The feasibility and viability of proposed interventions to help preserve and restore the Great Barrier Reef will depend, to a large extent, on their social and cultural acceptability. Increasingly, the principles of responsible research and innovation are creating a global impetus for greater levels of public participation in technology research, development and assessment (Stilgoe et. al., 2013). When participation builds stakeholder and public trust, understanding, and ownership of an initiative, it can lead to increased success or reduced conflict (Reed, 2009). The Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP) will need to adopt engagement processes suited to the general public; to place-based or interest-based stakeholders such as reef communities or reef-dependent industries; and, with Indigenous Traditional Owners as rights-holders in, and custodians of, the Reef.

Critical needs of RRAP include understanding the social acceptability (or otherwise) of proposed interventions or specific technologies; assessing how proposed interventions (or non-intervention) may affect the diverse social and cultural values, uses and benefits associated with the Reef; and, identifying appropriate ways to engage different groups and interests in the co-design, deployment and evaluation of proposed interventions or technologies over time.

A national, representative survey of Australian residents, and residents of the Reef region, was undertaken in the concept feasibility study to explore social acceptability of large-scale restoration and adaptation. The survey found the Reef was highly valued and there was a widely held belief society should intervene to help protect and restore the Reef. Survey results indicated the public trusted the science community and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to ensure the health of the Reef. Respondents were largely accepting of the idea of active intervention to help restore the Reef. Approximately half the respondents surveyed indicated they were generally accepting of the technologies being investigated by RRAP. A further one-quarter to one-third indicated they were undecided or unsure about these technologies. It is important to note that attitudes about acceptance of interventions can change over time. The early stage of RRAP; the currently hypothetical standing of some technologies; and the limited information available to survey respondents about those technologies, requires a cautious interpretation of these results and ongoing monitoring.

Twenty-four stakeholders were also interviewed to understand their views on proposed interventions. These included representatives of environmental non-government organisations, tourism organisations and local government. They expressed greater uncertainty and concerns about the technologies and identified several risks. Both stakeholders and Traditional Owners strongly asserted that for risks to be managed, and benefits to be realised, meaningful participation and transparency in decision-making and in the R&D process was required throughout any R&D program. There was a widely held view that restoration-based intervention on the Reef was necessary, however, the future credibility of RRAP also depended on governments addressing direct threats to the Reef, such as climate change.

The Reef stakeholder and Traditional Owner engagement context is complex and will continue to evolve over the life of the second phase of RRAP (research and development). Engagement strategies tailored to RRAP R&D needs will require detailed planning, co-design, coordination and trials, and development of novel models of engagement and techniques to support participation and improve overall program performance.