementary material), it has been observed that more people do not support its use (44%) than those that do (31%), with roughly a quarter ambivalent (i.e., neither supportive nor unsupportive) [ 28]. Our results show that many people in our sample are supportive of this specific application of synthetic biology in coral, however there is still a fair proportion who remain ambivalent or undecided. Further exploration of the self-professed reasons provided by participants may elucidate some of the concerns that people hold regarding the development of the technology.

Reasons for one's support

As explained above, qualitative analysis was conducted prior to a multiple regression analysis. This analysis revealed several common themes. These themes were entered into a multiple regression analysis, whereby all themes together explained a significant amount of variance in support for the technology ( R ² = 0.49, F(11,1137) = 100.42). Table 1 provides the unstandardized coefficients, beta coefficients and statistical significance. The table is ordered from most frequent to least frequently mentioned theme. Illustrative quotes for the themes are included both in the table and in the discussion below.

Table 1

Number of participants (%)

Reason

Example quotes

Change in support if reason mentioned

Beta

t

p

146 (12.72%)

Low knowledge and/or undecided
Lack of knowledge and/or understanding to make an informed decision. Indicated uncertainty or undecidedness. Expressed desire for more information.

-0.14

-0.05

-1.85

0.065

44 (3.83%)

Scientific evidence
There is a need for scientific proof/evidence to be gathered to ensure it works first.

-0.02

-0.00

-0.20

0.838

Positive perceptions

Many ( n = 633, ~55%) participants made comments that could be classified under the broad theme of positive perceptions. This theme primarily centred on the benefits that the technology would bring to the reef in terms of saving the reef, the broader marine system and associated industries (e.g., tourism). Additionally, some participants simply provided a generalised positive statement about the technology, sometimes comparing it favourably to other solutions.

To help rebuild our reefs [3350]

The importance of saving the Great Barrier Reef and its associated inhabitants [6057]

Yes I would to help protect and restore the barrier reef because it is 1 of Australia's wonders and to help the marine life [3844]

Those who made a comment under this theme were significantly more likely to support the development of the technology (t = 18.09, p = 0.000). Prior qualitative research has revealed that people discuss synthetic biology in a positive light mainly by expressing hope that the technology could successfully address significant societal and environmental challenges [ 31]. Quantitative estimates are that around 1 in 5 people (22%)-in a sample of 2,487 adults from a 2014 survey in the United States of America-agree that synthetic biology would yield high benefits [ 28]. Thus, prior research suggests that people do recognise the potential benefits of synthetic biology, however, any optimism expressed is usually caveated with much caution and conditions, such as strong governance, transparency, and information [ 26, 31]. In our study, we seemed to observe more widespread positive opinion, though this could be due to our focus on one specific synthetic biology technology, that is, genetically engineering coral-and the fact that responses were limited to a single comment box, reducing the potential for participants to elaborate on their initial points of view. Additionally, our technology storyboard intentionally only presented the potential positive outcomes of using the technology rather than providing a balanced set of information on the benefits and risks. If balanced information were to be provided, it is likely that a more nuanced comment/opinion would have resulted [ 24]. Once the potential risks or negative consequences are known-as the technology develops-these factors could well be included in further public surveys and discussions.

Negative perceptions

On the converse, around 14% ( n = 157) of the total sample mentioned reasons that reflected negative perceptions about the technology. Most comments referred to the risk of potential negative consequences. Examples include:

Even though you alter the coral there is no guarantee that the coral when eaten by marine life will not kill or mutate over time [Participant 1071]

We do not know enough about the long-term possibilities [Participant 3179]

Could create a bad coral strand, could become toxic destroying more than it is now [Participant 10831]

These negative perceptions, while not necessarily widespread, were significantly associated with less support (t = -3.39, p = 0.001). Participants either referred to how the consequences of the technology were uncertain and potentially negative (especially for the environment and broader ecosystem); the potential for the technology to be used in other, negative ways beyond its original application; or more generally, they simply stated that the technology sounded 'risky' or 'dangerous'.

These results are consistent with the Theory of Planned Behaviour [ 37] whereby people are thought to form attitudes based on an appraisal of the perceived costs/risk and benefits. In the context of synthetic biology, perceived risks and benefits is a salient and topical theme. For example, survey research in the United States of America has revealed that about a quarter of a sample of 2,487 adults think the risks of synthetic biology 'for society as a whole' will be high, while a similar percentage also believe the benefits 'to society as a whole' will be high-and when a single 'risks-benefits' measure is created, it correlates negatively and significantly with support [ 28]. Other research has shown that concerns about risks outweighing the benefits significantly heightens (i.e., doubling the percentage sharing this concern) when people are provided balanced information (including its potential benefits and risks) as opposed to when no information is provided [ 24]. In focus groups where balanced information is provided, discussions appear to be more nuanced whereby participants express more ambivalence towards the technology [ 24]. Along with perceived risks, the themes of uncontrollability, intended harm (via misuse/dual use) and unintended harm (i.e., accidents, unforeseen mutations/evolution) have been observed in European focus group/workshop discussions [ 26, 31].

Low knowledge and/or undecided

Reflecting the relatively low levels of awareness and knowledge of genetically engineering coral as measured quantitatively, many participants ( n = 146, ~13%) explicitly stated that their current base of knowledge regarding the technology was insufficient for deciding whether to support the technology. They explained that their knowledge is lacking, they did not understand or know the technology very well, and required more information, especially about broader consequences of the technology and associated risks, in order to make an informed decision. Some also explicitly stated that they did not know, were unsure or undecided about the technology. All these reasons were combined under the broad theme of low knowledge and/or undecided.

I need to know more. What are undesired consequences of this technology? [2612]

Need more information on long term impact to other marine wildlife [2283]

Still find it hard to understand what it is all about [2566]

While approaching significance, the results showed that those who mentioned that they did not have enough knowledge were no more or less likely to support the development of the technology (t = -1.85, p = 0.065).

As explained earlier, awareness and/or knowledge of synthetic biology-let alone specific applications-is quite low among the general population, though awareness appears to be on the rise. In the context of this low knowledge and the fact that the specific gene editing technology is in its infancy, it is not surprising that people are seeking more information in our study. Our results are consistent with previous research revealing that people are interested in, and seeking more information about, synthetic biology; requesting this communication effort to be completely transparent, accessible and available to the public [ 24, 26]. In the absence of such knowledge, research suggests that people may more heavily rely on a variety of other cues to determine whether they will support the technology-factors such as deference to scientific authority and trust in scientists [ 30].

Naturalness objections

A small number ( n = 86, ~7%) of people made comments that fundamentally objected to human interference in nature or more broadly how nature should be left alone. The language used in these comments reflected a firm stance. Examples include:

The reef should be allowed to go through its natural cycle [1071]

Human interference in nature, although ostensibly for the good, has too often resulted in the creation of a new set of problems [3205]

We should just leave nature as it is [5092]

Of all the themes negatively related to support, naturalness objections were the most significant correlate (t = -8.09, p = 0.000), highlighting its importance in potentially influencing one's level of support.

Certainly, prior research has revealed that some people may not support synthetic biology due to an underlying yet highly accessible implicit belief that genetic manipulation is unnatural (and therefore morally wrong); or alternatively, they may hold a more explicit evaluation that synthetic biology violates God's domain as the creator of life [ 27]. For example, it has been observed that those who are more religious (or who believe in God) tend to be more concerned about the risks of synthetic biology [ 27, 30] and are less supportive of using the technology [ 27, 28]. Even people who may be more moderate in their view of synthetic biology also raise concerns about man intervening in nature [ 26, 31], and the morality of constructing life [ 26]. Yet other research has suggested these types of objections are used to convey unease with more tractable concepts such as the (potentially destructive) power of humans to alter entire ecosystems [ 38], slippery slope arguments [ 39] and distrust in scientific advancements [ 40]. Together, these results suggest that for some individuals, personal values and beliefs regarding nature may play a significant role in determining how they view synthetic biology.

Need for action

A smaller proportion ( n = 82, ~7%) explained that it was important to act sooner rather than later; to do something to save the reef given the threat of its destruction, and the fact that humans are accountable/responsible for remedying the situation.

We need to keep on improving and finding ways to get it fix [7000]

All avenues should be pursued to assist [6149]

Humans aren't doing enough to slow climate change, so whilst I would rather nature run it's course, I can see the benefits of this technology and am afraid without it the coral reef will be lost [3031]

Participants who mentioned this reasoning were significantly more likely to support the technology (t = 10.10, p = 0.000). Our findings resonate with Curnock and colleagues' [ 18] assessment that people (in this case, tourists) possess a strong and increasing desire to help protect the GBR despite feeling only moderately able to take individual action themselves. It is therefore not surprising that in the context of genetically engineering coral that some participants communicated the desire for 'us' humans, in the collective sense, to take action.

Ambivalent

There was also a small proportion (~5%) who specifically explained that they were ambivalent in their support or that their s upport was conditional, such as wanting the technology to be developed in a safe and controlled manner, or to be sure that there would be no negative consequences.

If developed in controlled environments with reasonable testing, I would support it [2015]

I do support it however I have reservations... there is a lot of doom and gloom about the reef [2021]

If it helps to keep everything going and not die off then it's a very good thing to be doing and also if it is all monitored with the experts, why not [3037]

Participants who mentioned this reasoning were significantly more likely to support the technology (t = 3.10, p = 0.002). As shown by the representative comments, people tended to say that they did support the technology so long as there were some controls or safeguards in place. Ultimately, they were expressing some caution and reservations despite thinking positively towards the technology. As discussed earlier, this type of 'cautious optimism' is a commonly observed in previous qualitative research with the public [ 24, 26].

Problem focus

A small proportion (~5%) mentioned that the technology could or would subvert a more sensible problem focus (i.e., attending to the root causes of rising sea surface temperatures), and that the technology would be insufficient to save the Reef given the range of other threats facing the GBR (e.g., the crown-of-thorns starfish and cyclones). Those who believed there needed to be a focus on managing the root cause of the problem, and that the technological solution could be futile, tended to be less supportive of the technology overall (t = -5.01, p = 0.000). Example comments included:

It is the role of humans to change their environment damaging behaviour and not changing natural organisms ...[3814]

Overpopulation, poor farming techniques, tackling climate change need to be addressed [2728]

It appears to be putting resources into developing a highly sophisticated solution to a symptom of global warming, rather than focusing those resources on addressing the causes of global warming [12118]

Consistent with our results, prior research has found that people are motivated to explore and consider alternative or additional ways of addressing societal and/or environmental problems, highlighting the complex systems in which problems occur, as well as the root causes to these problems [ 26, 31]. Rather than viewing gene-based technologies as a panacea to complex problems caused by multiple and interrelated factors, these results suggest the public expect to engage with science differently. People are conscious of the need to consider the problem context more fully, to explore the utility of alternative solutions (including non-technological solutions such as behaviour change), and to consider using genetic solutions in concert with other tools/solutions, ultimately forming a 'suite of solutions'.

Scientific evidence

Separate to the lack of knowledge theme were comments that explicitly asked for scientific evidence or trials to be conducted to evaluate the technology. People wanted to see long-term trials and scientific evidence demonstrating that there were no negative side effects from introducing the technology.

I want more scientific research for perhaps a test run. Not enough information. [2008]

Would need to see evidence of successful trials and consider any unexpected longer term consequences before deciding to fully support this concept [3023]

Would need to see the long term effects of trials [3039]

A small proportion (~4%) mentioned the need for scientific testing/evidence, however, it was not significantly related to whether they supported the technology (t = -0.20, p = 0.838). Approximately 57% (n = 25) of people who mentioned this theme were neutral in their support of heat resistant coral, with ~14% (n = 6) and ~29% (n = 13) expressing less and more support, respectively. It is possible, then, that this small group of people were feeling somewhat cautious towards the technology, and therefore wanted to see more reliable evidence from scientific trials.

As discussed above, previous research exploring public perceptions of synthetic biology has revealed that many people are interested in learning more, especially in the context of having low base levels of knowledge about the technologies [ 26]). Our findings provide nuances surrounding this desire for information by revealing that some people may want to observe the outcomes of scientific trials that demonstrate the efficacy of the technology (or otherwise). Again, this is consistent with the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which proposes that people form attitudes in part through an appraisal of the risks/costs and benefits.

Confident in the science

Finally, there was a smaller proportion (~2%) again who explained that they had confidence in and trusted the science and evidence that the technology would indeed be an effective solution.

It seems it's strongly based on scientific fact without damaging the ecological environment [2077]

I'm confident it's been tested vigorously in this day and age [4350]

The fact that testing will be controlled in a lab situation before anything is done in the reef [2663]

Participants who mentioned this reasoning were significantly more likely to support the technology (t = 4.52, p = 0.000). Prior research has revealed that scientists, academics and researchers are one of the most trusted actors to work on genetic technology [ 41], and trust in scientists has been shown to be significantly and positively associated with support for synthetic biology [ 28]. Reasons given for trusting scientists include their impartiality, independence, capabilities, competence, and experience [ 41]. Our results slightly differ from this prior research in that our participants spoke not only about trust in the agency or organisation that would oversee its development (e.g., CSIRO), but they also spoke about trust and confidence in the actual conduct of the science and research itself. It is possible that people would have commented about trust (or otherwise) in the scientists developing the technology if scientists had been a focus of presentation in the technology storyboard.

Prior stories

The final theme that was significantly negatively related to support was prior stories of failed scientific field interventions, such as the introduction of the cane toad into Australia. While only a small percentage ( n = 24, ~2%) of participants mentioned previous stories, it was still significantly related to less support for the technology, signifying how salient historical failures of introduced bio-based technologies are in the minds of some (t = -2.78, p = 0.006). Examples include:

Just trying to mess with nature again, I think of cane toads and how good we are at it???? [5042]

The past errors made for example the cane toad [60004]

Don't know if this could be detrimental in the long run-as has happened with Monsanto interfering with the growing of cereal crops [4702]

As observed in previous qualitative research [ 26], our participants drew links between the current synthetic biology technology and past experiences or stories that readily came to mind. It is possible that both the availability heuristic [ 42] and the negativity bias [ 43] are in operation here. The availability heuristic is a mental short-cut that involves making judgements or decisions based on how easily an example, story or similar experience comes to mind-that is, when an example spring to mind quickly, people may perceive that example (and the information it conveys) as important and more heavily rely on this example to assist them in forming a decision. While this process certainly improves the speed of decision-making, in some cases, it can lead to biased decisions. Further to this, the negativity bias explains that more negative things (e.g., unpleasant thoughts, emotions, events) have a greater effect on one's psychological state than do neutral or positive things [ 44]. Applied to memory, research reveals that people tend to recall negative events/information more so than positive events/information [ 45- 47]. Thus, in the case of remembering negative stories such as the introduction of the cane toad, people would then be more likely to consider that the current technology could similarly fail too.

Conclusions

This study, which involved surveying a sample of 1,148 members of the Australian public, has identified a range of factors that may explain support (or otherwise) for the development of genetically engineered coral. When presented information about how this type of coral could help mitigate the problem of coral loss, many people (55%) tended to express sentiments that aligned with this positive problem-solution frame of reference. That is, many commented that the technology would yield important benefits for the reef and that there were no other viable alternatives. Some (7%) also raised the point that humans are responsible for taking action to remedy the problem that humans as a collective group have contributed to. While a few people (2%) expressed confidence in the science underpinning the technology, other people (5%) exhibited more ambivalence and explained the conditions that would need to be met for them to support its development.

A relatively smaller proportion (14%) expressed concerns regarding potential negative consequences with some (7%) expressly objecting to interfering with nature at all. However, it should be noted that the relative lower incidence of negative comments (and higher incidence of positive comments) could be a by-product of the fact that potential negative impacts or outcomes of the technology were not communicated explicitly in the technology storyboard. Despite the absence of information about the potential negatives, it is apparent that at least for a certain subset of people, such negative consequences still spring to mind. And their concerns were usually strongly worded and definitive. Some (2%) people expressed caution or doubt in the technology by mentioning past mistakes in biological control (such as the introduction of cane toads in Australia), highlighting the need to carefully approach the development of this technology and to ensure that there is an additional focus on preventing the problem (of global warming) in the first place, and considering alternative interventions (5% mentioned these aspects, relating to focussing on the problem itself and alternative solutions). Unsurprisingly, there was a small proportion (13%) who admitted that they needed more information and/or had not formed an opinion on the technology; and another small proportion (5%) who expressed conditional support. In addition to desiring more information, some (4%) participants also expressly requested results from scientific trials.

With an understanding of these factors, it may be possible for key stakeholders to modify how they design, develop, communicate and implement the technology so that it addresses, and aligns with, these societal priorities and expectations. As the research progresses, it is recommended that continued engagement with the public is undertaken-especially with residents in the Great Barrier Reef region, those people who recreate in the GBR, and/or who depend on the GBR for their livelihood.

Supporting information

S1 File
Reef story board.
(PDF)

Funding Statement

The research was funded by the Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform (CSIRO). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

As directed by the CSIRO's Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (CSSHREC), there are ethical restrictions on sharing the data that was analysed in this study. The ethical restrictions pertain to the fact that participants did not consent to their data being shared. Data requests will be considered on an individual basis, but some data may not be able to be released to maintain confidentiality. Please contact the corresponding author and CSSHREC on ua.orisc@cerhssc quoting the number 013/18.

References

1. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2019. Townsville; 2019. [ Google Scholar]

2. Butler JR, Wong GY, Metcalfe DJ, Honzák M, Pert PL, Rao N, et al. An analysis of trade-offs between multiple ecosystem services and stakeholders linked to land use and water quality management in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2013; 180: 176-191. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.017 [[ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

3. Marshall NA, Curnock M, Pert PL, Williams G. The Social and Economic Long Term Monitoring Program for the Great Barrier Reef. 2017 Final Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. CSIRO Land and Water, Townsville; 2019. [ Google Scholar]

7. Hughes TP, Kerry JT, Ãlvarez-Noriega M, Ãlvarez-Romero JG, Anderson KD, Baird AH, et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals, Nature. 2017; 543: 373-377. doi: 10.1038/nature21707 [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

9. Hughes TP, Kerry JT, Baird AH, Connolly SR, Chase TJ, Dietzel A, et al. Global warming impairs stock-recruitment dynamics of corals, Nature. 2019; 568, 387-390. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1081-y [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policy Makers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner H, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, et al. editors. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2018. [ Google Scholar]

15. McCook LJ, Ayling T, Cappo M, Choat JH, Evans RD, De Freitas DM, et al. Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: a globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010; 107(43): 18278-18285. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909335107 [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] PMC free article] [ Google Scholar]

17. Buerger P, Alvarez-Roa C, Coppin CW, Pearce SL, Chakravarti LJ, Oakeshott JG, et al. (2020). Heat-evolved microalgal symbionts increase coral bleaching tolerance. Science Advances. 2020; 6(20). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aba2498 [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] PMC free article] [ Google Scholar]

20. Horst M. The laboratory of public debate: Understanding the acceptability of stem cell research. Science and Public Policy. 2008; 35(3): 197-205. doi: 10.3152/030234208X302652 [[ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

28. Akin H, Rose KM, Scheufele DA, Simis-Wilkinson M, Brossard D, Xenos MA, et al. Mapping the landscape of public attitudes on synthetic biology. BioScience. 2017; 67(3): 290-300. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw171 [[ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

29. Betten AW, Broerse JEW, Kupper F. Dynamics of problem setting and framing in citizen discussions on synthetic biology. Public Understanding of Science. 2018; 27(3): 294-309. doi: 10.1177/0963662517712207 [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] PMC free article] [ Google Scholar]

35. Huijts NM, Molin EJ, Steg L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews. 2012; 16(1): 525-531. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018 [[ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

36. Cormick C, Mercer R. Community attitudes to gene technology. Report prepared by Instinct and Reason for The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 2017. [ Google Scholar]

38. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. [ Gene Drives on the Horizon: Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016. doi: 10.17226/23405 [ Advancing Science, Google Scholar] PubMed] [ CrossRef]

39. Link H-J. Playing God and the intrinsic value of life: Moral problems for synthetic biology? Science and Engineering Ethics. 2013; 19: 435-448. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9353-z [[ PubMed] [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

43. Kanouse DE, Hanson L. Negativity in evaluations. In: Jones EE, Kanouse DE, Valins S, Kelley HH, Nisbett RE, Weiner B, editors. Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press; 1972. [ Google Scholar]

Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically engineered heat-resistant coral: An initial analysis of public opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rising seawater temperatures are contributing to coral degradation in the Great Barrier Reef. Synthetic biology technologies offer the potential to enhance coral resilience to higher water temperatures. To explore what the public think of genetically ...

# data[].attributes.body
Always remember that if we dive that we shouldn't touch any corals because, corals are very sensitive and they could break and we don't wanna break them since they provide essential habitat for numerous fish and invertebrate species, making approximately 25% of all marine life. One billion people benefit from coral reefs, which have a substantial impact on coastal towns as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Coral reefs are an undeniably critical part of the ocean. Although these ecosystems only occupy 0.01% of the ocean floor, they support 25% of all marine life, providing crucial habitat for a myriad of fish and invertebrate species. Coral reefs also have a significant impact on coastal communities, with one billion people benefiting from their existence. They provide food and livelihoods, reduce storm surge and flood risk to coastlines across the tropics, protect against erosion and attract tourists to over 100 countries and territories.

Despite their importance, coral reefs face local and global threats including nutrient runoff from land sources like agriculture or deforestation, overfishing and climate change. Without immediate action to protect and restore coral reefs, they could cease to provide the essential goods and services valued by communities worldwide. Addressing these issues requires an understanding of what coral reefs are, relevant trends, threats and reasons for optimism about the future of these incredible ecosystems.

Answering Common Coral Queries

The ins and outs of coral reefs can be confusing. Here's a deep dive into what makes a coral reef, why they're threatened and how they're doing now:

What Are Coral Reefs?

Coral reefs are vast, three-dimensional structures comprised of coral animal colonies that secrete calcium carbonate, also known as limestone. Over time, these limestone secretions build up and create structures, some of which can be seen from space. Reefs are built by a variety of hard corals, of which there are 800 different species. The coral colonies that form these structures can take on a multitude of shapes and sizes. These colonies grow close together on the reef to create vibrant underwater cities for thousands of invertebrate species and over 4,000 fish species.

A coral animal, or "polyp," has a simple, transparent, tubular body with a ring of stinging tentacles. While they have a central mouth that filters food, 90% of their nutrition comes from microscopic algae within a polyp's tissues, known as "zooxanthellae." Zooxanthellae photosynthesize sugars, which the coral animal depends on for the energy it does not get from filtering food. This algae also provides coral reefs with their notoriously vivid colors.

What Are the Main Threats to Coral Reefs?

Coral reefs are threatened by both local and global threats, including overfishing; sediment, nutrient and marine pollution; and increasing ocean warming and acidification.

Overfishing is the most pervasive local threat to coral reefs. It can alter the ecological balance on the reef through removing herbivorous fish that control the macroalgae growing on coral. Sedimentation from land clearing also poses a major threat, as sediments within the water column can bury the corals and reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the zooxanthellae, therefore limiting their access to nutrients from photosynthesis. Additionally, nutrient pollution from agriculture and sewage can increase nutrient levels that promote algal cover at the expense of corals. Ships can damage reefs with anchors or chains, discharge pollutants or introduce invasive species that can disrupt the ecosystem.

Globally, ocean warming due to climate change is a rapidly growing threat. The zooxanthellae within corals' tissues are sensitive to ocean temperature, and ocean warming can cause the corals to expel their colorful algae - a process known as "coral bleaching." This leaves behind the appearance of a bright white skeleton and deprives the polyps of an important source of nutrition. The corals eventually die if the symbiotic algae don't return, if there is inadequate time between bleaching for corals to recover or if other threats impede their recovery.

On top of that, increasing carbon dioxide in sea water is slowly causing oceans to become more acidic. This decreases the availability of aragonite, a mineral which corals need to build their skeletons. A lack of aragonite slows coral growth and results in less dense, weaker structures that are more prone to erosion and damage. Aragonite saturation levels have consistently decreased in the last century, and this trend is projected to continue over the next century under current CO 2 emissions.

How Are the World's Coral Reefs Doing Now?

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer on the state of coral reefs. The extent of damage to the world's coral reefs vary, and some have recovered. However, most present a grim outlook. Around half of the world's reefs are likely degraded from climate change, pollution and overfishing. Hard coral cover has declined significantly in some regions, and there has been a clear change in coral community structure, with loss of susceptible coral species and loss of diversity.

A recent report by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) paints a more nuanced chronology of coral decline. The report utilizes data from 35,000 coral reef surveys collected in 73 countries over the past 40 years to reflect fluctuation in live hard coral cover and algal cover, two key indicators of coral reef condition. Although the findings are based on limited data, they suggest that average live hard coral cover was reasonably stable prior to the first mass coral bleaching event in 1998. That event prompted an 8% loss of coral cover globally, but most coral reefs recovered during the subsequent decade.

Between 2009 and 2018, coral cover progressively declined by 14%, primarily due to recurring large-scale coral bleaching events and inadequate time between events for coral to recover. Local disturbances and threats also contribute to coral decline and hinder recovery after coral bleaching, creating an opportunity for algae to occupy the space. As a result, algal cover increased by 20% over that period. Transition from coral to algae dominance in a reef community reduces the physical and biological complexity of coral habitat, which is essential to support important ecosystem services.

What is the Outlook for Coral Reefs?

The decline in live hard coral cover over the past 40 years isn't the end of the story. Projections of future ocean warming and the associated increased frequency of coral bleaching make coral reefs highly susceptible to further declines. By the 2030s, most coral reefs are projected to experience coral bleaching at least twice per decade, and possibly every year by the 2040s. This frequency would prevent coral recovery between episodes. Without drastic change, coral reefs could disappear by 2100.

While this may look bleak, there are signs of hope. Reef resilience, better understanding of these ecosystems and improved reef management can help prevent the worst-case-scenario.

The GCRMN report, among other studies, show that coral reefs can recover under certain conditions. In some cases, coral reefs with particularly high coral cover and diversity show evidence of natural resistance to higher ocean temperatures. Reducing local and global pressures on coral reefs is also critical to help reefs recover and maintain their resilience. This includes preventing destructive fishing practices and overfishing, minimizing pollution and sedimentation, managing dredging and preventing direct physical damage to reefs.

Networks of scientists, coastal managers and conservation professionals are also mobilizing to better understand the factors which aid coral persistence and recovery. Approaches are being tested, including:

Amplification of alerts of impending elevated sea surface temperatures. These alerts show when corals are expected to experience stress, which better enables coastal managers to reduce local threats.

The strategic development of marine protected areas (MPAs). When reefs in protected areas are able to survive and reproduce, their coral larvae can drift into degraded reefs and help them repopulate, as well. This can also disperse more heat-tolerant algae to bleached reefs.

The development of more successful coral restoration techniques.

Furthermore, coral reefs are becoming increasingly protected through their inclusion in new and expanded MPAs. More coral reefs are also in " fully and highly protected areas," which typically include zones where fishing is prohibited. Good management practices - like the implementation of "no take" zones from which the removal of resources, living or dead, is restricted, as well as practices that reduce pollution and physical disturbance within these areas - can help to reduce local threats and promote coral resilience. Meanwhile, global actions to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and control warming will also help reduce threats to reefs.

Tools that help increase knowledge on coral reefs and address local and global threats are also critical to reef protection. Data and visualization platforms, such as the Global Coral Reef Profile, are especially valuable in providing this knowledge and increasing understanding of the complexity of coral reefs, the threats they face, their enormous values and what is needed to help them persist.

Tools that provide insight into interactions on a regional scale have additional utility to stakeholders on the ground. The Coral Reef Regional Dashboards includes some of the most requested data to support decision-making relevant to coral reefs. The regional dashboards provide an overview of the value of coral reefs for fisheries, tourism and shoreline protection values; reef dependent populations; and the relative social and economic vulnerability of people within the region to coral degradation. They also provide information on the extent of coral reef and mangrove habitat, as well as how many are within MPAs and fully protected areas. Finally, the dashboards include mapping and indicators of current and future threats, locally and globally, and summarizes current knowledge about changes in the extent of live coral cover and algal cover within the region.

What Must Be Done to Ensure a Future for Coral Reefs?

There is no one solution to saving coral reefs - many coordinated steps must be taken toward a future where corals persist.

On a local level, threats to coral reefs can be addressed by managing fisheries sustainably, eliminating destructive fishing and addressing all sources of pollution. Moreover, management and financial support for MPAs and other area-based conservation measures must become more connected and efficient, with different departments recognizing potential areas for coordination.

On a global scale, efforts to keep warming within 1.5 degrees C are paramount to lessen the risk of coral bleaching and acidification. While talks about the ocean are becoming more prominent at international climate events like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, progress is slow. The importance of ocean environments like coral reefs must gain momentum and take a more central role in climate mitigation strategies.

Finally, tools that help regional policy makers and global leaders make informed decisions can offer new hope to protect coral reefs. These changes will not come easy, but they must come now to save coral reefs and those that depend on them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Decoding Coral Reefs: Exploring Their Status, Risks and Ensuring Their Future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coral reefs are an undeniably critical part of the ocean. Although these ecosystems only occupy 0.01% of the ocean floor, they support 25% of all marine life, providing crucial habitat for a myriad of fish and invertebrate species. Coral reefs also have a significant impact on coastal communities, with one billion people benefiting from their existence.

# data[].attributes.body
Sediment control will help the coral thrive. When a sediment gets on top of a plant, it crushes the coral. The sediment also effects the clarity of the water.
-Donghyun

# data[].attributes.body
this is to prevent the evaporation of the water, along with that, the balls will collect heat and block sun, helping the coral from overheating :)
-Kara

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Millions of ‘Shade Balls’ to Prevent Evaporation in Calif. Reservoirs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
L.A. officials have come up with a surprisingly low-tech way to fight the region’s water crisis: millions of floating plastic balls.

# data[].attributes.headline
Re-Stocking Cultured Clownfish Into Reef Restoration Areas

# data[].attributes.subject
Re-Stocking Cultured Clownfish Into Reef Restoration Areas

# data[].attributes.body
Earlier this year, we started our exciting work with a trial of re-stocking the local reef with cultured clownfish from our breeding Centre in Les village, North Bali.

We selected five clownfish (Amphiprion ocellaris) and a single anemone for the trial. The anemone was placed on one of the artificial reefs. To prevent the anemone from crawling away, and the cultured fish being eaten by predators, the fishers placed a chicken cage over the artificial reef structure to protect the fish and the anemone.

after 10 days of installation,  it was clear that all of the clown fish have survived, and the anemone is getting bigger and is still inside the chicken cage. The plan is to conduct monthly monitoring to see if these good results will be maintained.

-Teagan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this year, we started our exciting work with a trial of re-stocking the local reef with cultured clownfish from our breeding Centre in Les village, North Bali. We started our breeding of marine aquarium species in 2015 as part of our effort to offer new skills to marine aquarium fishers who we have been working with us since 2010. We targeted fisher families, and particularly women, to be trained in the breeding of marine reef fish targeted for the aquarium trade. Once the women from Les village were trained they have continued to work at the Centre, looking after all aspects of the fish breeding activities, and they have now bred several species of clownfish and the endangered species listed by IUCN red list - Banggai Cardinalfish.

We chose to place our Training Centre for marine conservation and aquaculture in Les village, because the area has long been one of the main producers of marine aquarium fish in Bali. The reefs in Les village are one of the main collection sites for the members of the Mina Lestari marine aquarium fishers' group. We have been working together with this group to restore the coral reefs there since 2010. Re-stocking cultured clownfish onto the reef was the next step that the fishers' group proposed to try as an experiment. Populations of clownfish have been long gone from the reefs in Les village, mainly because this group of fish has been highly targeted for capture and sale to the marine aquarium trade. Therefore, this trial to re-stock the reefs with cultured fish is very exciting, particularly as the fishers have been actively involved in its planning and implementation from the start.

We selected five clownfish ( Amphiprion ocellaris) and a single anemone for the trial. The anemone was placed on one of the artificial reefs. To prevent the anemone from crawling away, and the cultured fish being eaten by predators, the fishers placed a chicken cage over the artificial reef structure to protect the fish and the anemone. At the time of the last monitoring, after 10 days of installation, it was clear that all of the clown fish have survived, and the anemone is getting bigger and is still inside the chicken cage. The plan is to conduct monthly monitoring to see if these good results will be maintained.

We have been very happy with the progress of the Centre, where fisher families continue to earn money from working in aquaculture to supplement their livelihoods. We have been particularly gratified to see that the marine aquarium fishers' group remains keen to actively participate in conserving the reefs that they all depend on, and that the group members are enthusiastically taking part in reef studies, including re-stocking the reefs with cultured fish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Re-stocking Cultured Clownfish into Reef Restoration Areas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this year, we started our exciting work with a trial of re-stocking the local reef with cultured clownfish from our breeding Centre in Les village, North Bali. We started our breeding of marine aquarium species in 2015 as part of our effort to offer new skills to marine aquarium fishers who we have been working with us since 2010.

# data[].attributes.body
People purposely sink ships. So that coral can grow on the ship. In 1986 a ship called The Thunderbolt was sunk intentionally, and now it is home to colorful sponges and corals. It now provides a healthy habitat for many sea creatures.
-Stella

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can you spot the sunken ship?

In June 2002, the retired USS Spiegel Grove was sunk in waters off Key Largo. At 510 feet (155.45 meters) long, the ship was, at the time, the largest vessel ever intentionally scuttled for the purpose of creating an artificial reef.

Submerged shipwrecks are the most common form of artificial reef. Oil and gas platforms, bridges, lighthouses, and other offshore structures often function as artificial reefs. Marine resource managers also create artificial reefs in underwater areas that require a structure to enhance the habitat for reef organisms, including soft and stony corals and the fishes and invertebrates that live among them.

Materials used to construct artificial reefs have included rocks, cinder blocks, and even wood and old tires. Nowadays, several companies specialize in the design, manufacture, and deployment of long-lasting artificial reefs that are typically constructed of limestone, steel, and concrete.

A good view from inside the Thunderbolt.

In 1986, the Thunderbolt was intentionally sunk in 120 feet (36.6 meters) of water four miles south of Marathon and Key Colony Beach in Florida. The ship's superstructure is now home to colorful sponges, corals, and hydroids, providing food and habitat for a variety of sea creatures.

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary contains several decommissioned vessels that were sunk in specific areas for diving or fishing opportunities prior to the area's designation as a national marine sanctuary. One of the most famous is the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter , which served on the seas for half a century before its final assignment as an underwater haven for sea life.

Planned manmade reefs may provide local economic benefits because they attract fish to a known location and are therefore popular attractions for commercial and recreational fishermen, divers, and snorkelers. However, the increase in illegal dumping for the purpose of creating habitat has led to significant poaching in the Florida Keys and subsequent high-profile arrests by NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement. Marine debris continues to be an ongoing problem in these sensitive environmental areas, and NOAA's Marine Debris Program has helped provide funding to remove debris in the Florida Keys.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national oceanic and atmospheric administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Submerged shipwrecks are the most common form of artificial reef. Oil and gas platforms, bridges, lighthouses, and other offshore structures often function as artificial reefs. Marine resource managers also create artificial reefs in underwater areas that require a structure to enhance the habitat for reef organisms, including soft and stony corals and the fishes and invertebrates that live among them.

# data[].attributes.body
The Coral reefs are bleeching and the governments make solution, which is changing people's mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Coral reefs are among the most vulnerable ecosystems on the planet. Often called the "rainforests of the sea," they are rich in biodiversity and provide major benefits to humankind. And yet corals remain an enigma to many, who may not even realize they are living organisms.

Cylindrically shaped, soft-bodied, and close cousins to anemones and jellyfish, corals are the architects of the reef. Hard or stony corals secrete calcium carbonate, creating their own homes along with three-dimensional foundations that host a myriad of life. Individual coral polyps grow on top of ancestral skeletons, forming interconnected colonies. Soft corals are also part of the reef system but aren't builders; their polyp colonies form structures that look like trees, fans, whips, and grasses.

Coral species are diverse, interdependent, and ancient, first appearing 500 million years ago. Growth rings of a particular deep-sea coral mark its age at 4,000 years-the oldest known living marine organism (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2009). The majority of the world's six thousand coral species occur in warm, shallow seas, where the photosynthesizing symbiont algae called zooxanthellae supply corals with essential nutrients and give them their colour. In deeper, darker waters, corals rely on their stinging tentacles to snag food from the inky blackness.

Coral colonies cover a tiny fraction of the ocean floor, yet nearly a quarter of all marine species depend on reef ecosystems for refuge and sustenance off the coasts of 100 countries or territories. An estimated one million aquatic plant and animal species use healthy reefs for feeding, spawning, and nursery grounds.

Only one species- Homo sapiens -has shown the ability to destroy them.

Global Threats and Local Stressors

"Standing in knee-deep water, I stuck my face in and had a pufferfish staring back at me. There were fish all around me." A long-time marine educator described her first experience at the largest intact fringing reef in Hawai'i-a type of reef that grows seaward from the shore. Lobe coral lined a wide, oatmeal-coloured sand channel, creating a golden corridor that led to deeper waters and even more diversity. Three decades later, she lamented, "It looks like a ghost town." (Penniman, 2019).

Environmental stresses, especially higher water temperatures, can cause corals to expel their colour-inducing symbionts. The symbiotic algae transfer up to 90% of the energy they produce through photosynthesis to coral tissue (NOAA, n.d.). Coral bleaching is one of the most visible signs reefs are in trouble: without their beneficial algae, the corals begin to starve. Bleaching does not always signal death, but repeated episodes can leave swaths of reef unable to recover. Large-scale bleaching events were unreported in scientific literature before 1979 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2017), but now are increasing in intensity and frequency. Between 2014 and 2017, an unprecedented ocean heat wave caused bleaching at more than 75% of the world's tropical reefs; death ensued at nearly one-third of them. Mass bleaching events are now estimated to occur about every six years (Eakin et al., 2018).

I find it incredibly difficult to imagine a world without coral reefs, but that is essentially what the IPCC has forecast will be the case once we go through the dreaded line of 2° Celsius global warming.

Peter Thomson, UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for the Ocean

Ocean acidification is another reef stressor. Increased levels of carbon dioxide generated by greenhouse gas emissions are making the ocean more acidic and affecting the ability of corals to grow their skeletons. Ocean acidity has increased by 30% over the last 200 years, faster than any known change in ocean chemistry in 50 million years (Smithsonian, 2018). Like nutritional deficiencies that cause osteoporosis in humans, reduced levels of carbonate ions in ocean water result in thinner coral skeletons, making them less resistant to pounding waves (Mollica et al., 2018). By the end of this century, coral reefs could dissolve and erode more quickly than they grow.

A warming climate profoundly impacts coral reefs: an increase in average global temperature of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is projected to cause the decline of 70 to 90% of coral reefs. All coral reefs would disappear with a 2°C increase (IPCC, 2018).

Other threats originate closer to home, including: overfishing; destructive fishing practices, such as use of dynamite or poisons; coastal development; sedimentation, including from inland deforestation; land-based pollutants or sewage; pollution from commercial, recreational, and passenger vessels; and the introduction of marine invasive species. Deep-sea corals face additional harm from oil and gas exploration and bottom trawling, which drags weighted fishing nets across the sea floor.

Socioeconomic Benefits: Reefs Deliver

Despite our ill treatment of this resource, humans are dependent on healthy reef ecosystems. An estimated 40% of the world's population lives within 100 km of the coast-nearly 2.4 billion people. The livelihoods of six million commercial and subsistence fishers depend on coral reefs. Coral reef ecosystems also provide income from recreation and tourism activities, and shoreline protection-socio-economic benefits estimated to exceed USD 20 billion annually (Spalding et al., 2017; UNEP et al., 2018).

While the loss of coral reef ecosystems has global implications, the socio-economic impacts are disproportionate: most coral reefs are in the waters off developing countries, including some classified as least developed countries (WRI, 2011). Impacts are likely compounded for women and Indigenous Peoples who may experience limited access to fishing grounds, boats, equipment, financing, and education (Österblom et al., 2020).

The loss of coral reefs threatens traditional practices and a way of life passed down over generations: the satisfaction of a well-thrown net or cast of line; knowledge of a place, seasons, and species; and immersion in a world so different from the land we live on. In many coastal cultures, the reef is considered family, a connection that carries with it a deep sense of responsibility to care for and protect it.

Locally Sourced Solutions

Efforts to address local stressors have helped reduce coral reef vulnerability to climate change and highlight the value of focusing on resilience (Maynard et al., 2018). Success stories include community-based programs and protective laws:

Belize: a ban on harvesting algae-eating parrotfish improved coral cover

Bali: local reef tour guides help keep resources in the community and increase commitments for reef protection

American Samoa: fishing restrictions and waste diversions led to coral recovery after a crown-of-thorns outbreak decimated coral reefs

United States: a ban in Hawai'i on the sale of sunscreen containing coral-harming chemicals

Selected Global Targets related to Coral Reef Ecosystems
Climate change

Global warming: limit to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit to 1.5°C. [Paris Agreement]

Food production: increase ability to adapt to adverse impacts and foster climate resilience [Paris Agreement]

Production from living resources

Threatened species: prevent extinction of known threatened species and improve and sustain their conservation status [Aichi Biodiversity Targets]

Fishing practices: effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and destructive fishing practices [2030 Agenda]

Small island developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs): increase economic benefits to SIDS and LDCs from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture, and tourism [2030 Agenda]

Small-scale artisanal fishers: provide access to marine resources and markets. National legal/regulatory/policy/institutional frameworks recognize and protect access rights for small-scale fisheries [2030 Agenda]

Generation of land-based sources of pollution

Pollution: pollution levels are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity [Aichi Targets]

Marine pollution: prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution, including marine debris and nutrient pollution [2030 Agenda]

Sewage and waste: sewage, waste waters and solid wastes disposed in conformity with national or international environmental quality guidelines [GPA]

Extraction of non-living resources
Sustainable production and consumption: keep impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits [Aichi Targets]
Tourism and recreation
SIDS and LDCs: increase economic benefits to SIDS and LDCs from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism [2030 Agenda]
Multiple anthropogenic drivers

Climate change and ocean acidification: multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs are minimized to maintain integrity and functioning [Aichi Targets]

Marine and coastal ecosystems: sustainable management and protection to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening resilience, and restoration actions [2030 Agenda]

Coastal and marine areas: conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and [2030 Agenda]

Based on Box 4. Selected Global Targets to Address Anthropogenic Drivers of Change in Coral Reef Ecosystems, found within International Reef-Related Instruments (UNEP, 2019).

International Awareness and Strategies

Global problems require global solutions. Forests, endangered species, wetlands, and migratory species all benefit from global agreements focused on their conservation and sustainable use-but not coral reefs. Instead, international efforts to protect coral reef ecosystems have developed incrementally since the 1960s. Marine-related provisions in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and Action Plan focused on pollution and fisheries, with no explicit reference to coral reefs. Since then, coral reef concerns have been incorporated into 150 global instruments. Of these, 32 are legally binding, with the rest considered voluntary. An additional 82 regional agreements include coral reef provisions (UNEP, 2019).

The collective scope of these agreements (see Box 1) covers almost every anthropogenic driver of change in coral reef ecosystems, with 600 discrete targets for action that are measurable and timebound. For most of the commitments, implementation lies with individual states. These agreements include:

1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): UNCLOS establishes the overarching sovereign rights and obligations of states within defined maritime zones, including the rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage the living and non-living natural resources under their jurisdiction. UNCLOS sets the overall framework for coral reef-related actions by Member States within their exclusive economic zones.

1971 Ramsar Convention: Approximately 850 of the 2,400 Ramsar sites on the list of Wetlands of International Importance contain coral reefs. Key activities supported by the Convention include advisory missions, a mechanism for sharing global expertise, and initiatives that promote scientific and technical cooperation and exchange of knowledge on wetlands-related issues in specific regions.

1972 World Heritage Convention: This treaty focuses on the preservation of cultural sites and the conservation of nature. Five coral reefs are inscribed on the World Heritage List: Rock Islands Southern Lagoon (Palau), the Lagoons of New Caledonia (France), Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Belize), Ningaloo Coast (Australia), and the Great Barrier Reef (Australia).

1973 Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): International trade in reef "products" is driven by the aquarium trade for live organisms, and curio and jewelry markets for dead coral. Stony corals, blue corals, organ pipe corals, and fire corals are listed on CITES Appendix II; these are not threatened with extinction, but their trade must be controlled to ensure their survival.

1979 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS): CMS Appendix I species that are significantly dependent on inter-tidal and other associated coastal habitats include seven marine mammals, 40 bird species, six turtles, and eleven species of fish. Appendix I species face a very high risk of extinction and the taking of species is prohibited with limited exceptions.

1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): Coral reef-related actions under the CBD include:

the 1995 Jakarta Mandate, which led to a programme of work on coastal and marine biodiversity

the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, including the Aichi Targets, focused on sustainable fisheries, minimizing anthropogenic pressures caused by climate change or ocean acidification, and conserving at least 10% of coastal and marine areas

integrated marine and coastal area management

identifying ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) to prioritize management efforts

support for networks of marine and coastal protected areas

the Sustainable Ocean Initiative, which enhances the capacity of countries for marine conservation and sustainable development

1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and 2015 Paris Agreement: The survival of coral reef ecosystems depends on meeting the goals set forth in the Paris Agreement -to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C.

Other Relevant Agreements and Initiatives

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which was adopted in 2015, includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs) and 169 targets. SDG 14 seeks to "conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development." SDG 14 targets relevant to coral reefs address: marine pollution; ocean acidification; overfishing, illegal, underreported and unregulated fishing (IUU), and destructive fishing; conserving at least 10% of coastal and marine areas; and increasing economic benefits to small island developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs) from sustainable use of marine resources.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) hosts other international agreements that have elements that affect coral reef ecosystems. UNEP's Regional Seas Programme promotes sustainable management and use of the marine and coastal environment by engaging countries to implement specific actions to protect shared marine resources. UNEP's Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities focuses on marine litter, nutrient management, and wastewater through global multi-stakeholder partnerships.

The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) is an informal partnership between nearly 90 countries and organizations. ICRI's Framework for Action provides high-level guidance to governments and other stakeholders to implement management strategies and actions based on global best practices in four main areas: integrated management; capacity building; science and monitoring; and periodic assessment.

Present Status and Options for the Future

The provisions on coral reefs in so many different international agreements suggests both global recognition of their importance, and how integral these ecosystems are to biodiversity goals, other ecosystems, and at-risk species. But is this patchwork approach working?

The UNEP analysis of global and regional coral reef policy instruments and governance mechanisms sought to answer this question (UNEP, 2019). The analysis concluded the existing agreements cover the scope of actions needed to address local drivers of reef loss and enhance coral reef resilience but noted half of the 600 commitments are nonbinding. UNEP posited that competing demands and a lack of incentives and appropriate financial mechanisms may be hindering implementation of these commitments. In other words, the global community knows what needs to be done, but implementation is lacking.

What Can Be Done?

A binding global agreement on coral reef protection could help elevate coral reefs on the international stage, bolster political will for implementation, establish a financing mechanism, and provide a framework to integrate existing indicators and commitments. But multilateral agreements take time and resources. The current track record for implementation and the perilous condition of coral reefs suggest another treaty might not be the best way to effect necessary changes.

Other options identified by the 2019 UNEP analysis include: accelerating implementation; strengthening the existing international policy framework; and rapid support to states for policy implementation, dubbed "the coral reef-state solution." Recent developments indicate progress on these options.

Today, the question is no longer whether these extraordinary ecosystems will be damaged but to what extent they will be. It is also to anticipate what will be irreparably lost of their diversity and to assess the consequences for tropical countries as for all of humanity.

In September 2020, the Global Fund for Coral Reefs (GFCR) launched a new fund seeking to raise and invest USD 500 million in coral reef conservation over the next ten years. This initiative includes public, philanthropic, and private actors, highlighting the potential of unique partnerships to advance coral reef protection and SDG 14. In 2021, the GFCR announced its first round of funding for six different countries.

In December 2020, the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy committed to achieving 100% sustainable ocean management of areas within their national jurisdiction by 2025. Established in 2018, the Ocean Panel is a policy body of world leaders from 14 countries with diverse economies, spread across ocean basins: Australia, Canada, Chile, Fiji, Ghana, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Norway, Palau, and Portugal. Participating countries account for 41% of the world's warm-water reefs (UNEP-WCMC, 2001). The direct involvement of Heads of State in the Ocean Panel suggests the political will exists to effect change.

While these developments offer hope, climate change remains the single greatest threat to coral reefs. The year 2020 tied with 2016 for the planet's warmest year on record, ending the warmest decade ever observed (Freedman, 2021), underscoring the urgent need to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Voluntary coalitions and the call to action from coral reef champions are encouraging but not enough to ensure that coral reef ecosystems will survive.

Unless we remove or reduce local stressors and simultaneously address climate change, we will lose these ancient, colonial animals that protect our coasts from wave surges. We will lose the livelihoods that depend on them. And we will lose the abundance of marine life that call coral reefs home.

A decade ago, Sylvia Earle said, "Half the coral reefs are still in pretty good shape, a jeweled belt around the middle of the planet. There's still time, but not a lot, to turn things around."

Works Consulted

Eakin, C.M., Liu, G., Gomez, A.M., De la Couri, J.L., Heron, S.F., Skirving, W.J., Geiger, E.F., Marsh, B.L., Tirak, K.V., & Strong, A.E. (2018). Unprecedented three years of global coral bleaching 2014-17. Sidebar 3.1. [in State of the Climate in 2017]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(8), S74-75. https://doi.org/10.1175/2018BAMSStateoftheClimate.1

Freedman, A. (2021). 2020 tied with 2016 for Earth's hottest year, as global warming overpowered La Niña. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/01/08/2020-hottest-year-earth/

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kennedy, E. V., Beyer, H. L., McClennen, C., & Possingham, H. P. (2018). Securing a long-term future for coral reefs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 33(12), 936-944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.09.006

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. (2009). Deep sea corals may be oldest living marine organism. https://www.llnl.gov/news/deep-sea-corals-may-be-oldest-living-marine-organism

Maynard, J.A., Marshall, P.A., Parker, B., Mcleod, E., Ahmadia, G., van Hooidonk, R., Planes, S., Williams, G.J., Raymundo, L., Beeden, R., & Tamelander, J. (2017). A guide to assessing coral reef resilience for decision support. UN Environment. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/22046/Guide_Coral_Reef_Resiliience.pdf

Mollica, N.R., Guo, W., Cohen, A.L., Huang, K.F., Foster, G.L., Donald, H.K., & Solow, A.R. (2018). Ocean acidification affects coral growth by reducing skeletal density. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(8), 1754-1759. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712806115

National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency. (n.d.) Zooxanthellae ... what's that? https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_corals/coral02_zooxanthellae.html

Österblom, H., Wabnitz, C.C.C., Tladi, D., et al. (2020). Towards ocean equity. World Resources Institute. https://www.oceanpanel.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/towards-ocean-equity.pdf

Penniman, T. (2019). Remembering big mama. Maui Nō Ka 'Oi Magazine, 23(5), 34-35. https://www.mauimagazine.net/olowalu-coral/

Smithsonian (2018). Ocean Acidification. https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification

Spalding, M., Burke, L., Wood, S. A., Ashpole, J., Hutchison, J., & zu Ermgassen, P. (2017). Mapping the global value and distribution of coral reef tourism. Marine Policy, 82(May), 104-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.014

UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre. (2001). World atlas of coral reefs. https://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data/world-atlas-of-coral-reefs-2001

UN Environment Programme, International Sustainability Unit, International Coral Reef Initiative, and Trucost. (2018). The coral reef economy: The business case for investment in the protection, preservation and enhancement of coral reef health. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/26694/Coral_Reef_Economy.pdf

UN Environment Programme. (2019). Analysis of policies related to the protection of coral reefs. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/analysis-policies-related-protection-coral-reefs.

World Resources Institute. (2011). Reefs at risk revisited. https://www.wri.org/publication/reefs-risk-revisited

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coral Reefs: Strategies for Ecosystems on the Edge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coral reefs are among the most vulnerable ecosystems on the planet. Often called the "rainforests of the sea," they are rich in biodiversity and provide major benefits to humankind. And yet corals remain an enigma to many, who may not even realize they are living organisms. Cylindrically shaped, soft-bodied, and close cousins to anemones and jellyfish, corals are the architects of the reef.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cubes are placed at the bottom of the ocean. They slowly turn into reefs, but even when they are not reefs yet, they leave space for fish and reef animals to build their habitats. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Cubes are placed at the bottom of the ocean. They slowly turn into reefs, but even when they are not reefs yet, they leave space for fish and reef animals to build their habitats. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UpLink

Turning the tide ... meet the green alternative to artificial reefs. Image: ARC Marine

Senior Writer, Formative Content

Stay up to date:

UpLink

Follow

Artificial reefs protect offshore turbines from being undermined by strong tides. Image: Reuters/Phil Noble

Home from home: reef cubes encourage marine biodiversity. Image: ARC Marine

Ecological benefits of marine cubes. Image: ARC Marine

Discover

How UpLink is helping to find innovations to solve challenges like this

Show more

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Reef cubes': could these plastic-free blocks help save the ocean?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UpLink Turning the tide ... meet the green alternative to artificial reefs. Image: ARC Marine Senior Writer, Formative Content Stay up to date: UpLink Follow Artificial reefs protect offshore turbines from being undermined by strong tides. Image: Reuters/Phil Noble Home from home: reef cubes encourage marine biodiversity.

# data[].attributes.body
Scientists have created many wave dissipation systems to protect coral reefs from wave energy and force. This helps do that waves that have a lot of force do not break or destroy coral reefs.

-Nolan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2017, the Board of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) approved the continued use of the controversial Wave Dissipation System (WDS) along South Carolina beachfronts. This approval followed a year-long pilot study by the Citadel, third party review by GEL Engineering, and request for removal of WDS and termination of the pilot study by DHEC staff.

The Coastal Conservation League understood and continues to understand concerns about storm impacts and erosional hotspots along our coastline. However, we firmly oppose the use of new hardening of our state's beaches. These tools are deployed to protect solely what is landward of them, typically to protect habitable structures, often at the expense of the beach itself. These measures, in addition to impacting the natural ecosystem and public access, do not protect against the long-term issue of coastal erosion and can perpetuate a false sense of security.

History and Timeline of WDS Study

In March 2015, the Citadel originally submitted a request to perform a one year-long study of WDS technology along various parts of South Carolina's coastline. The WDS was located at four sites, some of which have multiple rows of walls called tiers:

Ocean Club Villas on Isle of Palms, 256 feet long; triple tier

Seascape Villas on Isle of Palms, 120 feet long; double tier

Beachwood East on Isle of Palms, 850 feet long; single tier

Harbor Island on St. Helena, 400 feet long; single tier

In July 2016, DHEC staff notified The Citadel that the year-long study of WDS would end on July 28 th and ordered removal of all WDS devices at that time.

DHEC staff concluded that the WDS present several problems: the devices did not hold the scarp line position-a steep drop on the beach caused by erosion-unless sandbags are also used; there was loss of sand volume landward of the WDS; and net accretion of sand only occurred seaward of the WDS because they block the natural accretion of sand on the shoreline. Staff also found that the WDS has negative effects similar to those associated with seawalls, including trenching and scouring around the WDS, impacts requiring periodic excavations to adjust the systems, and impacts to adjacent properties. Negative impacts on lateral public beach access and potential harmful impacts on sea turtles were also noted. Anecdotal and photo evidence by local turtle patrols and residents has shown that numerous false crawls have occurred around the WDS.

Several parties, including homeowners who installed the WDS, requested final review of the staff decision by the DHEC Board. The Board conducted the review in September 2016 and reversed the staff decision to remove the WDS. This allowed WDS structures to remain in place pending the continued analysis of the pilot study.

In August 2016, The Citadel submitted a final report for their study. Thereafter, DHEC staff contracted with GEL engineering to provide a third-party evaluation of the findings in the report.

Upon review of Citadel and GEL Engineering reports, DHEC staff again recommended at their December meeting that the WDS be removed. The Board published the staff recommendation of findings and their conclusion of removal and hosted a 60-day comment period. During this time, the League and many others submitted written comments, totaling 486 altogether. Following the comment period, a public hearing was held in March 2017. In June 2017, The Board released their official decision that the WDS pilot study would be allowed to continue for an additional year with certain conditions that stipulate that each WDS:

1. is placed mostly parallel to the shoreline;

2. is designed to dissipate wave energy;

3. is designed to minimize scouring seaward of and adjacent to the device by permitting sand to move landward and seaward through the device;

4. the horizontal panels designed to dissipate wave energy can be deployed within one-hundred twenty hours or less and can be removed within one hundred twenty hours or less;

5. does not negatively impact or inhibit sea turtle nesting or other fauna;

6. can be adjusted after initial deployment in response to fluctuation in beach elevations; and

7. otherwise prevents down-coast erosion, protects property, and limits negative impacts to public safety and welfare, beach access, and the health of the beach dune system. The Citadel is also required to improve the methodology used to assess the effectiveness of the WDS.

Our Case

Represented by the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, we, alongside the South Carolina Sierra Club, requested a contested case hearing to review the DHEC Board's decision. DHEC's Board blatantly disregarded sound analysis by their staff and GEL engineering. We challenged the Board's decision that allowed the study to continue when the WDS has clearly demonstrated to be ineffective against erosion, harmful to sea turtles, and a barrier to public access.

Victory!

Our friends at South Carolina Sierra Club and the South Carolina Wildlife Federation, represented by the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, filed a federal case, identifying the WDS as a violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The South Carolina District Federal Court found that the false crawls caused by the WDS constituted a take under the ESA and ordered the immediate removal of the walls and this led to the successful, eventual settlement for both the federal and state cases in which the walls were ordered to be removed entirely and in perpetuity.

This outcome represents the importance of the Court's decision to uphold science, protect endangered sea turtles, and prevent our coastline from adverse impacts associated with erosion control devices.
For more information, including pictures, please visit DHEC OCRM's website here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wave Dissipation System - Coastal Conservation League

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2017, the Board of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) approved the continued use of the controversial Wave Dissipation System (WDS) along South Carolina beachfronts. This approval followed a year-long pilot study by the Citadel, third party review by GEL Engineering, and request for removal of WDS and termination of [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Scientist have managed to get coral grown in Laboratories which could help Scientist get coral reef speices which are in endangered not be endangered anymore. When they grew the few batches of coral they had noticed that it had grown to a sze of a soccer ball and has reproduced at the same time as neighboring naturally grown coral. It is hoped by using this technique Scientist will be able to help the coral reef not be a distant memory

- Devansh

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
17 clever ways scientists are trying to protect coral

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover 16 ingenious ways scientists are trying to protect and repair the world’s coral reefs