Content uploaded by Margaux Hein
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margaux Hein on Oct 03, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIEW ARTICLE
The need for broader ecological and socioeconomic
tools to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration
programs
Margaux Y. Hein1,2,3, Bette L. Willis1,2, Roger Beeden4, Alastair Birtles1,5
Coral reef restoration initiatives are burgeoning in response to the need for novel management strategies to address dramatic
global declines in coral cover. However, coral restoration programs typically lack rigor and critical evaluation of their
effectiveness. A review of 83 peer-reviewed papers that used coral transplantation for reef restoration reveals that growth and
survival of coral fragments were the most widely used indicators of restoration success, with 88% of studies using these two
indicators either solely (55%) or in combination with a limited number of other ecological factors (33%). In 53% of studies, reef
condition was monitored for 1 year or less, while only 5% of reefs were monitored for more than 5 years post-transplantation.
These results highlight that coral reef restoration science has focused primarily on short-term experiments to evaluate
the feasibility of techniques for ecological restoration and the initial establishment phase post-transplantation, rather than
on longer-term outcomes for coral reef communities. Here, we outline 10 socioecological indicators that comprehensively
evaluate the effectiveness of coral reef restoration across the four pillars of sustainability (i.e. environmental, sociocultural,
governance, and economic contributions to sustainable communities). We recommend that evaluations of the effectiveness
of coral restoration programs integrate ecological indicators with sociocultural, economic, and governance considerations.
Assessing the efcacy of coral restoration as a tool to support reef resilience will help to guide future efforts and ensure the
sustainable maintenance of reef ecosystem goods and services.
Key words: coral restoration, ecosystem services, resilience, socioecological systems, sustainability
Implications for Practice
•Current indicators of the effectiveness of coral restora-
tion science primarily evaluate corals’ biological
responses to transplantation. Such small-scale exper-
imental approaches are insufcient to characterize the
effectiveness of restoration for reef resilience and the
provision of socioecological dimensions of ecosystem
services.
•We outline 10 socioecological indicators to compre-
hensively evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration
across the four pillars of sustainability: (1) coral diversity;
(2) herbivore biomass and diversity; (3) benthic cover;
(4) recruitment; (5) coral health; (6) reef structural
complexity; (7) reef user satisfaction; (8) stewardship;
(9) capacity building; and (10) economic value.
•Choice of indicators may vary depending on the study’s
scope, that is, whether it is a targeted research experiment
or a broader-scale coral restoration effort.
Introduction
Coral restoration is gaining increasing attention as a tool to
supplement current management strategies for coral reef con-
servation, largely because of accelerating declines in coral pop-
ulations globally (Gardner et al. 2003; Pandol et al. 2003;
Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2007; De’ath et al. 2012). The increas-
ing frequency of disturbances, coupled with limitations associ-
ated with traditional conservation strategies (e.g. marine pro-
tected areas; Mora & Sale 2011; Santo 2013), has led to a
growing number of managers and coral reef scientists calling
for the introduction of more active measures (Bellwood et al.
2004; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Rinkevich 2008;
Sale et al. 2014; Van Oppen et al. 2015). Coral transplanta-
tion, the act of moving and securing coral fragments on reef
substrata (Edwards & Gomez 2007), is the most widely used
coral restoration strategy (Epstein et al. 2003; Rinkevich 2005),
and transplantation-based restoration projects have burgeoned
around the world over the last 30 years (Rinkevich 2014). Most
Authors contributions: MYH, BLW, RB, AB developed the research idea; MYH
wrote the manuscript, BLW, RB, AB edited the manuscript.
1College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland
4811, Australia
2Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,
Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia
3Address correspondence to M. Y. Hein, email margaux.hein@my.jcu.edu.au
4Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia
5College of Law, Business and Governance, James Cook University, Townsville,
Queensland 4811, Australia
© 2017 Society for Ecological Restoration
doi: 10.1111/rec.12580
Supporting information at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rec.12580/suppinfo
Restoration Ecology 1
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
coral transplantation projects follow the coral gardening con-
cept (Rinkevich 1995), for example growing coral fragments on
mid-water oating nurseries until they reach a suitable trans-
plant size. Although use of a nursery phase has improved the ini-
tial survival of coral transplants (Rinkevich 2014), mismatches
remain between the scales at which coral reef restoration tech-
niques are applied, the spatial scale required for coral reef recov-
ery, and the extent of current knowledge about the effectiveness
of restoration programs.
Coral restoration science has been the subject of much skep-
ticism within the scientic community (Precht et al. 2005).
Many argue that coral reef ecosystems are too complex and
not well-enough understood for coral transplantation initiatives
to be effective (Precht et al. 2005). In particular, the spatial
scale of potential benets arising from transplantation programs
has been criticized as inadequate to address the scale at which
reefs are deteriorating (Yap 2000, 2003; Precht et al. 2005;
Edwards & Gomez 2007; Omori 2011; Ammar et al. 2013).
Moreover, temporal scales required to establish benets from
coral transplantation programs contrast with the notion of using
reef restoration as a “quick-x” response to degradation (Jaap
2000; Van Diggelen et al. 2001; Sleeman et al. 2005). On the
other hand, such mismatches of spatial and temporal scales do
not rule out the use of coral transplantation within frameworks
of adaptive management actions that operate across a wide range
of scales. Finally, it is widely acknowledged that replanting
corals will not stop global drivers of coral loss, such as climate
change or ocean acidication, highlighting that coral transplan-
tation on its own is not an effective management strategy (Yap
2003; Precht et al. 2005; Edwards & Gomez 2007). Neverthe-
less, integration of coral transplantation within long-term, mul-
tidisciplinary adaptive management frameworks has merit as a
strategy to address scientic uncertainties associated with the
biological, physical, and socioeconomic factors at play in coral
reef ecosystems (Yap 2000; Hobbs & Harris 2001; Edwards &
Gomez 2007; Foley et al. 2010).
The lack of scientic assessment of the outcomes of coral
reef restoration projects has also been widely criticized (Clark
& Edwards 1995; Chapman & Underwood 2000; Hawkins et al.
2002; Rinkevich 2005; Abelson 2006; Bruckner 2006; Wap-
nick & McCarthy 2006; Guest et al. 2011). Effectiveness or
“success” in coral restoration has traditionally been linked to
only two indicators: transplant growth and transplant survival
(Okubo et al. 2005; Yap 2009; Guest et al. 2011; Bayraktarov
et al. 2015) and currently, no suite of standardized measurable
attributes is available for evaluating the effectiveness of ecolog-
ical restoration of coral communities. This lack of specic crite-
ria impedes evaluation and comparison of coral transplantation
effectiveness, and ultimately hinders the development of clear
guidelines outlining what does and does not work in restora-
tion programs (Edwards 2010). Adequate characterization of the
effectiveness of restoration programs requires a set of clearly
dened indicators linked to specic objectives and the underly-
ing reef-wide properties they are measuring, as well as appro-
priate monitoring timeframes (Chapman & Underwood 2000;
Hobbs & Harris 2001; Wapnick & McCarthy 2006; Breed et al.
2016). The aims of this paper are to review the current state
of coral restoration science, with a particular focus on evalu-
ating indicators currently used to characterize the effectiveness
of restoration programs, and develop a broader set of holistic
indicators that reect restoration effectiveness across ecological
and socioeconomic dimensions. While the review has a strong
focus on experimental coral transplantation studies due to the
limited number of reports on broader-scale restoration initia-
tives in the peer-reviewed literature, the indicators proposed are
applicable to assessments of both restoration experiments and
broader-scale restoration efforts.
Current Status of Coral Restoration Science
A standardized search of the peer-reviewed literature was per-
formed to compile published studies on coral restoration and
transplantation. Transplantation is the most widely used coral
restoration technique (Epstein et al. 2003; Rinkevich 2005) and
use of this term ensured that the papers reviewed focused on
applied studies of both restoration ecology (i.e. the science of
restoration that underpins ecological restoration) and ecolog-
ical restoration, rather than on passing references to restora-
tion concepts. The search was standardized using the query
“Coral* AND Restoration AND Transplantation” in the online
tool within the “Web of Science” database. The query returned
102 results but was narrowed down to 83 applied studies that
used transplantation for coral restoration (Table S1). For each
paper, we recorded the objective of the experiment, the indica-
tor(s) of success used, and the length of time of the monitoring
program. Of the 83 studies reviewed, the majority (50 studies)
are experimental with a narrow research focus, highlighting the
more limited representation of broader-scale coral restoration
efforts in the peer-reviewed literature.
Objectives of Coral Restoration
Six primary objectives for coral restoration were deduced
from the 83 studies reviewed (Table 1). Interestingly, while
climate change–associated disturbances may not have been an
initial focus of early coral restoration efforts, we found that
objectives were generally aligned with underlying management
principles designed to promote reef resilience in a changing
climate. Resilience refers to the capacity of an ecosystem to
sustain repeated disturbances while securing key functional
and structural attributes (Holling 1973; Hughes et al. 2010;
McClanahan et al. 2012). Actions that maximize the two key
resilience components, recovery and resistance, are the focus
of resilience-based management, an approach that seeks to use
resilience indicators as foresight to guide management deci-
sions (West & Salm 2003; Nyström et al. 2008; McClanahan
et al. 2012; Anthony et al. 2015).
Recovery was an important focus of the studies reviewed, as
reected in Objectives 1 and 2 listed in Table 1: “Accelerate reef
recovery post-disturbance” and “Re-establish a self-sustaining,
functioning reef ecosystem.” The importance of resistance (i.e.
the capacity of the ecosystem to cope with a disturbance like
coral bleaching or storms) was also recognized, as reected
2Restoration Ecology
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
Tabl e 1 . Review of six primary objectives deduced from 83 studies using coral transplantation for reef restoration (see Table S1 for further details of each of
the 83 studies reviewed).
# Objective Rationale Studies
1 Accelerate reef recovery
post-disturbance
Natural reef recovery is a lengthy process
ranging from 5 years to decades (e.g.
Pearson 1981; Connell et al. 1997), and
transplanting coral colonies on reefs
affected by recruitment limitation may
kick-start the recovery process
Maragos (1974), Clark and Edwards (1995),
Jaap (2000), Raymundo (2001), Epstein
et al. (2003), Rinkevich (2005), Garrison
and Ward (2008), Ferse (2010), Van Oppen
et al. (2015)
2 Reestablish a
self-sustaining,
functioning reef
ecosystem
Objective here is not to restore a known coral
community but rather rehabilitate coral reef
ecosystem processes to secure critical
ecosystem services
Alcala et al. (1982), Auberson (1982),
Thornton et al. (2000), Miller and Barimo
(2001), Epstein et al. (2003), Abelson
(2006), Edwards and Gomez (2007),
Edwards (2010), Omori (2011), Rinkevich
(2014), Hunt and Sharp (2014)
3 Mitigate anticipated coral
loss prior to a known
disturbance
Mitigation strategy, whereby coral colonies
are relocated from a soon-to-be impacted
site to a safer site
Harriott and Fisk (1988), Thornton et al.
(2000), Salvat et al. (2002), Edwards and
Gomez (2007), Kilbane et al. (2008),
Seguin et al. (2008)
4 Reduce population
declines and ecosystem
degradation
Conserve endangered coral species, and
safeguard critical ecosystem services on
threatened coral reefs by increasing coral
cover, diversity, and overall structural
complexity. This objective also includes
creating articial “sacricial sites to move
tourism pressures away from pristine,
natural reef areas”
Edwards and Clark (1998), Thornton et al.
(2000), Forrester et al. (2012),
Kirkbride-Smith et al. (2013), Van Oppen
et al. (2015)
5 Provide alternative,
sustainable livelihood
opportunities
Coral transplantation efforts may provide
alternative livelihood opportunities, such as
enhancing sheries habitat, tourism, and
coral farming
Heeger and Sotto (2000), Spurgeon (2001),
Edwards (2010), Young et al. (2012)
6 Promote coral reef
conservation
stewardship
Involvement in coral transplantation will foster
conservation stewardship through increased
education and research opportunities
Fisk and Job (2008), Edwards (2010)
in Objectives 3 and 4: “Mitigate anticipated coral loss prior
to a known disturbance” and “Reduce population declines and
ecosystem degradation” (Table 1). Mitigation actions referred
to in both these objectives aim to maintain or even enhance bio-
diversity, thereby providing communities with added resistance
to disturbances. Objectives 5 and 6, “Provide alternative, sus-
tainable livelihood opportunities” and “Promote coral reef con-
servation stewardship,” respectively (Table 1), address broader,
sociocultural and economic aspects of reef resilience, consistent
with mounting recognition that educating and empowering local
communities is crucial to address the “governance crisis” asso-
ciated with global coral reef declines (Hughes et al. 2010). The
inclusion of social considerations in coral restoration objectives
is critical. Social factors are inherent to the concept of resilience
from a socioecological perspective, with anthropogenic forces
recognized as essential drivers of ecological system identity
(Cumming et al. 2005; Folke 2006).
Closer inspection of results presented in the 83 studies
revealed that the majority (60%) did not directly address the
stated objectives, but instead their objectives would more accu-
rately be represented as testing the biological responses of coral
fragments to transplantation (Fig. 1A). Such studies represent
experimental approaches to coral restoration ecology, but lack
a broader coral restoration goal per se. Where broader objec-
tives were given (33 studies), only the rst four objectives
were represented (i.e. accelerate reef recovery post-disturbance;
reestablish a self-sustaining, functioning reef ecosystem; mit-
igate anticipated coral loss prior to a known disturbance;
and reduce population declines and ecosystem degradation)
(Fig. 1A). Reestablishment of a self-sustaining, functioning
ecosystem was the primary objective for 48% of these stud-
ies (Fig. 1B). Socioeconomic outcomes were never listed as a
primary objective of these studies, and socially driven objec-
tives were included as a secondary objective in only three cases
(Heeger & Sotto 2000; Job et al. 2006; De La Cruz et al. 2014).
The nearly 2-fold greater number of studies focusing on the
biological response of fragments post-transplantation than on
any of the other objectives identied suggests that, to date, a
Restoration Ecology 3
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
n=83
Biological response to transplantation
Specific objectives
Mitigate coral loss prior
to a known disturbance (Obj 3)
Reduce populaton declines and
ecosystem degradation (Obj 4)
n=33
Re-establishment of a
self-sustaining, functioning
reef ecosystem (Obj 2)
60%
48%
18%
18%
15%
(A)
40%
(B)
Accelerate reef recovery
post-disturbance (obj 1)
Figure 1. Comparison of objectives for peer-reviewed restoration studies (n=83): (A) proportions of studies listing specic biological versus broad
resilience-related objectives for coral transplantation studies; and (B) proportions of studies listing one of four resilience-related objectives. Search based on
Web of Science, using the keywords “Coral* AND Restoration AND Transplantation” (Table S1).
major goal of coral restoration studies has been to work through
the technicalities of transplantation during the “initial establish-
ment phase” (Le et al. 2012). While a thorough understanding
of technicalities associated with coral transplantation is critical
to the success of such projects (Boch & Morse 2012), the ubiq-
uity of this focus conrms a mismatch between the scales at
which studies have evaluated the success of restoration ecology
experiments and the scales needed to evaluate the effectiveness
of ecological restoration from a resilience and sustainability per-
spective (Edwards & Gomez 2007).
Indicators of Coral Restoration Effectiveness
Transplant growth and transplant survival were the two most
widely used indicators of the effectiveness of restoration pro-
grams, with 88% of studies (n=83) using either one or both
indicators, sometimes in combination with other indicators
(Fig. 2). The majority of studies (55%) focused solely on these
indicators, and among these studies, using both growth and sur-
vival as indicators of success was the most common strategy.
One-third of studies (33%) used a greater range of indicators,
combining transplant survival and/or growth with other indi-
cators of success (Fig. 2). Only 12% of studies looked at indi-
cators of success other than transplant growth and/or survival,
for example: sh and invertebrate communities associated with
transplants, enhanced local recruitment, fusion of transplants to
the substrate, reproduction of transplants, fragment health, or
changes in local coral cover (Fig. 2).
The dominance of transplant growth and survival, both mea-
sures of the biological response of coral fragments to trans-
plantation, as criteria for coral restoration success reects the
technical focus of most studies reviewed. While these two
Growth Survival Survival and Growth
0
10
20
30
40
50
OtherSurvival and/or
Growth
Survival and/or
Growth and Other
Indicators of success
n=83
55%
33%
12%
Total number of studies
Figure 2. Indicators of coral restoration success used in peer-reviewed
studies of coral transplantation and restoration (n=83). Percentages above
each histogram relate to the total number of studies. Search based on Web
of Science, using the keywords “Coral* AND Restoration AND
Transplantation” (Table S1).
criteria are inherent to the notion of transplantation success,
they are focused on success at the scale of the fragment. Many
other factors, like coral and macro-algae cover, or structural
complexity, are equally important for the establishment of a
functional coral reef community (Graham et al. 2015; Maynard
et al. 2015), and thus for characterizing success at a broader reef
scale. Also noteworthy is that criteria for measuring growth are
typically not standardized across studies. Accordingly, trans-
plant growth has been quantied as the number of new branches
4Restoration Ecology
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
(Bowden-Kerby 1997; Chilcoat 2004), rate of linear extension
(Custodio & Yap 1997; Romatski 2014) or as changes in the
buoyant weight of fragments (Yap & Molina 2003). Lack of
a standardized approach and differences in growth strategies
among species limit the capacity to compare outcomes of trans-
plantation programs among studies.
Broader indicators of success that have implications for
ecosystem restoration and relate more directly to resilience
considerations are parameters like herbivore biomass and
diversity, and rates of natural recruitment. Unfortunately, use
of such measures was limited to a small number of studies
(n=8 studies for sh and invertebrates, and n=6 studies for
rates of natural coral recruitment) (Table S1). Only three stud-
ies (Job et al. 2006; Miller et al. 2016; Montoya-Maya et al.
2016) measured coral cover as an indicator of coral restoration
success. The criterion “coral health” was sometimes listed
(n=11 studies), but the coral health indicators recorded (e.g.
condition of the coral fragment, signs of bleaching, competition
with algae, injury, signs of disease, invertebrate colonization
of fragments) tended to be qualitative rather than quantitative.
Overall, measures of coral health were typically absent from
the coral transplantation studies reviewed.
Many studies advocated the need to consider social, eco-
nomic, and cultural factors in the evaluation of restoration
initiatives (Yap 2000; Van Diggelen et al. 2001; Epstein et al.
2003; Bruckner 2006; Hernández-Delgado et al. 2014). Yet,
criteria that assess the sociocultural and economic dimensions
of coral transplantation projects were virtually absent from
the studies reviewed. Such considerations are central to the
continuous and sustainable delivery of ecosystem services
and thus are inherently linked to the long-term success of a
restoration project (Schrack et al. 2012). For example, cul-
tural ecosystem services, such as aesthetic, recreational, and
educational opportunities, can be direct outcomes of coral
transplantation programs, and are readily linked to a variety of
measures associated with wellbeing, from security and basic
materials for life, to health and enhanced social relationships
and social cohesion (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Coral transplantation activities may thus increase the value of
reef ecosystem services, not only through nature conservation
and social outcomes, but also directly through a range of
economic enterprises, such as increased alternative livelihood
opportunities and resource security for industries dependent on
reefs (Lirman & Schopmeyer 2016).
Another gap in the current characterization of coral restora-
tion effectiveness is the lack of economic considerations. Coral
reefs are among the most expensive ecosystems to restore, with
costs ranging from 11,717 to 2,879,773 USD/ha (Bayraktarov
et al. 2015). Costing coral restoration efforts is difcult as the
different phases of restoration need to be accounted for, from
the collection of coral fragments, to the transplantation, mainte-
nance, and monitoring of transplants (Spurgeon 2001; Edwards
2010). Costs also vary tremendously depending on the source
of coral transplants (e.g. fragments of opportunity vs. sexually
reared larvae) (Garrison & Ward 2008; Guest et al. 2014; Okubo
& Onuma 2015). Moreover, while coral reef ecosystems are
widely recognized as one of the highest valued ecosystems on
n/a
> 5 years
2 to 5 years
1 to 2 years
53%
27% 1 year or less
13%
5% 2%
n=83
Figure 3. Duration of monitoring programs described in peer-reviewed
restoration studies (n=83). Search based on Web of Science, using the
keywords “Coral* AND Restoration AND Transplantation” (Table S1).
n/a refers to “not available.”
the planet (>350,000 USD ha−1yr−1) (De Groot et al. 2013;
Costanza et al. 2014; Deloitte Access Economics 2017), the few
studies that have attempted to value the benets of coral restora-
tion (Spurgeon 2001; De Groot et al. 2013) have found that costs
still outweigh the benets. Better understanding of the economic
value of the benets of restoration efforts is critical to develop
more cost-effective solutions (Okubo & Onuma 2015).
In summary, indicators of success currently being used in
coral restoration science focus on a comprehensive understand-
ing of the biological responses of corals to transplantation.
These considerations are critical to maximize initial transplan-
tation success, but insufcient to characterize the effectiveness
of coral restoration in terms of reef resilience and provision
of ecosystem services in socioecological dimensions. More
indicators related to long-term success at a broader ecological
scale, like reproductive output of transplanted fragments or
structural complexity of ensuing coral assemblages, as well
as indicators related to socioeconomic success, like increased
stewardship or reef user satisfaction (Okubo & Onuma 2015),
should be included in the characterization of coral restoration
effectiveness.
Monitoring for Coral Restoration Effectiveness
The mean duration of monitoring for all coral transplantation
studies was less than 2 years (22.5 ±2.4 months); however,
the majority (53%) of studies were monitored for 1 year or
less. Only 5% of studies were monitored for more than 5 years
(Fig. 3), and the duration of monitoring was not specied in 2%
of studies. Although such timeframes are reasonable for evalu-
ating the feasibility of transplantation techniques, they are not
appropriate for evaluating their usefulness for re-establishing
coral communities. In two of the long-term studies, coral growth
and survival were initially low but eventually mirrored trends
observed for in situ coral colonies (Garrison & Ward 2012; For-
rester et al. 2014). In another study, sh assemblages increased
over time as the restored areas became colonized by a range
Restoration Ecology 5
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
of other organisms and increased in complexity (Yeemin et al.
2006). All long-term studies also stressed important year to
year variations in the growth and survival of transplanted coral
fragments due to disturbances like storms or bleaching events.
Overall, the typically short-term nature of monitoring programs
limits our understanding of coral restoration effectiveness.
Monitoring ecological restoration success typically involves
a two-stage monitoring program corresponding to: (1) an
initial establishment phase following transplantation related
to the biological response of transplants (e.g. initial growth
post-transplantation, fusion of fragment to substrata) and (2) a
long-term building phase when transplants are growing in size
and have potentially broader environmental and socioeconomic
benets (Kanowski & Catterall 2007; Le et al. 2012). Attributes
monitored may change throughout the course of these phases,
with long-term ecological and socioeconomic benets becom-
ing more apparent in the second phase. The duration of each
phase is likely to vary among projects. For example, the length
of the initial establishment phase will depend on factors such as
initial reef state, transplantation method(s) used, morphology
of corals used, initial fragment size etc.; the length of the
long-term building phase will depend on the initial goals of the
study, the attributes monitored, as well as funding availability.
In general, survival and growth of transplants after 1 year
are ineffectual indicators of restoration effectiveness in either
experimental studies or restoration programs, given many of
the life-history characteristics of scleractinian corals (e.g. slow
growth, natural fragmentation, reproductive output related to
colony size) and the stochastic nature of environmental distur-
bances, like storm events and warm thermal anomalies caus-
ing bleaching (Yap 2003). Also, some studies have suggested
that coral fragments undergo a “transplant stress” period, dur-
ing which growth may be reduced (Lirman et al. 2010; Forrester
et al. 2012, 2014), and therefore surveying biological responses
over insufcient timeframes may provide misleading results
(Yap 2003). The complexity of coral reef ecosystems means that
natural reef recovery can be a lengthy process ranging from 5
years to decades (Pearson 1981; Connell et al. 1997; Gilmour
et al. 2013; Graham et al. 2015). Correspondingly, evaluations
of the effectiveness of coral restoration programs may not pro-
vide meaningful data relating to sustainability and resilience
objectives unless monitoring is continued for 5 or more years.
The nature and focus of such evaluations will thus vary accord-
ing to funding cycles and whether the goal of the study is to
explore ecological aspects of coral restoration or to initiate a
broader-scale restoration program.
Proposed Socioecological Indicators of Coral
Restoration Effectiveness
Our analyses revealed a mismatch between commonly stated
objectives for coral restoration programs and attributes cur-
rently used to assess coral restoration effectiveness because
of an understandably strong focus on short-term biologi-
cal responses of coral fragments to transplantation. While
many advocate the need for systematic long-term monitor-
ing programs (Chapman & Underwood 2000; Yap 2003;
Wapnick & McCarthy 2006; Edwards 2010; Breed et al. 2016),
standardized protocols with a set of measurable, timely indi-
cators relating to specic objectives are currently lacking. In
order to incorporate reef resilience and the sustained provi-
sion of ecosystem services into the scope of measures of reef
restoration effectiveness, we propose a suite of 10 ecological,
sociocultural, and economic indicators for inclusion in effective
monitoring programs. These indicators t within a framework
of positive interactions that link people and communities with
coral restoration and reef resilience, as outlined below (see also
Fig. 4). It is important to note that not all of the 10 indicators
proposed may be relevant for all attempts to characterize coral
restoration effectiveness. For example, while some of the
sociocultural and economic indicators are critical to assess the
sustainability and adaptive capacity of applied coral restoration
efforts, they may be beyond the scope of coral restoration
ecology studies that have a narrower research focus. Choice
of indicators will thus vary between experimental studies and
broader coral restoration efforts. We also recommend selecting
indicators of success with careful consideration of reference
sites, which largely determine the relevance of effectiveness
assessments, as discussed further below. Finally, the temporal
and spatial scope of each of the 10 indicators require particular
attention, as their relevance and suitability will vary with the
context and goals of the study.
Ecological Indicators of Coral Restoration Effectiveness
Terrestrial restoration programs have a long history of evaluat-
ing their effectiveness, and provide important insights into the
types of ecological indicators that best measure the resilience of
an ecosystem (Society for Ecological Restoration International
Science & Policy Working Group 2004; Ruiz-Jaen & Aide
2005). Following a review of ecological indicators of terrestrial
restoration success, Ruiz-Jaen and Aide (2005) suggested that
comprehensive evaluations require a minimum of two indicators
in each of the following three categories: diversity, vegetation
structure, and ecological processes. More recently, 11 indica-
tors of coral reef resilience have been developed to identify
resilient reefs for targeted management actions, based on empir-
ical scientic evidence, feasibility of monitoring, and their per-
ceived importance, as identied by expert reviewers (McClana-
han et al. 2012). We combined these two concepts to iden-
tify indicators that reect both restoration success and reef
resilience, and propose that the following six ecological indi-
cators capture the effectiveness of coral restoration: (1) coral
diversity; (2) herbivore biomass and diversity; (3) benthic cover;
(4) recruitment; (5) coral health; and (6) structural complexity
(Table 2; see Appendix S1 for further descriptions of these indi-
cators). While other indicators can be used to measure the eco-
logical success of coral restoration projects, we argue that these
six indicators are comprehensive and accord with both ecologi-
cal restoration and reef resilience guidelines (Ruiz-Jaen & Aide
2005; McClanahan et al. 2012).
A paramount consideration for evaluating the ecological suc-
cess of coral restoration is that variables measured at restored
sites should be compared with those at control and reference
6Restoration Ecology
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
Figure 4. Illustration of the framework of positive interactions that link people and communities, coral restoration, and reef resilience. The six proposed
ecological indicators are highlighted by green ovals; the four proposed sociocultural and economic indicators are highlighted by brown ovals.
sites (Wortley et al. 2013). Control sites should be nearby
degraded but unrestored reefs to distinguish between the effects
of intervention versus natural recovery (i.e. no treatment effect).
Reference sites should be nearby nondegraded reefs that provide
a baseline reference for restoration goals (i.e. the desired end
community) (Society for Ecological Restoration International
Science & Policy Working Group 2004) and for the selection
of appropriate indicators. Use of both control and reference
sites will provide insights that deepen understanding of ecologi-
cal succession processes in coral restoration. Survey techniques
used may vary depending on the time, material, and human
resources available, as well as on the accuracy and precision
targeted by the program (Leujak & Ormond 2007).
Sociocultural and Economic Indicators of Coral Restoration
Effectiveness
Sociocultural and economic considerations are essential compo-
nents of coral restoration effectiveness because of their potential
to increase sustainable livelihood opportunities (Objective 5;
Table 1) and build capacity in local communities (Objective
6; Table 1). Successful outcomes associated with both of these
components are important for enhancing the long-term sustain-
ability of restoration efforts. Sustainability is typically orga-
nized around four key elements that are interconnected to form
a theoretical “prism of sustainability” (a.k.a pillars of sustain-
ability): Sociocultural (ethical), Environmental (nature conser-
vation), Governance (political), and Economic (prosperity and
health) (Valentin & Spangenberg 2000; Spangenberg 2004). In
such a framework, restoration initiatives will only be successful
if the costs, both monetary and to society, are outweighed by
the benets (again both monetary and to society) (Bayraktarov
et al. 2015). Recognizing the socioeconomic and governance
dynamics of the region and stakeholders involved in the coral
restoration program is thus crucial (Ammar 2009). Not only is
coral restoration effectiveness ultimately linked to community
support and involvement (Ammar 2009; Schrack et al. 2012;
Hernández-Delgado et al. 2014), but also positive feedback to
Restoration Ecology 7
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
Tabl e 2 . Six ecological indicators of restoration effectiveness. The column “Category” lists corresponding indicators advocated by Ruiz-Jaen and Aide (2005).
Restoration objectives are as described in Table 1. Monitoring phase refers to restoration stages described in Le et al. (2012).
Indicator Category Link to Coral Restoration Objective Monitoring Phase
1. Coral diversity Diversity Objectives 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 1. Initial establishment phase
2. Long-term building phase
2. Herbivore biomass and
diversity
Diversity Objectives 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 1. Initial establishment phase
2. Long-term building phase
3. Benthic cover Substrate structure Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 1. Initial establishment phase
2. Long-term building phase
4. Recruitment Substrate structure Objectives 1, 2, 4 2. Long-term building phase
5. Coral health Ecological processes Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4 1. Initial establishment phase
2. Long-term building phase
6. Structural complexity Ecological processes Objectives 1, 2, 4 1. Initial establishment phase
2. Long-term building phase
Tabl e 3 . List of four sociocultural and economic indicators of restoration effectiveness. The column “Category” refers to the four pillars of sustainability
(Valentin & Spangenberg 2000). Restoration objectives are as described in Table 1. Monitoring phase refers stages described in Le et al. (2012).
Indicator Category Link to Coral Restoration Objective Monitoring Phase
1. Reef user satisfaction Sociocultural
Economic
Objectives 2, 5, 6 1. Initial establishment phase
2. Long-term building phase
2. Stewardship Sociocultural Objective 2, 6 1. Initial establishment phase
2. Long-term building phase
3. Capacity-building Sociocultural
Governance
Objectives 2, 5, 6 2. Long-term building phase
4. Economic value Economic
Governance
Sociocultural
Objectives 2, 5, 6 1. Initial establishment phase
2. Long-term building phase
the community from restoration efforts might also be additional
indicators of success (De La Cruz et al. 2014).
We took into account considerations of both sustainability
and social resilience to propose a list of four sociocultural and
economic indicators of coral restoration effectiveness (Table 3):
(1) reef user satisfaction; (2) stewardship; (3) capacity building;
and (4) economic value, and outline rationales for their use
in Appendix S1. While other criteria may be used, we argue
that these four indicators encompass three of the four pillars of
sustainability (sociocultural, economics, and governance), and
the fourth pillar (environmental) is adequately covered by the
ecological indicators described above.
Measuring sociocultural and economic indicators is unex-
plored territory in coral restoration ecology but methods such as
semi-structured interviews have been used effectively to assess
terrestrial restoration programs (Nielsen-Pincus & Moseley
2013, Brancalion et al. 2014). Interviews may target local stake-
holders (Key Informant Surveys) (Samonte-Tan et al. 2007)
and/or members of local communities (Nielsen-Pincus & Mose-
ley 2013; Brancalion et al. 2014). An important consideration
is that the questions asked should focus on both potential ben-
ets and failures so that answers can be used for adaptive man-
agement purposes. Ideally, control surveys should also be con-
ducted among neighboring communities that are not involved
in a coral restoration program. Repeated interviews over time
would also help to identify developing issues among stakehold-
ers and allow adaptive management to address such issues.
Building Reef Resilience Through Coral Restoration
In general, objectives for coral restoration align with all key
principles of reef resilience, and there is scope to believe that
coral restoration efforts could play an important role in prevent-
ing and reversing phase-shifts to undesirable ecosystems, e.g. by
enhancing rates of recovery as disturbances become more fre-
quent, enhancing adaptation (e.g. selective breeding; Van Oppen
et al. 2015), and by maintaining structural complexity following
disturbance events to support communities of coral-associated
species. While this review focused on coral transplantation as
a restoration strategy, it is important to acknowledge that other
coral restoration methods, such as building articial reefs to cre-
ate alternative dive sites (Shani et al. 2012) or to reconstruct the
physical integrity of a reef area (Jaap 2000), also aim to rebuild
or enhance reef resilience. Restoration actions that are focused
on reducing damage to reef ecosystems are likely to have similar
ecological, sociocultural, and economic benets as those dis-
cussed for coral transplantation in this review.
8Restoration Ecology
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
Conclusions
Our review reveals that, to date, the science of coral restora-
tion has focused primarily on evaluating short-term biological
responses of coral fragments to transplantation, wherein coral
transplant growth and survival are the most commonly assessed
variables, and the mean duration of monitoring is just under
2 years. While deepening our understanding of coral trans-
plantation techniques and feasibility is a crucial rst step, it is
insufcient to completely evaluate coral restoration effective-
ness in a socioecological context. We propose a suite of 10
ecological, sociocultural, and economic criteria to comprehen-
sively assess the effectiveness of coral restoration projects in
social-ecological dimensions. Indicators were selected follow-
ing assessment of best-available knowledge of factors character-
izing coral reef resilience, but further studies are needed to better
evaluate the scope of each indicator to represent coral restora-
tion effectiveness on both spatial and temporal scales. Given
the accelerating rate at which coral restoration is being applied
to reefs worldwide, understanding the successes and failures
of such enterprises in all 10 dimensions is critical. Accounting
for a variety of temporal and spatial scales and socioecologi-
cal contexts will optimize coral transplantation efforts so they
best contribute to human well-being and complement broader
adaptive management strategies. Studies using the 10 criteria
are encouraged to establish a strong foundation from which to
investigate the efcacy of coral restoration and elucidate how
coral restoration can be used as a proactive management tool to
sustain the socioeconomic and ecological values of coral reefs
and promote reef resilience in the face of a changing climate.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the College of Science and Engi-
neering at James Cook University and the Australian Research
Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. We also
thank T.J. Chase, A. Edwards, and two anonymous reviewers
for useful comments and improvements to the manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
Abelson A (2006) Articial reefs vs. coral transplantation as restoration tools
for mitigating coral reef deterioration: benets, concerns, and proposed
guidelines. Bulletin of Marine Science 78:151– 159
Alcala AC, Gomez ED, Alcala LC (1982) Survival and growth of coral trans-
plants in central Philippines. Philippine Journal of Biology 11:136–147
Ammar M (2009) Coral reef restoration and articial reef management, future
and economic. The Open Environmental Engineering Journal 2:37–49
Ammar M, El-Gammal F, Nassar M, Belal H, El-Mesiry G, El-Haddad K,
Orabi A, Abdelreheem A, Shaaban A (2013) Current trends in coral
transplantation— an approach to preserve biodiversity. Biodiversitas, Jour-
nal of Biological Diversity 14:43– 53
Anthony KRN, Marshall PA, Abdulla A, Beeden R, Bergh C, Black R, et al.
(2015) Operationalizing resilience for adaptive coral reef management
under global environmental change. Global Change Biology 21:48– 61
Auberson B (1982) Coral transplantation: an approach to the reestablishment of
damaged reefs. Philippine Journal of Biology 11:158– 172
Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP,
Mumby PJ, Lovelock CE (2015) The cost and feasibility of marine coastal
restoration. Ecological Applications 26:1055– 1074
Bellwood DR, Hughes TP, Folke C, Nyström M (2004) Confronting the coral
reef crisis. Nature 429:827– 833
Boch CA, Morse ANC (2012) Testing the effectiveness of direct propagation
techniques for coral restoration of Acropora spp. Ecological Engineering
40:11– 17
Bowden-Kerby A (1997) Coral transplantation in sheltered habitats using
unattached fragments and cultured colonies. Pages 2063– 2068. Vol. 2. Pro-
ceedings of the 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama
Brancalion PHS, Villarroel Cardozo I, Camatta A, Aronson J, Rodrigues R
(2014) Cultural ecosystem services and popular perceptions of the ben-
ets of an ecological restoration project in the Brazilian Atlantic forest:
cultural ecosystem services in ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology
22:65– 71
Breed MF, Lowe AJ, Mortimer PE (2016) Restoration: ‘Garden of Eden’
unrealistic. Nature 533:469
Bruckner RJ (2006) The volunteer movement in coral reef restoration. In: Coral
reef restoration handbook. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida
Chapman MG, Underwood AJ (2000) The need for a practical scientic protocol
to measure successful restoration. Wetlands (Australia) 19:28–49
Chilcoat GC (2004) Growth and survival of transplanted Acropora cervicornis
in relation to coral reef restoration. Doctoral Dissertation. University of
Georgia
Clark S, Edwards AJ (1995) Coral transplantation as an aid to reef rehabilitation:
evaluation of a case study in the Maldive Islands. Coral Reefs 14:201–213
Connell JH, Hughes TP, WallaceCC (1997) A 30-years study of coral abundance,
recruitment, and disturbance at several scales in space and time. Ecological
Monographs 67:461– 488
Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, van der Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski
I, et al. (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global
Environmental Change 26:152– 158
Cumming GS, Barnes G, Perz S, Schmink M, Sieving KE, Southworth J,
et al. (2005) An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of
resilience. Ecosystems 8:975– 987
Custodio HM, Yap HT (1997) Skeletal extension rates of Porites cylindrica and
Porites (Synaraea) rus after transplantation to two depths. Coral Reefs
16:267– 268
De Groot RS, Blignaut J, Van der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Elmqvist T, Farley
J (2013) Benets of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation
Biology 27:1286– 1293
De La Cruz DW, Villanueva RD, Baria MVB (2014) Community-based, low-tech
method of restoring a lost thicket of Acropora corals. ICES Journal of
Marine Science 71:1866– 1875
De’ath G, Fabricius KE, Sweatman H, Puotinen M (2012) The 27-year decline
of coral cover on the great barrier reef and its causes. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
109:17995– 17999
Deloitte Access Economics (2017) At what price? The economic, social and icon
value of the Great Barrier Reef. Deloitte Access Economics Pty Limited,
Canberra, ACT, Australia
Edwards AJ (ed) (2010) Reef rehabilitation manual. Coral Reef Targeted
Research & Capacity Building for Management Program, St. Lucia,
Queensland, Australia
Edwards AJ, Clark S (1998) Coral transplantation: a useful management tool or
misguided meddling? Marine Pollution Bulletin 37:474– 487
Edwards AJ, Gomez ED (2007) Reef restoration concepts & guidelines: making
sensible management choices in the face of uncertainty. Coral Reef Tar-
geted Research & Capacity Building for Management Program, St. Lucia,
Queensland, Australia
Epstein N, Bak RPM, Rinkevich B (2003) Applying forest restoration principles
to coral reef rehabilitation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 13:387– 395
Ferse S (2010) Poor performance of corals transplanted onto substrates of short
durability. Restoration Ecology 18:399– 407
Fisk DA, Job S (2008) Funafuti atoll (Republic of Tuvalu) —coral reef restoration
project, 1-3-6-9 and 15 months post-trial— monitoring report. CRISP,
34 pp.
Restoration Ecology 9
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
Foley M, Halpern BS, Micheli F, Armsby MH, Caldwell MR, Crain CM, et al.
(2010) Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine
Policy 34:955– 966
Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspectivefor social —ecological
systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16:253– 267
Forrester GE, Maynard A, Schoeld S, Taylor K (2012) Evaluating causes of
transplant stress in fragments of Acropora palmata or coral reef restoration.
Bulletin of Marine Science 88:1099– 1113
Forrester GE, Ferguson MA, O’Connell-Rodwell CE, Jarecki LL (2014)
Long-term survival and colony growth of Acropora palmata fragments
transplanted by volunteers for restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine
and Freshwater Ecosystems 24:81– 91
Gardner TA, Côté IM, Gill JA, Grant A, Watkinson AR (2003) Long-term
region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science 301:958– 960
Garrison V, Ward G (2008) Storm-generated coral fragments—a viable
source of transplants for reef rehabilitation. Biological Conservation
141:3089– 3100
Garrison V, Ward G (2012) Transplantation of storm-generated coral fragments
to enhance Caribbean coral reefs: a successful method but not a solution.
Review of Tropical Biology 60:59–70
Gilmour JP, Smith LD, Heyward AJ, Baird AH, Pratchett MS (2013) Recovery
of an isolated coral reef system following severe disturbance. Science
340:69– 72
Graham NAJ, Jennings S, MacNeil AM, Mouillot D, Wilson SK (2015) Predict-
ing climate-driven regime shifts versus rebound potential in coral reefs.
Nature 518:94– 97
Guest JR, Dizon RM, Edwards AJ, Franco C, Gomez ED (2011) How quickly do
fragments of coral ‘self-attach’ after transplantation? Restoration Ecology
19:234– 242
Guest JR, Baria MV, Gomez ED, Heyward AJ, Edwards AJ (2014) Closing the
circle: is it possible to rehabilitate reefs with sexually propagated corals?
Coral Reefs 33:45– 55
Harriott VJ, Fisk DA (1988) Coral transplantation as a reef management option.
Pages 375– 379. Vol. 2. Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef
Symposium, Australia.
Hawkins JP, Allen JR, Ross PM, Genner MJ (2002) Marine and coastal ecosys-
tems. In: Handbook of ecological restoration. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK
Heeger T, Sotto F (2000) Pages 94. Coral farming: a tool for reef rehabil-
itation and community ecotourism. German Ministry of Environment
(BMU), German Technical Cooperation and Tropical Ecology program
(GTZ-TÖB), Philippines
Hernández-Delgado EA, Mercado-Molina AE, Alejandro-Camis PJ,
Candelas-Sánchez F, Fonseca-Miranda JS, González-Ramos CM,
et al. (2014) Community-based coral reef rehabilitation in a changing
climate: lessons learned from hurricanes, extreme rainfall, and changing
land use impacts. Open Journal of Ecology 4:918– 944
Hobbs RJ, Harris JA (2001) Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth’s ecosys-
tems in the new millennium. Restoration Ecology 9:239– 246
Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greeneld P, Gomez E,
et al. (2007) Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidication.
Science 318:1737– 1742
Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability in ecological systems. Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics 4:1– 23
Hughes TP, Graham NAJ, Jackson JBC, Mumby PJ, Steneck RS (2010) Rising
to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 25:633– 642
Hunt J, Sharp W (2014) Developing a comprehensive strategy for coral restora-
tion for Florida. State Wildlife Grant Award T-32-R 1169 Final Report.
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov
Jaap WC (2000) Coral reef restoration. Ecological Engineering 15:345– 364
Job S, Fisk D, Bowden-Kerby A, Kan Z, Nainoca F (2006) Progress report on
restoration work and monitoring. Moturiki Island, Fiji. Technical Report,
Coral Reef Initiative for the South Pacic
Kanowski J, Catterall CP (2007) Monitoring revegetation projects for biodiver-
sity in rainforest landscapes. Toolkit Version 1, Revision 1. Marine and
Tropical Sciences Research Facility, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Kilbane D, Graham B, Mulcahy R, Onder A, Pratt M (2008) Coral relocation for
impact mitigation in northern Qatar. Proceedings of the 11th International
Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Kirkbride-Smith AE, Wheeler PM, Johnson ML (2013) The relationship between
diver experience levels and perceptions of attractiveness of articial
reefs— examination of a potential management tool. PLoS One 8:e6899
Le HD, Smith C, Herbohn J, Harrison S (2012) More than just trees: assessing
reforestation success in tropical developing countries. Journal of Rural
Studies 28:5– 19
Leujak W, Ormond RFG (2007) Comparative accuracy and efciencyof six coral
community survey methods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 351:168– 187
Lirman D, Schopmeyer S (2016) Ecological solutions to reef degradation:
optimizing coral reef restoration in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic.
PeerJ, https://peerj.com/articles/2597/
Lirman D, Thyberg T, Herlan J, Hill C, Young-Lahiff C, Schopmeyer S, Hunt-
ington B, Santos R, Drury C (2010) Propagation of the threatened staghorn
coral Acropora cervicornis: methods to minimize the impacts of fragment
collection and maximize production. Coral Reefs 29:729– 735
Maragos JE (1974) Coral transplantation: a method to create, preserve, and
manage coral reefs. Hawaii University Sea Grant Advisory Report 35
In: Thayer GW (ed) restoring the nation’s marine environment. Maryland
Seagrant, College Park, Maryland
Maynard JA, McKagan S, Raymundo L, Johnson S, Ahmadia GN, Johnston L,
et al. (2015) Assessing relative resilience potential of coral reefs to inform
management. Biological Conservation 192:109– 119
McClanahan TR, Donner SD, Maynard JA, MacNeil MA, Graham NAJ, Maina
J, et al. (2012) Prioritizing key resilience indicators to support coral reef
management in a changing climate. PLoS One 7:e42884
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) (2005) Ecosystems and human
well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Miller MW, Barimo J (2001) Assessment of juvenile coral populations at two reef
restoration sites in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: indicators
of success? Bulletin of Marine Science 69:395– 405
Miller MW, Kerr K, Williams DE (2016) Reef-scale trends in Florida Acro-
pora spp. abundance and the effects of population enhancement. PeerJ,
https://peerj.com/articles/2523/
Montoya-Maya P, Smit KP, Burt AJ, Frias-Torres S (2016) Large-scale coral
reef restoration could assist natural recovery in Seychelles, Indian Ocean.
Nature Conservation 17:1– 17
Mora C, Sale PF (2011) Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to
move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical
shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 434:251– 266
Nielsen-Pincus M, Moseley C (2013) The economic and employment impacts of
forest and watershed restoration. Restoration Ecology 21:207– 214
Nyström M, Graham NAJ, Lokrantz J, Norström AV (2008) Capturing the
cornerstones of coral reef resilience: linking theory to practice. Coral Reefs
27:795– 809
Okubo N, Onuma A (2015) An economic and ecological consideration of com-
mercial coral transplantation to restore the marine ecosystem in Okinawa,
Japan. Ecosystem Services 11:39– 44
Okubo N, TaniguchiH, Motokawa T (2005) Successful methods for transplanting
fragments of Acropora formosa and Acropora hyacinthus. Coral Reefs
24:333– 342
Omori M (2011) Degradation and restoration of coral reefs: experience in
Okinawa, Japan. Marine Biology Research 7:3– 12
Pandol JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjorndal KA, Cooke RG,
et al. (2003) Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef
ecosystems. Science 301:955– 958
Pearson RG (1981) Recovery and recolonization of coral reef. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 4:105– 122
10 Restoration Ecology
Socioecological effectiveness of coral restoration revisited
Precht WF, Aronson RB, Miller SL, Keller BD, Causey B (2005) The folly
of coral restoration programs following natural disturbances in the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ecological Restoration 23:
24– 28
Raymundo L (2001) Mediation of growth by conspecic neighbors and the effect
of site in transplanted fragments of the coral Porites attenuata Nemenzo in
the central Philippines. Coral Reefs 20:263– 272
Rinkevich B (1995) Restoration strategies for coral reefs damages by recreational
activities: the use of sexual and asexual recruits. Restoration Ecology
3:241– 251
Rinkevich B (2005) Conservation of coral reefs through active restoration mea-
sures: recent approaches and last decade progress. Environmental Science
& Technology 39:4333–4342
Rinkevich B (2008) Management of coral reefs: we have gone wrong
when neglecting active reef restoration. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56:
1821– 1824
Rinkevich B (2014) Rebuilding coral reefs: does active reef restoration lead
to sustainable reefs? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
7:28– 36
Romatski SBC (2014) Inuence of electrical elds on the performance of
Acropora coral transplants on two different designs of structures. Marine
Biology Research 10:449– 459
Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured?
Restoration Ecology 13:569– 577
Sale PF, Agardy T, Ainsworth CH, Feist BE, Bell JD, Christie P, et al. (2014)
Transforming management of tropical coastal seas to cope with challenges
of the 21st century. Marine Pollution Bulletin 85:8– 23
Salvat B, Chancerelle Y, Schrimm M, Morancy R, Porcher M, Aubanel A (2002)
Restauration d’une zone corallienne dégradée et implantation d’un jardin
corallien à Bora Bora, Polynésie française. Revue d’Écologie (Terreet Vie),
Supplément 9:81– 96
Samonte-Tan GPB, White AT, Tercero MA, Diviva J, Tabara E, Caballes C
(2007) Economic valuation of coastal and marine resources: Bohol marine
triangle, Philippines. Coastal Management 35:319– 338
Santo EMD (2013) Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: how the
push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice.
Journal of Environmental Management 124:137– 146
Schrack EC, Brumbaugh R, Crisley K, Hancock B (2012) Restoration works:
highlights from a decade of partnership between The Nature Conservancy
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s restoration
centre. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia
Seguin F, Le Brun O, Hirst R, Al-Thary I, Dutrieux E (2008) Large coral trans-
plantation in Bal Haf (Yemen): an opportunity to save corals during the
construction of a liqueed natural gas plant using innovative techniques.
Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef Symposium, Ft. Laud-
erdale, Florida
Shani A, Polak O, Shashar N (2012) Articial reefs and mass marine ecotourism.
Tourism Geographies 14:361–382
Sleeman JC, Boggs GS, Radford BC, Kendrick GA (2005) Using agent-based
models to aid reef restoration: enhancing coral cover and topographic com-
plexity through the spatial arrangement of coral transplants. Restoration
Ecology 13:685– 694
Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working
Group (2004) The SER international primer on ecological restoration.
www.ser.org, Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson,
Arizona
Spangenberg JH (2004) Sustainability and growth: criteria, indicators, policies.
Sustainable Development 12:74– 86
Spurgeon JPG (2001) Improving the economic effectivenessof coral restoration.
Bulletin of Marine Science 69:1031– 1045
Thornton SL, Dodge RE, Giliam R, Cooke P (2000) Success and growth of corals
transplanted to cement armor mat tiles in Southeast Florida: implications
for reef restoration. Proceedings of the Ninth International Coral Reef
Symposium, Bali 2:955– 962
Valentin A, Spangenberg JH (2000) A guide to community sustainability indica-
tors. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20:381–392
Van Diggelen R, Grootjans ABP, Harris JA (2001) Ecological restoration: state
of the art or state of the science? Restoration Ecology 9:115– 118
Van Oppen MJH, Oliver JK, Putnam HM, Gates RD (2015) Building coral
reef resilience through assisted evolution. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112:2307– 2313
Wapnick CM, McCarthy A (2006) Monitoring the efcacy of coral restoration
projects: where are we? And where do we need to go? In: Coral reef
restoration handbook. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida
West JM, Salm RV (2003) Resistance and resilience to coral bleaching: implica-
tions for coral reef conservation and management. Conservation Biology
17:956– 967
Wortley L, Hero JM, Howes M (2013) Evaluating ecological restoration suc-
cess: a review of the literature: trends and gaps in empirical evaluations.
Restoration Ecology 21:537– 543
Yap HT (2000) The case for restoration of tropical coastal ecosystems. Ocean
and Coastal Management 43:841– 851
Yap HT (2003) Coral reef ‘restoration’ and coral transplantation. Marine Pollu-
tion Bulletin 46:529
Yap HT (2009) Local changes in community diversity after coral transplantation.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 374:33– 41
Yap HT, Molina RA (2003) Comparison of coral growth and survival under
enclosed, semi-natural conditions and in the eld. Marine Pollution Bul-
letin 46:858– 864
Yeemin T, Sutthacheep M, Pettongma R (2006) Coral reef restoration projects in
Thailand. Ocean and Coastal Management 49:562– 575
Young CN, Schopmeyer SA, Lirman D (2012) A review of reef restoration and
coral propagation using the threatened genus Acropora in the Caribbean
and western Atlantic. Bulletin of Marine Science 88:1075– 1098
Supporting Information
The following information may be found in the online version of this article:
Appendix S1. Indicators of coral restoration effectiveness.
Table S1. Table listing all 83 studies related to coral transplantation returned from
the search on Web of Science “Coral* AND Restoration AND Transplantation” along
with their primary objective(s), indicator of success used and duration of monitoring
in months.
Coordinating Editor: Alasdair Edwards Received: 8 January, 2017; First decision: 4 March, 2017; Revised: 2 July,2017;
Accepted: 5 July, 2017
Restoration Ecology 11
