ArticlePloS one2024
Reef visitors' observation of assisted coral recovery devices in situ reduces concern about their use.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assisted coral recovery (ACR) initiatives are establishing rapidly in coral reefs worldwide, using a variety of devices and techniques. In the Great Barrier Reef (GBR, the Reef), site-scale ACR field trials are occurring at multiple sites in the Cairns-Port Douglas region through Reef stewardship activities involving GBR tourism operators, Traditional Owners, and not-for-profit organisations. It is hypothesised that these field trials and the presence of ACR devices at reef tourism sites do not negatively affect visitor experiences, and when accompanied by appropriate educational information, can potentially help to raise awareness of Reef stewardship and conservation efforts. We tested these hypotheses using a survey of 708 Reef visitors on five tourism vessels, 346 of whom reported observing ACR devices in situ during their coral reef experience. Ordinal regression tests of survey responses found no statistical relationship between respondents' observation of ACR devices and (i) their overall Reef trip satisfaction, (ii) the perceived aesthetic beauty of the site(s) they visited, and (iii) their concern about the future health of the GBR. However, Reef visitors who observed ACR devices showed significantly lower levels of concern about the use of these devices on the Reef. The perceived quality of educational information presented to respondents was among the significant factors associated with their reef trip satisfaction and perceived beauty of reef sites. Our findings have implications for ACR practitioners and proponents who are concerned about public visibility, perceptions, and support for ACR initiatives, as the scale of such initiatives is expected to increase.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.