Optimizing facility location, sizing, and growth time for a cultivated resource: A case study in coral aquaculture.

Production of cultivated resources require additional planning that takes growth time into account. We formulate a mathematical programming model to determine the optimal location and sizing of growth facilities, impacted by resource survival rate as a function of its growth time. Our method informs strategic decisions regarding the number, location, and sizing of facilities, as well as operational decisions of optimal growth time for a cultivated resource in a facility to minimize total costs. We solve this facility location and sizing problem in the context of coral aquaculture for large-scale reef restoration using a two-stage algorithm and a linear mixed-integer solver. We assess growth time in a facility in terms of its impact on survival (post-deployment) considering growth quantity requirements and growth facility production constraints. We explore the sensitivity of optimal facility number, location, and sizing to changes in the geographic distribution of demand and cost parameters computationally. Results show that the relationship between growth time and survival is critical to optimizing operational decisions for grown resources. These results inform the value of data certainty to optimize the logistics of coral aquaculture production.

Scaling up the global reef restoration activity: Avoiding ecological imperialism and ongoing colonialism.

The health and condition of the world's reefs are in steep decline. This has triggered the development of fledgling micro-scale coral reef restoration projects along many reef coastlines. However, it is increasingly recognised that the scale and productivity of micro-scale coral gardening projects will be insufficient to meet the growing global threats to reefs. More recently, efforts to develop and implement restoration techniques for application at regional scales have been pursued by research organisations. Coral reefs are mostly located in the unindustrialised world. Yet, most of the funding, and scientific and engineering method development for larger-scale methods will likely be sourced and created in the industrialised world. Therefore, the development of the emerging at-scale global reef restoration sector will inevitably involve the transfer of methods, approaches, finances, labour and skills from the industrialised world to the unindustrialised world. This opens the door to the industrialised world negatively impacting the unindustrialised world and, in some cases, First Nations peoples. In Western scientific parlance, ecological imperialism occurs when people from industrialised nations seek to recreate environments and ecosystems in unindustrialised nations that are familiar and comfortable to them. How a coral reef 'should' look depends on one's background and perspective. While predominately Western scientific approaches provide guidance on the ecological principles for reef restoration, these methods might not be applicable in every scenario in unindustrialised nations. Imposing such views on Indigenous coastal communities without the local technical and leadership resources to scale-up restoration of their reefs can lead to unwanted consequences. The objective of this paper is to introduce this real and emerging risk into the broader reef restoration discussion.

Substrate stabilisation and small structures in coral restoration: State of knowledge, and considerations for management and implementation.

Coral reef ecosystems are under increasing pressure from local and regional stressors and a changing climate. Current management focuses on reducing stressors to allow for natural recovery, but in many areas where coral reefs are damaged, natural recovery can be restricted, delayed or interrupted because of unstable, unconsolidated coral fragments, or rubble. Rubble fields are a natural component of coral reefs, but repeated or high-magnitude disturbances can prevent natural cementation and consolidation processes, so that coral recruits fail to survive. A suite of interventions have been used to target this issue globally, such as using mesh to stabilise rubble, removing the rubble to reveal hard substrate and deploying rocks or other hard substrates over the rubble to facilitate recruit survival. Small, modular structures can be used at multiple scales, with or without attached coral fragments, to create structural complexity and settlement surfaces. However, these can introduce foreign materials to the reef, and a limited understanding of natural recovery processes exists for the potential of this type of active intervention to successfully restore local coral reef structure. This review synthesises available knowledge about the ecological role of coral rubble, natural coral recolonisation and recovery rates and the potential benefits and risks associated with active interventions in this rapidly evolving field. Fundamental knowledge gaps include baseline levels of rubble, the structural complexity of reef habitats in space and time, natural rubble consolidation processes and the risks associated with each intervention method. Any restoration intervention needs to be underpinned by risk assessment, and the decision to repair rubble fields must arise from an understanding of when and where unconsolidated substrate and lack of structure impair natural reef recovery and ecological function. Monitoring is necessary to ascertain the success or failure of the intervention and impacts of potential risks, but there is a strong need to specify desired outcomes, the spatial and temporal context and indicators to be measured. With a focus on the Great Barrier Reef, we synthesise the techniques, successes and failures associated with rubble stabilisation and the use of small structures, review monitoring methods and indicators, and provide recommendations to ensure that we learn from past projects.

Essential requirements for catchment sediments to have ongoing impacts to water clarity in the great barrier reef.

Increasing concerns over decreasing water quality and the state of coral reefs and seagrass meadows along the inshore and mid-shelf regions of the Great Barrier Reef has led to a large-scale government catchment sediment and nutrient reduction program. However the mechanistic understanding of how fine sediments washed out of catchments and transported within flood plumes leads to ongoing increases in turbidity at locations far downstream from estuaries long after flood plumes have dissipated is poorly understood. Essential criteria which need to be met in order for catchment-derived sediments to play a major role in nearshore water quality are proposed. Preliminary estimates of these essential criteria suggest that it is dynamically possible for fine sediments washed out of catchments during floods to be preferentially re-mobilised at downstream locations following the dissipation of flood plumes. However the longer-term influence of catchment-derived material on water quality is dependent upon the rate of degradation of floc particles that fall out of flood plumes and the rate of background deposition; neither of which are well quantified.

Environmental perverse incentives in coastal monitoring.

It can be argued that the intensity of monitoring of coastal marine environments lags behind the equivalent terrestrial environments. This results in a paucity of long-term time series of key environmental parameters such as turbidity. This lack of management information of the sources and sinks, and causes and impacts of stressors to the coastal marine environment, along with a lack of co-ordination of information collection is compromising the ability of environmental impact assessments of major coastal developments to discriminate between local and remote anthropogenic impacts, and natural or background processes. In particular, the quasi outsourcing of the collection of coastal information can lead to a perverse incentive whereby in many cases nobody is actively or consistently monitoring the coastal marine environment effectively. This is particularly the case with regards to the collection of long-term and whole-of-system scale data. This lack of effective monitoring can act to incentivise poor environmental performance.