Question:
You are given the full text of a scientific research paper.

    Summarize the **research methods** used in the study in a way that is informative for policy audiences. Your response should:
    - Describe the overall study design, data sources, tools, and models used
    - Avoid unnecessary technical details or equations
    - Use accessible but precise language

    Write a short paragraph suitable for the “Scientific Research Study Methods” section of a policy brief.

    Scientific Research Paper:
    Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
375
nature climate change
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
Article
Novel marine-climate interventions
hampered by low consensus and
governance preparedness

Emily M. Ogier
  1,2
, Gretta T. Pecl
  1,2, Terry Hughes3, Sarah Lawless3,4,
Cayne Layton
  1,2, Kirsty L. Nash
  2,3 & Tiffany H. Morrison3,5,6
Novel marine-climate interventions are now being rapidly implemented to
address both the causes and consequences of warming oceans. However,
the governance implications of proposed upscaling of such interventions
are uncertain. We conduct a survey of 332 intervention practitioners,
revealing five types and 17 sub-types of interventions proposed or
deployed in 37 marine systems globally. Most (71%) report marine-climate
interventions aimed at supporting species and ecosystem adaptation,
with 29% aimed primarily at climate mitigation and societal adaptation.
Perceptions of climate benefits vary widely, with low consensus across
practitioners on the climate goals of specific interventions. Intervention
decision-making also remains focused on technical feasibility to meet
minimum permitting requirements, with limited appraisal and management
of broader ecological, cultural and social risks and benefits of intervention.
Practitioners also warn that many marine-climate interventions are currently
being tested and deployed in an under-regulated pseudo-scientific bubble.
The need to act in response to projected future ocean warming and
ocean change has risen on the global scientific and political agenda1,2.
Direct climate-driven changes in marine social–ecological systems
range from ecological effects, such as changes in species distribution,
abundance or community biodiversity3, to social, cultural and eco-
nomic impacts on marine-dependent societies, such as reduced food
and livelihood security4. These changes (for example, 3% per decade
loss in fisheries replenishment and >US$800 million in direct economic
loss from individual marine heatwave events) are now being observed
at unprecedented scale and intensity in marine systems5–7.
Such rapidly changing conditions form a clear and urgent mandate
for novel interventions to sustain marine ecosystems and dependent
societies2,8–10. Marine interventions can be understood as deliber-
ate, planned actions in marine systems to achieve desired outcomes
or goals. Historically, marine interventions have been designed to
conserve and restore species or local ecological communities and the
ecosystem services they generate11,12 or improve coastal community
well-being through securing rights and strengthening livelihoods13,14.
Interventions to substantively contribute to climate goals such as
mitigation or adaptation have been either secondary or absent.
Today, oceans are on the front line of new planned climate actions.
These interventions are novel both in their deployment of new and
often untested technologies (for example, genomics, altering ocean
biogeochemistry, rights-based frameworks) and in new oceanic, cli-
matic and social conditions. In pursuing climate mitigation, the ocean
is now a frontier for both clean energy creation (for example, off-
shore wind energy) and carbon removal (for example, ocean alkalinity
enhancement)15,16 required to meet the Paris Agreement17. In enabling
climate adaptation, high-profile interventions include protecting
climate refugia to conserve specific marine ecosystems18, climate
Received: 30 July 2024
Accepted: 20 February 2025
Published online: 3 April 2025
 Check for updates
1Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. 2Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania,
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. 3College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. 4Australian Institute of
Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. 5School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria,
Australia. 6Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
 e-mail: Emily.Ogier@utas.edu.au

Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
376
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
To understand the challenges and opportunities for responsible
governance of interventions, our analysis extended these responsible
research and innovation frameworks by matching common operational
marine governance arrangements with intervention risks. Examples
of such governance arrangements include frameworks for assessing
feasibility, risk and impact46,47, mechanisms for public appraisal48,49,
operational oversight30,50 and marine-climate policy leadership33,51,52.
Common risks of marine-climate interventions include ineffective-
ness relative to desired goal, social–ecological harm, negligence in
addressing harm, public distrust of interventions and opportunity
cost in intervening (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1).
Our typology of interventions and framework of governance
preparedness enabled us to identify, compare and synthesize key
challenges and opportunities in ensuring responsible governance
of interventions. In doing so, our intended audiences are policy-
makers, financiers and scientists engaged in intervention design,
decision-making, investment and implementation. Such insights are
urgently needed by these groups to facilitate the strategic selection,
deployment and ongoing oversight of appropriate interventions at
the scale required to sustain marine estates and coastal communities
throughout the changing climate.
Results
From our survey sample of 332, we found that the emerging global
community of intervention practitioners was dominated by interven-
tion scientists (58%), followed by intervention policymakers (14%) and
non-governmental organization (NGO) practitioners (14%). Repre-
sentatives of Traditional Owners and First Nations and of local com-
munity or industry sectors accounted for 1% and 3%, respectively, of
our sample. Respondents’ engagement in marine-climate interventions
ranged from involvement in research development, deployment and
monitoring (63%) to programme design, project management and site
implementation (13%), policy development, regulation and oversight
(10%), funding (4%) and other (9%).
Not-for-profit organizations, government agencies and science
organizations were identified as leaders of intervention best practice
by survey respondents (38%, 31% and 30% respectively, n = 82).
Intervention types and awareness
We found an array of marine-climate interventions being proposed,
trialled and deployed globally (Table 2). Practitioners’ awareness of
novel marine-climate interventions varied substantially across the
types and sub-types identified (Table 2). Overall, practitioners were
most aware of interventions concerned with marine bioengineering
and coastal and marine restoration. Awareness was highest for artificial
habitat manipulation (79%, n = 332), a sub-type of marine bioengineer-
ing intervention, followed by regrowing targeted underwater species
adaptation planning for coastal communities (for example, the Samoa
Ocean Strategy 2020–2030 (ref. 19)), adaptation of marine manage-
ment (for example, adaptive fisheries management plans20) and adap-
tation of specific marine ecosystem processes (for example, breeding
thermally tolerant marine species genotypes21).
However, systematic and comparative understanding of
marine-climate intervention development and deployment remains
critically low22. In particular, there has been limited empirical investi-
gation of the ‘pacing problem’23 whereby innovation outpaces govern-
ance preparedness to anticipate and responsibly manage risk across
the range of novel marine-climate interventions currently active or
under consideration22,24–27. Governance preparedness involves public
and private institutions and actors engaged in processes of respon-
sible rule, steerage and guidance28. Any lag in the responsiveness of
governance regimes is problematic because the rapid emergence and
planned upscaling of novel marine-climate interventions29 presents
an array of risks for marine ecosystems30,31 and coastal societies and
rightsholders22,32,33 at local, regional and climate system and climate
policy scales (Table 1). Implicated governance action arenas include
marine and coastal conservation, tenure and rights of local commu-
nities, small-scale fishers and Indigenous peoples, ocean economy
development and decarbonization.
To track the extent to which governance arrangements are keep-
ing pace with novel marine-climate interventions, we surveyed 332
practitioners. We used an online questionnaire to survey the emerging
global community of intervention practitioners to ascertain what types
of interventions are being planned or deployed, how interventions are
being designed, their geographic distribution and stage of develop-
ment, types of climate goals and benefits pursued and arrangements to
responsibly govern intervention. On the basis of our results, we devel-
oped a typology of major types and sub-types of novel marine-climate
interventions and cross-referenced them against recent authoritative
studies (for example, reviews by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine10,34).
In ascertaining the degree to which responsible governance
arrangements were present, we adapted and extended existing frame-
works for responsible research and innovation to the governance realm.
To date, the need for responsible research and innovation (as set out
by refs. 31,35) has been met largely by developing codes of conduct for
specific types of experimental research (for example, scientific codes
of conduct for research on marine carbon dioxide removal30,36–38).
While such scientific codes are necessary39–42, they have limited remit
or powers beyond experimental-scale research on single types of inter-
ventions. The additional governance necessary to facilitate and steer
deployment of innovations at scale—to both ensure no undue harm
and deliver ecological and social benefits (that is, ‘responsible govern-
ance’)—is less well understood43–45.
Table 1 | Governance challenges of marine-climate intervention risks
Intervention risk
Outcome
Scale of outcome
Illustrative stories
Ineffectiveness
Failure to achieve stated marine-climate mitigation or
adaptation goal
Local/community scale of deployment
30,37,46,91,92
Harm
Unintended cultural, social or ecological harm
Local/community scale of deployment
93–95
Negligence
Further harm due to responsibility gaps in amelioration or
restitution of intervention harms
Local/community scale of deployment
49,96
Distrust
Public distrust/rejection of intervention
Local/community scale of deployment
32
Global/system-wide
33,97
Opportunity cost
High opportunity cost/crowding out of other critical collective
actions for marine-climate mitigation or adaptation
Local/community scale of deployment
9,98
Global/system-wide
56,83,84,99
Scale refers to scale at which outcome is directly observable.

Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
377
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
(for example, coral and kelp), a sub-type of coastal and marine restora-
tion intervention (76%). Other sub-types of interventions with elevated
levels of awareness included regrowing targeted coastal species (for
example, mangroves), assisted evolution of marine species (for exam-
ple, coral hybridization) and natural stabilization of reefs and coasts
(66%, 66% and 62%, respectively). By contrast, awareness of marine
geoengineering interventions was low, with the notable exception of
interventions to shade and cool water and habitat (40%). Awareness of
marine socio-institutional capacity-building interventions was excep-
tionally low (4%) (Table 2).
Intervention scientists and intervention policymakers had the
greatest breadth of awareness of different types of interventions (5.1
and 5.0 types, respectively, on average), while NGO practitioners,
representatives of Traditional Owners and First Nations and of local
community or industry sectors were aware of relatively fewer (3.9,
4.3, 3.3 and 4.8 types, respectively). Due to the emergent nature of the
intervention community and likely standard error, the results of our
survey offer an initial exploratory analysis of the range of intervention
practitioners, types and locations.
Geographical distribution and stage of development
Interventions were occurring in multiple regions globally, noticeably
clustered in locations that are warming faster than the global average
(that is, marine hotspot locations; see ref. 53). Respondents reported
in detail, interventions (n = 309) that are distributed across 37 differ-
ent specific marine or coastal locations and in most oceans and major
seas (Fig. 1a).
Oceans and seas where reported intervention activity was greatest
were Australia’s tropical waters (16%), Australia’s and New Zealand’s
temperate waters (15%), the North Pacific (15%) and the wider Caribbean
(10%). Almost all of the interventions reported as active in Australia’s
tropical waters were occurring in the Great Barrier Reef region (92%).
These interventions were predominantly to support coral reef restora-
tion, for example, through re-seeding coral, breeding of heat-resistant
coral symbionts and coral reef habitat restoration and creation (6%, 4%
and 2% of all reported interventions). Multiple types of interventions
active within the same ocean region were reported almost without
exception, with 96% of the interventions occurring in the same ocean
region as at least one other type of intervention (Fig. 1b).
In terms of development, the majority of interventions identi-
fied were at pilot or full implementation stage (46% and 38%, respec-
tively, n = 207 interventions; Fig. 1c) while 16% were at concept stage.
Development was most progressed for marine bioengineering and
coastal and marine restoration interventions. Specific interventions
reported as having the highest level of technical readiness and devel-
opment included artificial manipulation of habitats and regrowing
of targeted coastal species (53% and 65% at implementation stage,
respectively; Fig. 1c).
Stated climate goals
Climate goals pursued through marine intervention included both
mitigation and adaption, alongside non-climate goals (that is, bio-
diversity protection). The most stated climate goal was to increase
the biophysical adaptation or resilience of local marine ecosystems
to climate-driven changes (57% of interventions, n = 211; Fig. 2). This
climate goal was being pursued across all five intervention types, most
commonly through coastal and marine restoration (for example, kelp
forest and seagrass bed restoration), followed by marine bioengineer-
ing (for example, assisted evolution of coral). Notably, biophysical
adaptation and resilience was also being pursued through marine
socio-institutional capacity building (for example, development of
climate-adaptive fisheries management regimes). However, the goal
Table 2 | Types and levels of awareness of novel marine-climate interventions (n = 332 respondents)
Type
Detail
Sub-type
Awareness (%)
Marine geoengineering
Manipulation of the oceanic and atmospheric climate to
increase uptake and removal of atmospheric carbon or
mitigate direct heating effects
Shading and cooling water and habitat
40
Ocean fertilization
3
Ocean alkalinity enhancement
2
Artificial upwelling and downwelling
2
Marine bioengineering
Manipulation of marine evolutionary processes and
ecosystem function and condition
Artificial habitat manipulation
79
Assisted evolution of marine species
66
Assisted migration and colonization of marine
species
34
Controlling climate-exacerbated destructive
species
2
Coastal and marine restoration
Repairing a climate-impacted catchment-to-marine
ecosystem or population
Regrowing targeted underwater species
76
Regrowing targeted coastal species
66
Natural stabilization of reefs and coasts
62
Catchment habitat restoration
1
Marine social–institutional
capacity building
Enabling communities and organizations to make
marine-climate decisions and redress climate impacts
Anticipatory marine-climate science
1
Climate-resilient marine protected area
management
1
Coastal adaptation community planning
1
Climate-adaptive fisheries management
1
Biological marine carbon
dioxide removal
Creation or restoration of carbon sinks from natural
marine resources
Aquaculture for carbon sequestration
56
Five broad intervention types were apparent: marine geoengineering, marine bioengineering, coastal and marine restoration, marine social–institutional capacity building and biological
marine carbon dioxide removal. Within these five broad types, 17 sub-types were apparent on the basis of their treatment and primary goal (that is, restorative in the case of coastal and
marine restoration; adaptive in the case of marine bioengineering) and their focal sub-system (that is, catchment-to-ocean in the case of coastal and marine restoration; air–ocean exchange
processes in the case of marine geoengineering). See Supplementary Table 2, for detailed typology.

Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
378
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
of social adaptation and resilience to climate change was reported
for only 3% of interventions. For 5% of the interventions described, no
climate goal was identified despite the survey design, which focused on
interventions in the context of climate-driven change in oceans (Fig. 2).
Climate mitigation was also being pursued across all interven-
tion types, with carbon removal (rather than emissions avoidance,
for example) the second-most stated goal (27%; Fig. 2). Mitigation
interventions ranged from those designed to intervene in carbon
cycles via marine geoengineering (for example, ocean alkalinity
enhancement to increase air–ocean carbon exchange) to those work-
ing on biological mechanisms of carbon sequestration (that is, aqua-
culture for carbon sequestration). Some respondents also reported
marine bioengineering (for example, heat-resistant kelp breeding
programmes) and coastal and marine restoration (for example, sea-
grass meadow restoration) as aiming for carbon sequestration as a
secondary goal.
For some interventions, there was substantial variation in the
climate goals identified. For example, for artificial habitat manipula-
tion, stated climate goals included increasing biophysical adapta-
tion and resilience (58%), carbon removal (19%), no climate goal (19%)
and increasing social adaptation and resilience (2%; Supplementary
Table 3). Similarly, for regrowing coastal and underwater species, the
variety of stated climate goals included increasing biophysical adapta-
tion and resilience (63%), carbon removal (27%), no climate goal (5%),
increasing social adaptation and resilience (3%) and raising climate
awareness (1%; Supplementary Table 2).
c
Coastal adaptation community planning
Climate-resilient marine protected area management
Climate-adaptive aquaculture development
Climate-adaptive fisheries management
Anticipatory marine-climate science
Catchment habitat restoration
Natural stabilization of reefs and coasts
Regrowing targeted coastal species
Regrowing targeted underwater species
Artificial manipulation of habitats
Assisted evolution of marine species
Assisted migration and colonization of marine species
Controlling climate-exacerbated destructive species
Shading and cooling water and habitats
Ocean alkalinity enhancement
Ocean fertilization
Aquaculture for carbon sequestration
Biological marine carbon
dioxide removal
0
6
11
17
Global
North Pacific
South Pacific
Australia
(tropical)
Australia and
New Zealand
(temperate)
South Atlantic
Mediterranean
Red Sea
Indian Ocean
Marine social–institutional
capacity building
0
6
11
17
Global
North Pacific
South Pacific
Australia
(tropical)
Australia and
New Zealand
(temperate)
South Atlantic
Mediterranean
Red Sea
Indian Ocean
Coastal and marine
restoration
0
6
11
17
Global
North Pacific
South Pacific
Australia
(tropical)
Australia and
New Zealand
(temperate)
South Atlantic
Mediterranean
Red Sea
Indian Ocean
Marine
bioengineering
0
6
11
17
Global
North Pacific
South Pacific
Australia
(tropical)
Australia and
New Zealand
(temperate)
South Atlantic
Mediterranean
Red Sea
Indian Ocean
Marine
geoengineering
0
6
11
17
Global
North Pacific
South Pacific
Australia
(tropical)
Australia and
New Zealand
(temperate)
Wider Caribbean
North Atlantic
Wider Caribbean
North Atlantic
Wider Caribbean
North Atlantic
Wider Caribbean
North Atlantic
Wider Caribbean
North Atlantic
South Atlantic
Mediterranean
Red Sea
Indian Ocean
b
Type of intervention:
Marine geoengineering
Marine bioengineering
Coastal and marine restoration
Marine social−institutional capacity building
Biological marine carbon dioxide removal
Global
n = 227
Australia and New Zealand
(temperate)
n = 46
Australia (tropical)
n = 48
Indian Ocean
n = 12
South Atlantic
n = 3
Red Sea
n = 1
Mediterranean
n = 11
North Atlantic
n = 22
Wider Caribbean
n = 31
South Pacific
n = 7
North Pacific
n = 46
a
Coastal adaptation community planning
Climate-resilient marine protected area management
Climate-adaptive aquaculture development
Climate-adaptive fisheries management
Anticipatory marine-climate science
Catchment habitat restoration
Natural stabilization of reefs and coasts
Regrowing targeted coastal species
Regrowing targeted underwater species
Artificial manipulation of habitats
Assisted evolution of marine species
Assisted migration and colonization of marine species
Controlling climate-exacerbated destructive species
Shading and cooling water and habitats
Ocean alkalinity enhancement
Ocean fertilization
Aquaculture for carbon sequestration
0
12
24
Concept
Implementation
Pilot
0
12
24
Concept
Implementation
Pilot
0
12
24
Concept
Implementation
Pilot
0
12
24
Concept
Implementation
Pilot
0
12
24
Concept
Implementation
Pilot
Biological marine carbon
dioxide removal
Marine social–institutional
capacity building
Coastal and marine
restoration
Marine
bioengineering
Marine
geoengineering
Fig. 1 | Global distribution and development of marine-climate interventions. a,b, Global distribution (n = 309 interventions) across ocean regions by major types
(a) and sub-types (b). c, Stages of development (n = 207 interventions) by marine-climate intervention sub-type. Panel a generated using rnaturalearth v.1.0.1.9000.

Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
379
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
Governance of intervention risk
Gaps in the use of available governance arrangements were notable
(Fig. 3) and included the low use of data co-produced with Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities (11% of interventions identified,
n = 233), ethics assessment (14%), accountability and transparency
mechanisms (15%), social impact mitigation measures (15%) and mecha-
nisms to recognize and address unintended social impact (21%), and
strategic leadership capacity (19% of interventions) (Supplementary
Table 4).
Preparedness to responsibly govern specific intervention risks
(Table 1 and Supplementary Tables 5 and 10) was varied. The risk of
ineffectiveness was the risk most frequently addressed by applying
available government arrangements. Levels of use across the available
arrangements ranged between 57 and 70% of all interventions, from
use of multiple data types (70% of interventions) and data sources for
feasibility assessment (65%) to multiple forms of assessing implementa-
tion risk (59%; Supplementary Table 4).
By contrast, levels of use of available arrangements to govern the
risk of unintended harms ranged between 32 and 50% of interventions.
Levels of use of available arrangements to govern risks of public distrust
in interventions were even lower (between 28 and 50%), and for risks
of negligence in addressing intervention effects, the range was lower
again (between 28 and 35%). Concerningly, arrangements to govern the
risk of opportunity cost in pursuing a given intervention were present
in only 19% of interventions, implying that most interventions are not
being assessed against one another (Supplementary Table 4).
Unsurprisingly, marine social–institutional capacity building was
the intervention type where responsible governance arrangements
were most frequently applied across all risks (44% mean level of pres-
ence). Arrangements for governing risks of ineffectiveness, harms,
negligence, distrust and opportunity cost were present at rates of 63%,
50%, 50%, 32% and 30%, respectively. By contrast, marine bioengineer-
ing was the type of intervention for which responsible governance
arrangements were least often in place (33% mean level of presence
across all risks; Supplementary Table 6).
In reporting on the risks and opportunities of an intervention,
practitioners (n = 130) held divergent positions on the necessity of
further responsible governance arrangements. While 23% of practition-
ers called for increased levels of governmental appraisal, planning,
coordination and regulation, a contrasting 16% called for reduction
of such arrangements, which they perceived to be hindering rates of
implementation and upscaling. Practitioners requesting strengthened
governance asked for increased rigour in technical feasibility, risk and
impact assessment (25%), increased policy and community support,
including funding (22%), reduced scientific uncertainty combined
with increased science coordination (7%), increased climate mitigation
and mechanisms for addressing other underlying stressors (4%) and
greater inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (3%).
Discussion
An open question in marine-climate research is what the pro-
posed upscaling of novel marine-climate interventions means for
climate action and long-term well-being of marine systems and
marine-dependent people. Most governance arrangements in place
are limited to formal risk assessments and regulatory and permitting
processes27,54,55 based on retrospective understandings and technolo-
gies operating under high levels of uncertainty56. The observed low
level of governance preparedness to responsibly govern the risks posed
by novel and experimental marine-climate interventions indicates
that the pacing problem is indeed present. Responsible governance
regimes are needed to avoid risks of maladaptation and the potentially
high opportunity cost of marine-climate interventions. Fortunately,
gaps in responsible governance constitute a resolvable problem where
public-interest actors have principles to guide them and, increasingly,
the operational arrangements and practices to mandate and use35,36.
Our analysis of practitioner observations highlights multiple reasons
for and opportunities to address this gap.
First, marine-climate intervention remains science driven with
limited involvement of public institutions or communities and only
14% of practitioners in our sample working within government. By
contrast, the biophysical science sector’s major role in novel interven-
tion development and in standard-setting for intervention research
is likely to explain the emphasis on technical feasibility assessment
as the main form of intervention appraisal. The relative absence of
strong public-interest actors and processes, combined with the lim-
ited competencies of conventional science organizations39–42,57, may
also explain the low levels of use of responsible governance arrange-
ments (Fig. 3). Not surprisingly, organizations in the NGO and research
Marine geoengineering
Marine bioengineering
Coastal and marine
restoration
Marine social–institutional
capacity building
Biological carbon dioxide
removal
Carbon emissions
avoidance
Carbon ofsetting
Carbon removal
Social adaptation
and resilience
No climate goal
Climate awareness
Biophysical adaptation
and resilience
Fig. 2 | Climate-related goals of marine interventions identified by survey respondents (n = 211 interventions). Width of strand indicates the number of interventions
for which goal was identified. More than one goal could be identified for each intervention described. See Supplementary Table 3 for a detailed list of goals.

Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
380
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
sectors were recognized as best-practice leaders of interventions by
68% of the survey respondents. Actors within these networks clearly
wield considerable potential influence and include ‘impact inves-
tors’58,59, ocean philanthropic funders60–62, speculators attracted by
the establishment of carbon markets63 and scientists whose formative
role in experimentation and intervention innovation renders them
de facto governors35,64. Engagement of public actors in the formative
stages of marine-climate intervention development is critical because
of risks of sociocultural harms and the potential high opportunity
cost of upscaling. Opportunities to do so include adoption of proven
participatory and deliberative early public engagement frameworks
(see refs. 65,66) and the use of bioethical assessment frameworks67 by
funders and regulators.
Second, interventions using bioengineering or restorative
techniques have the highest level of awareness and were the types
of marine-climate interventions with the highest rates of implemen-
tation and widest geographic distribution across our sample of 322
practitioners. While other types of marine-climate interventions were
reported (for example, marine geoengineering, biological marine car-
bon dioxide removal, marine social–institutional capacity building),
awareness was lower, which is likely to be at least partly explained by
their more limited geographical distribution and their development
Intervention
risk
Responsible
innovation
dimension
Responsible
governance
arrangement
Type
of
intervention
Technical feasibility assessment
Multiple forms of assessment of implementation risk
Multiple data sources for feasibility assessment
Multiple data types for feasibility assessment
Ethics assessment
Consideration of social risks and impacts
Assessment of negative impacts
Acceptability to stakeholders considered in feasibility assessment
Use of public consultation data in feasibility assessment
Use of data co-produced with IPLC in risk assessment
Formal consideration of trade-ofs between risks and benefits
Form(s) of formal oversight in addition to regulations
Social impact oversight mechanisms
Environmental impact oversight mechanisms
Accountability and transparency oversight mechanisms
Biophysical impact mitigation measures in place
Social impact mitigation measures in place
Strategic capacity to allow progress while constraining risk
Stakeholder consultation and/or public survey data in risk assessment
Deliberation opportunities for IPLC rights and/or interest holders
Deliberation opportunities for IPLC rights and/or interest holders
Assessment of cumulative impacts
Monitoring for unintended negative impacts
Use of robust social data to assess impact
Harm
Inefectiveness
Anticipation
Inclusion and
anticipation
Distrust
Negligence
Opportunity cost
Reflexivity
Proportion
Geoengineering
Bioengineering
Coastal and marine
restoration
Social–institutional
capacity building
Biological carbon
dioxide removal
0
0.50
1.00
Responsiveness
Inclusion and
reflexivity
Fig. 3 | Use of responsible governance arrangements to manage anticipated risks of novel marine-climate interventions (n = 233 interventions). See
Supplementary Tables 1 and 5 for definitions and data. IPLC, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
381
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
being more commonly at the concept or pilot stage. Funders and pub-
lic policy decision-makers charged with large-scale climate action
face choices between available marine-climate interventions. The
information asymmetry between intervention types observed in our
study may limit the possibility of decision-makers being able to make
informed choices among the full range of viable interventions. Increas-
ing marine-climate action literacy among decisions-makers is a criti-
cal means of addressing this challenge, starting with sharing of more
accessible science-based information about climate action options
(for example, Reef Adapt tool (https://www.reefadapt.org)).
Third, despite the low awareness of interventions to build social
and institutional capacity for climate adaptation and mitigation
detected in our results, these intervention types warrant additional
consideration. The intervention examples reported by survey respond-
ents highlighted important ways forward, including restitution and
formalization of marine and coastal tenure for Indigenous Peoples
and Local Communities, partnerships in climate intervention science
programmes and coastal adaptation planning with local communities.
Our results also revealed that practitioners are increasingly recognizing
the need for social–institutional capacity to reduce intervention risks
of sociocultural harms, negligence and distrust. Social–institutional
capacity can be built through rights-based frameworks (see refs. 68–71
and the Turning Tides facility (https://turningtidesfacility.org)) and
regional and community-led programmes for coastal climate adapta-
tion planning (see ref. 72) and by enabling local rule-making for climate
action (see ref. 35). Such institutions support a priori recognition of
equity, cultural rights and interests before conceptualization and
assessment of an intervention. By coupling regional and local-scale
socio-institutional capacity-building interventions with local bioengi-
neering, geoengineering and restorative interventions, such initiatives
could be ‘bright spots’ in which social, cultural and biophysical goals
are mutually recognized and pursued (see refs. 14,20,72,73).
Fourth, marine-climate interventions are occurring in all major
ocean regions, and within each of these regions more than one specific
intervention sub-type is under way. For example, in the North Atlantic
and in tropical waters adjacent to Australia, the range of interventions
described includes those in all intervention types. This co-occurrence
may present additional under-recognized governance challenges for
policy- and decision-makers who are faced with both prioritizing across
interventions and managing their cumulative and synergistic impacts
within a single marine region. We found that formal consideration of
trade-offs between intervention risks and benefits and assessment of
cumulative impacts are not widely occurring governance practices
(reported as occurring for only 31 and 32% of interventions, respec-
tively). The results suggest that many decision-makers are materially
underprepared for these strategic challenges, which extend beyond
managing the risks posed by single interventions22,30,32. Tools such as
anticipatory social and cumulative impact assessment frameworks74,75
are available to support decision-makers to integrate their assessment
and management of discrete climate actions into broader strategic
assessment and planning at the marine estate or regional communi-
ties’ level (for example, the IPCC’s shared socioeconomic pathways76,
which could be adapted for marine regions).
Fifth, our results highlighted that systematic and comparative
assessment of marine-climate interventions continues to be confounded
by a lack of clarity and low consensus in stated climate-related interven-
tion goals. In some cases, interventions such as seaweed afforestation
were reported to be pursuing both climate mitigation and adaptation
goals simultaneously. We observed frequent use of the term ‘resilience’
by many practitioners in self-reporting the ecological and social goals
and benefits of their chosen intervention in lieu of providing more
intervention-specific detail to which they were invited. Resilience has
been widely critiqued for being conceptually vague, ignoring power
and politics, and being operationally weak77,78. This lack of clarity on
resilience obfuscates efforts to assess effectiveness of interventions
and fails to deal with power asymmetries and inequity in pursing cli-
mate actions79. Rectifying this lack of climate goal precision (and there-
fore accountability) will depend on funders and public-interest actors
demanding uptake of principles and codes of practice (see High-Quality
Blue Carbon Principles80) and, increasingly, standards for monitoring,
reporting and evaluation of specific intervention effects30,37,81,82.
Finally, practitioners themselves are among those who query the
rigour of technical feasibility assessment and evaluation of impact of
interventions against intended and claimed benefits and co-benefits.
One-quarter of survey respondents raised these concerns. Indeed,
emerging social science suggests that entrepreneurial hype com-
bined with an absence of strong monitoring, evaluation and reporting
requirements can produce perverse outcomes whereby speculative
interventions are prioritized over effective ones8,63,83–85. Our results
underscore that claims of multiple conservation and climate goals and
co-benefits combined with low levels of technical feasibility assessment
(50% of reported interventions) and very low levels of accountability
and oversight (16%) and strategic capacity to steer innovation and man-
age marine-climate intervention risk (18%) increase the likelihood of
poor choices, contributing to both unintended negative consequences
and missed opportunities in climate mitigation and adaption. The prac-
titioner concerns are therefore valid, while at the same, it is important
to acknowledge that carbon removal and climate adaptation goals
may be feasible in some cases for specific species and ecosystems86.
In conclusion, our global survey and subsequent statistical analysis
revealed that, broadly, governance of novel marine-climate interven-
tions is occurring in both a ‘scientific bubble’ and an ‘institutional
void’87,88. Future research could incorporate inferential analyses to
explore distinctions across practitioner groups, regions and jurisdic-
tions and interactions among factors affecting practitioner awareness,
intervention impacts and operational governance practices in place.
Such analysis would support further development of responsibly
governed and context-appropriate marine-climate actions.
Overcoming the pacing problem through timely uptake and for-
malization of available or emergent responsible governance practices
(Fig. 3) requires continued scientific leadership to ensure that technical
design, assessment and monitoring of marine-climate interventions
is adopted and sufficiently rigorous. At the same time, the bioethical,
anticipatory and reflexive requirements of responsible governance
demand that many other actors are better engaged alongside these
practitioner communities89—to build legal and institutional capacities
and to ensure that governance of multiple marine-climate interventions
is underpinned by climate action and justice principles90.
Online content
Any methods, additional references, Nature Portfolio reporting sum-
maries, source data, extended data, supplementary information,
acknowledgements, peer review information; details of author contri-
butions and competing interests; and statements of data and code avail-
ability are available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4.
References
1.
IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds
Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021);
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896
2.
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.)
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022); https://doi.org/10.1017/
9781009325844.001
3.
Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change:
impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355,
eaai9214 (2017).
4.
Barnett, J. Global environmental change II: political economies of
vulnerability to climate change. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 44, 1172–1184
(2020).

Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
382
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
5.
Hughes, T. P. et al. Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546,
82–90 (2017).
6.
Smith, K. E. et al. Socioeconomic impacts of marine heatwaves:
global issues and opportunities. Science 374, eabj3593 (2021).
7.
Bindoff, N. L. et al. in Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere
in a Changing Climate (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) 447–587
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
8.
Morrison, T. H. et al. Save reefs to rescue all ecosystems. Nature
573, 333–336 (2019).
9.
Sovacool, B. K. et al. Coral reefs, cloud forests and radical climate
interventions in Australia's Wet Tropics and Great Barrier Reef.
PLOS Clim. 2, e0000221 (2023).
10.	 A Research Strategy for Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal and
Sequestration (NASEM, 2002) https://doi.org/10.17226/26278
11.
Prober, S. M. et al. Shifting the conservation paradigm: a synthesis
of options for renovating nature under climate change. Ecol.
Monogr. 89, e01333 (2019).
12.	 Saunders, M. I. et al. Bright spots in coastal marine ecosystem
restoration. Curr. Biol. 30, R1500–R1510 (2020).
13.	 Sebastian, P., Sparks, L. D., Resolute, P. & Prasetijo, R. Connecting
communities to coral reefs: a socio-ecological perspective on
coral restoration programs in a remote marine protected area.
J. Coast. Conserv. 28, 39 (2024).
14.	 Baker, D. M. et al. Improving human well-being outcomes in
marine protected areas through futures thinking. One Earth 6,
1286–1290 (2023).
15.	 Gattuso, J.-P. et al. Ocean solutions to address climate change
and its effects on marine ecosystems. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 18
(2018).
16.	 Gattuso, J.-P. et al. The potential for ocean-based climate action:
negative emissions technologies and beyond. Front. Clim. 2,
575716 (2021).
17.	 Brun, A. Conference diplomacy: the making of the Paris
agreement. Pol. Govern. 4, 115–123 (2016).
18.	 Morrison, T. H. et al. Advancing coral reef governance into the
anthropocene. One Earth 2, 64–74 (2020).
19.	 Samoa Ocean Strategy 2020–2030, Integrated Management for a
Healthy and Abundant Future of Samoa’s Ocean (Government of
Samoa, 2020).
20.	 Bell, J. D. et al. Pathways to sustaining tuna-dependent Pacific
Island economies during climate change. Nat. Sustain. 4,
900–910 (2021).
21.	 Anthony, K. et al. New interventions are needed to save coral
reefs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1420–1422 (2017).
22.	 Cooley, S. R. et al. Sociotechnical considerations about ocean
carbon dioxide removal. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 15, 41–66 (2022).
23.	 Marchant, G. E. in The Growing Gap Between Emerging
Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight: The Pacing Problem
(eds Marchant, G. E. et al.) 199–205 (Springer, 2011); https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_13
24.	 Cherry, T. L. et al. Climate cooperation in the shadow of solar
geoengineering: an experimental investigation of the moral
hazard conjecture. Environ. Polit. 32, 362–370 (2023).
25.	 Pamplany, A., Gordijn, B. & Brereton, P. The ethics of
geoengineering: a literature review. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26,
3069–3119 (2020).
26.	 Dalby, S. Ecological, security, and change in the Anthropocene.
Brown J. World Aff. 13, 155–164 (2007).
27.	 Webb, R. M. International Governance of Ocean-Based
Carbon Dioxide Removal: Recent Developments and Future
Directions (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, 2024);
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1217&context=sabin_climate_change
28.	 Colebatch, H. K. Making sense of governance. Policy Soc. 33,
307–316 (2014).
29.	 Vozzo, M. L. et al. From experiment to intervention: a case study of
scaling up marine eco-engineering from research to application.
Environ. Sci. Policy 158, 103800 (2024).
30.	 Boyd, P. et al. Operational monitoring of open-ocean carbon
dioxide removal deployments: detection, attribution, and
determination of side effects. Oceanography https://doi.org/
10.5670/oceanog.2023.s1.2 (2023).
31.	 Stilgoe, J. et al. Developing a framework for responsible
innovation. Res. Policy 42, 1568–1580 (2013).
32.	 Nawaz, S. et al. Public evaluations of four approaches to
ocean-based carbon dioxide removal. Clim. Policy 23, 379–394
(2023).
33.	 Cox, E. et al. Public attitudes and emotions toward novel carbon
removal methods in alternative sociotechnical scenarios. Environ.
Res. Lett. 19, 084026 (2024).
34.	 A Research Review of Interventions to Increase the Persistence and
Resilience of Coral Reefs (NASEM, 2019); https://doi.org/
10.17226/25279
35.	 Macnaghten, P. The Making of Responsible Innovation (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2020); https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108871044
36.	 Boettcher, M. et al. A Code of Conduct for Marine Carbon
Dioxide Removal Research (Aspen Institute, 2023); https://www.
aspeninstitute.org/publications/a-code-of-conduct-for-marine-ca
rbon-dioxide-removal-research/
37.	 Hurd, C. L. et al. Forensic carbon accounting: assessing the role of
seaweeds for carbon sequestration. J. Phycol. 58, 347–363 (2022).
38.	 Rosen, P. et al. Guidance for the Potential Application of
Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR) in US National Marine
Sanctuaries (NOAA, 2023); https://doi.org/10.25923/chkd-fd21
39.	 Lenk, H. Ethics of responsibilities distributions in a technological
culture. AI Soc. 32, 219–231 (2017).
40.	 Carrier, M. How to conceive of science for the benefit of society:
prospects of responsible research and innovation. Synthese 198,
4749–4768 (2019).
41.	 Carrier, M. & Irzik, G. Responsible research and innovation:
coming to grips with an ambitious concept. Synthese 198,
4627–4633 (2019).
42.	 Low, S. & Buck, H. J. The practice of responsible research and
innovation in ‘climate engineering’. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Change 11, e644 (2020).
43.	 Voegtlin, C. & Scherer, A. G. Responsible innovation and the
innovation of responsibility: governing sustainable development
in a globalized world. J. Bus. Ethics 143, 227–243 (2017).
44.	 Smolka, M. & Böschen, S. Responsible innovation ecosystem
governance: socio-technical integration research for
systems-level capacity building. J. Responsible Innov. 10, 2207937
(2023).
45.	 Brent, K. et al. From informal to formal governance of solar
radiation management. Clim. Policy https://doi.org/10.1080/14693
062.2024.2430688 (2024).
46.	 Boyd, P. W. et al. Potential negative effects of ocean afforestation
on offshore ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 675–683 (2022).
47.	 Kenny, I. et al. Aligning social and ecological goals for successful
marine restoration. Biol. Conserv. 288, 110357 (2023).
48.	 Fritz, L. et al. Public engagement for inclusive and sustainable
governance of climate interventions. Nat. Commun. 15, 4168
(2024).
49.	 Ramírez‐Monsalve, P. et al. Marine restoration governance
arrangements: issues of legitimacy. Environ. Policy Gov. 32,
122–134 (2022).
50.	 Fidelman, P. et al. Regulatory implications of coral reef restoration
and adaptation under a changing climate. Environ. Sci. Policy 100,
221–229 (2019).
51.	 Hansen-Magnusson, H. Making polar and ocean governance
future-proof. Polit. Gov. 10, 60–69 (2022).

Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
383
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
52.	 Sovacool, B. K. et al. Risk–risk governance in a low‐carbon future:
exploring institutional, technological, and behavioral tradeoffs in
climate geoengineering pathways. Risk Anal. https://doi.org/
10.1111/risa.13932 (2022).
53.	 Hobday, A. J. & Pecl, G. T. Identification of global marine hotspots:
sentinels for change and vanguards for adaptation action. Rev.
Fish Biol. Fish. 24, 415–425 (2014).
54.	 Bell‐James, J., Foster, R. & Shumway, N. The permitting process
for marine and coastal restoration: a barrier to achieving global
restoration targets? Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, e13050 (2023).
55.	 Shumway, N. et al. Policy solutions to facilitate restoration in
coastal marine environments. Mar. Policy 134, 104789 (2021).
56.	 Morrison, T. H. et al. Overcoming lock-in of science-policy
responses to reef heating. Mar. Policy 170, 106380 (2024).
57.	 Bellamy, R. et al. ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal:
multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change.
Glob. Environ. Change 23, 926–937 (2013).
58.	 Hockerts, K. et al. Defining and conceptualizing impact investing:
attractive nuisance or catalyst? J. Bus. Ethics 179, 937–950 (2022).
59.	 Sumaila, U. R. et al. Financing a sustainable ocean economy. Nat.
Commun. 12, 3259 (2021).
60.	 Blackwatters, J. E. et al. More than funders: the roles of
philanthropic foundations in marine conservation governance.
Conserv. Sci Pract. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12829 (2022).
61.	 Holmes, G. Biodiversity for billionaires: capitalism, conservation
and the role of philanthropy in saving/selling nature. Dev. Change
43, 185–203 (2012).
62.	 Lewis, F. et al. Funding Trends 2023: Tracking the State of Global
Ocean Funding (Our Shared Seas, 2023); https://oursharedseas.
com/funding/
63.	 Boettcher, M. et al. Navigating potential hype and opportunity in
governing marine carbon removal. Front. Clim. 3, 664456 (2021).
64.	 Schadeberg, A. et al. Science governs the future of the
mesopelagic zone. NPJ Ocean Sustain. 2, 2 (2023).
65.	 Bellamy, R. et al. Deliberative mapping of options for tackling
climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of
geoengineering. Public Underst. Sci. 25, 269–286 (2016).
66.	 Ainscough, J. & Willis, R. Embedding deliberation: guiding the use
of deliberative mini-publics in climate policy-making. Clim. Policy
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2303337 (2024).
67.	 Macpherson, C. C. Why bioethics should address climate change
and how it might do so in Bioethical Insights into Values and
Policies (ed. Macpherson, C.) 199–216 (Springer, 2016);
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26167-6_15
68.	 Robinson, C. J. et al. Indigenous benefits and carbon offset
schemes: an Australian case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 56, 129–134
(2016).
69.	 Reyes-García, V. et al. Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local
communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity
Agenda. Ambio 51, 84–92 (2022).
70.	 Costanza, R. et al. Common asset trusts to effectively steward
natural capital and ecosystem services at multiple scales.
J. Environ. Manage. 280, 111801 (2021).
71.	 Fischer, M. et al. Empowering her guardians to nurture our ocean’s
future. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 32, 271–296 (2022).
72.	 Cinner, J. E. et al. Building adaptive capacity to climate change
in tropical coastal communities. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 117–123
(2018).
73.	 Spalding, A. K. et al. Engaging the tropical majority to make ocean
governance and science more equitable and effective. NPJ Ocean
Sustain. 2, 8 (2023).
74.	 Muiderman, K. et al. Four approaches to anticipatory climate
governance: different conceptions of the future and implications
for the present. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 11, e673
(2020).
75.	 Dooley, K. et al. Carbon-dioxide removal and biodiversity: a threat
identification framework. Glob. Policy 12, 34–44 (2021).
76.	 Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their
energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an
overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
77.	 Brown, K. Global environmental change I: a social turn for
resilience? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 38, 107–117 (2014).
78.	 Olsson, L. et al. Why resilience is unappealing to social science:
theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of
resilience. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400217 (2015).
79.	 Mikulewicz, M. Thwarting adaptation’s potential? A critique of
resilience and climate-resilient development. Geoforum 104,
267–282 (2019).
80.	 High-Quality Blue Carbon Principles and Guidance: A Triple-Benefit
Investment for People, Nature and Climate (Meridian Institute,
2022); https://merid.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/HQBC-PG_
FINAL_11.8.2022.pdf
81.	 Bayraktarov, E. et al. The cost and feasibility of marine coastal
restoration. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1055–1074 (2016).
82.	 Bayraktarov, E. et al. Motivations, success, and cost of coral reef
restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27, 981–991 (2019).
83.	 Sovacool, B. K. Reckless or righteous? Reviewing the
sociotechnical benefits and risks of climate change
geoengineering. Energy Strategy Rev. 35, 100656 (2021).
84.	 Morrison, T. H. et al. Radical interventions for climate-impacted
systems. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 1100–1106 (2022).
85.	 Low, S. et al. Undone science in climate interventions: contrasting
and contesting anticipatory assessments by expert networks.
Environ. Sci. Policy 137, 249–270 (2022).
86.	 Jakovac, C. C. et al. Costs and carbon benefits of mangrove
conservation and restoration: a global analysis. Ecol. Econ. 176,
106758 (2020).
87.	 Hajer, M. Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the
institutional void. Policy Sci. 36, 175–195 (2003).
88.	 Leong, C. Hajer’s institutional void and legitimacy without polity.
Policy Sci. 50, 573–583 (2017).
89.	 Morrison, T. H. Evolving polycentric governance of the Great
Barrier Reef. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E3013–E3021
(2017).
90.	 Kooiman, J. & Jentoft, S. Meta-governance: values, norms and
principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Adm. 87,
818–836 (2009).
91.	 Bach, L. T. et al. Testing the climate intervention potential of
ocean afforestation using the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt. Nat.
Commun. 12, 2556 (2021).
92.	 Morganti, T. et al. Monitoring marine carbon dioxide removal:
quantitative analysis of indicators for carbon removed and
environmental side-effects. ESS Open Archive (2025).
93.	 Eriksen, S. et al. Adaptation interventions and their effect
on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or
irrelevance? World Dev. 141, 105383 (2021).
94.	 Sultana, F. The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Polit.
Geogr. 99, 102638 (2022).
95.	 Bower, E. R. et al. Enabling pathways for sustainable livelihoods
in planned relocation. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41558-023-01753-x (2023).
96.	 Levin, L. A. et al. Deep-sea impacts of climate interventions.
Science 379, 978–981 (2023).
97.	 Satterfield, T. et al. Exploring public acceptability of direct air
carbon capture with storage: climate urgency, moral hazards and
perceptions of the ‘whole versus the parts’. Climatic Change 176,
14 (2023).
98.	 Hughes, T. P., Baird, A. H., Morrison, T. H. & Torda, G. Principles for
coral reef restoration in the Anthropocene. One Earth 6, 656–665
(2023).

Nature Climate Change | Volume 15 | April 2025 | 375–384
384
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
99.	 Hart, P. S. et al. Moral hazard or not? The effects of learning about
carbon dioxide removal on perceptions of climate mitigation in
the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 89, 102656 (2022).
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2025

Nature Climate Change
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
Methods
Survey instrument design
Observations and attitudes towards novel marine-climate interven-
tions were surveyed using an online survey–questionnaire targeting
active practitioners. Questions were designed to capture observational
data describing current arrangements for governing interventions and
positional attitudinal data concerning perceived benefits and costs,
gaps in governance, risks, and missed and emerging opportunities
(see survey–questionnaire in Supplementary Table 8). Types of inter-
ventions used to design response options were identified from recent
authoritative reviews15,34,84. The questionnaire used a mix of selected
choice questions, ratings and open-ended text response questions. The
questionnaire was delivered using Qualtricsxm online survey software.
The survey instrument and specific questions were pre-tested
by members of the research group, revised and then formally piloted
through a soft launch of the survey in October 2022 with members of
the study’s technical advisory committee.
Ethics statement
The study was approved by the James Cook University Human Research
Ethics Committee (approval number H88845) in accordance with the
Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research,
2007 (Updated 2018)100, which addresses matters of harm and benefit
to study participants. The recruitment method and survey instrument
were designed to provide participants with information about the
study and obtain informed consent before participation through an
initial screening question.
Participant selection and recruitment
Actors engaged in novel marine-climate interventions constitute an
emerging group. The survey was designed to target participants in this
broad group via their participation in professional networks associated
with interventions. Participant selection was therefore opportunistic,
and stratified sampling of specific sub-groups, such as Traditional
Owners and First Nations, was not pursued101. Strategies to limit sample
bias included translating the survey–questionnaire into six languages:
English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Japanese and Chinese (Simpli-
fied). The survey was distributed to professional networks engaged in
a wide range of marine-climate interventions, including marine and
coastal restoration, marine conservation, community and small-scale
fisher development, marine carbon dioxide removal and other forms of
geoengineering, seafood afforestation, solar radiation management,
and coastal and marine community adaptation planning. Professional
practitioner networks assisting with survey distribution in the later
stages of recruitment also included practitioners from the NGO sec-
tors, local community representatives and Traditional Owners and
First Nations.
Professional communities approached were invited to respond on
the basis of their engagement with ‘new and emerging’ marine-climate
interventions. The survey instrument was designed to collect both
descriptive and attitudinal data about the broad array of observed
interventions as well as those specific interventions for which respond-
ents had subject-matter expertise and direct professional experience.
Examples of interventions were provided in recruitment materials to
assist in clarifying the term, and these included assisted evolution,
cloud brightening, seaweed farming, coral propagation and trans-
location. These examples were not exhaustive of a broader range
of interventions and may have had limited recruitment of potential
respondents engaged in other types of interventions.
Practitioners were recruited for survey through professional
open online networks and using published affiliations information.
Recruitment methods included general broadcast emails using profes-
sional international email lists, published professional email addresses
and social media posts in six languages via Twitter using professional
accounts. Multiple phases of recruitment occurred in early October
2022, mid November 2022, late January 2023 and early March 2023.
The same distribution methods were used with revised recruitment
and advertising messages reflecting the stage of the survey and the
time left to participate.
Data collection
The online survey–questionnaire was launched on 31 October 2022
and remained open until 15 March 2023. Three hundred and thirty-two
responses met the criteria for level of question completion and were
retained for analysis. These responses included those undertaken in
five non-English languages—Chinese, Japanese, French, Portuguese and
Spanish—which accounted for 18% of the final sample. These responses
were translated into English by native speakers with marine expertise
before analysis.
Survey data were not treated to any weighting to adjust for the
expected population because the survey population was an emerg-
ing specialist group, and population characteristics were not estab-
lished. Response rates to the survey by sub-group are therefore not
reported. Representativeness of the survey data was therefore sub-
ject to sample bias although recruitment methods were adjusted to
target non-English speakers in five other languages and practitioners
in non-scientific networks. A degree of sample bias was accepted as
an expected limitation of the study due to the nature of the emerging
group being surveyed and the online survey–questionnaire instru-
ment used101. No identifying data were collected from respondents
although in some cases participants provided personal identifying
data in response to open-text questions.
Data analysis
Two units of analysis were used to examine the data. Data on respond-
ents’ role, interaction with interventions and general awareness of
interventions were treated as data about the respondents, while data
in response to survey question six onwards were treated as data about
the intervention the respondent was asked to identify as the one with
which they were most familiar.
Selected choice data where respondents answered by selecting
from a pre-determined set of options were analysed using basic descrip-
tive statistics (frequency counts). These included questions to identify
awareness of interventions, involvement in active intervention plan-
ning and deployment, the stage of development of the intervention
respondents were most familiar with, the types of actors and organi-
zations engaged in their development and the presence or absence of
specific governance arrangements. Open-ended text responses were
analysed using thematic content analysis102–104 to code data and thereby
convert the qualitative data into quantitative data. To increase coding
reliability105, first-pass coding frameworks were reviewed and tested by
other members of the project team before finalizing and then under-
taking the thematic analysis. Basic descriptive statistics (frequency
counts) were then used to analyse the coded survey data by theme.
Both selected choice data and open-ended text data describ-
ing the types and sub-types of interventions respondents (n = 332
respondents) were aware of and were most familiar with (n = 240 inter-
ventions) were initially analysed using a coding framework based on
the initial typology we developed from a review of published studies
(Supplementary Table 2). Inductive thematic coding of open-text
data describing interventions was undertaken using NVivo 20 quali-
tative research software, and initial type and sub-type codes were
subsequently adjusted in response to survey data thematic codes
(Supplementary Table 9). These final codes were checked against the
choice response the respondents selected for verification and against
more recent authoritative reviews (for example, review by the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine10) for salience.
Open-ended text data about the location of the identified inter-
ventions were analysed using a coding framework developed in Nvivo
and organized by oceans and seas described in response data text.

Nature Climate Change
Article
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4
Frequency analysis was then undertaken by intervention type and
sub-type using the following identified oceans and seas: North Atlantic,
South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, Red Sea, Mediterranean
Sea, Indian Ocean, Wider Caribbean, Australia (tropical), and Australia
and New Zealand (temperate).
Open-ended text data in which respondents identified the climate
goals of the intervention they were most familiar with were thematically
coded using a coding framework developed from the ten intervention
climate benefits identified by review of the literature (Supplementary
Tables 3 and 10). Frequency analysis was then undertaken by climate
benefit code, and data were analysed for distributions of climate goals
by intervention type. Open-ended text data in which respondents iden-
tified the major risks and opportunities of the identified intervention
were thematically coded using a coding framework developed induc-
tively from the data (Supplementary Table 7). Frequency analysis was
then undertaken by type of risk or missed opportunity.
To determine the extent of responsible governance of new
marine-climate interventions, we developed a methodological heu-
ristic by extending Stilgoe31 and Macnaghten’s35 framework for respon-
sible innovation (based on anticipation, inclusion, responsiveness,
reflexivity), which they apply to emerging scientific innovations and in
particular to climate geoengineering innovations. We matched these
four dimensions to the new categories of marine-climate intervention
risk (Table 1), which we developed from the literature. In extending the
responsible innovation framework, we defined responsible govern-
ance as rules, guidance and steerage overseen by governing actors
to prevent intervention risk. We identified specific examples of such
governance arrangements through a review of the literature on instru-
ments and processes for governing technical feasibility, cumulative risk
and impact assessment, including public deliberation in intervention
development and approval and anticipatory climate governance. These
specific governance arrangements were then matched to relevant
survey response data fields (Supplementary Tables 1 and 5). Indication
of the specific governance arrangements described in survey ques-
tions was analysed for each intervention type using basic descriptive
statistics (Supplementary Tables 4 and 6).
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature
Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
The raw dataset generated by the survey research is not available due
to restrictions to protect study participant privacy and to limit reuse to
studies of a similar nature, in accordance with the National Statement
on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, 2007 (Updated 2018)100 (James
Cook University Human Research Ethics Committee approval number
H88845). The processed and de-identified dataset is, however, available
from the authors on reasonable request for studies of a similar nature.
References
100.	National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007
(Updated 2018) (The National Health and Medical Research
Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities
Australia, 2018).
101.	 McRobert, C. J. et al. A multi-modal recruitment strategy using
social media and internet-mediated methods to recruit a
multidisciplinary, international sample of clinicians to an online
research study. PLoS ONE 13, e0200184 (2018).
102.	Naeem, M. et al. A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to
develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual.
Methods 22, 16094069231205788 (2023).
103.	Lin, A. C. Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to
qualitative methods. Policy Stud. J. 26, 162–180 (1998).
104.	Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods
Sourcebook (Sage, 1994).
105.	Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Toward good practice in thematic analysis:
avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing
researcher. Int. J. Transgend. Health 24, 1–6 (2023).
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the translators of the survey–questionnaire
and responses: S. Kwong, M. Angelini, J. Morias, V. Huertas, M. Tatsumi,
H. Mera and C. Appert. C. Cullen-Knox assisted in data analyses.
Illustration and figure design work was undertaken by V. H. Martin.
Funding for this study was received from the Australian Government
via the Australia Research Council Discovery Projects grant scheme
for the project, Novel governance for marine ecosystems in rapid
transition (DP220103921; T.H.M., T.H., G.T.P. and E.M.O.). The authors
thank attendees of the international Governing Changing Oceans
workshops, where early versions of this manuscript were presented
and discussed, in particular P. Cohen. The workshops were funded
through The Nature Conservancy’s Science for Nature and People
Partnership (SNAPP 054: Governing Changing Oceans; T.H.M., G.T.P
and P. Cohen). They were supported in kind by UTAS, IMAS, Centre
for Marine Socioecology, University of Melbourne, Wageningen
University, Packard Foundation, Conservation International, Australian
Institute of Marine Science, the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral
Reef Studies and WorldFish-CGIAR.
Author contributions
E.M.O. led the literature review, survey design, data collection, survey
data analysis and manuscript preparation. G.T.P. contributed to
survey design, survey data analysis and manuscript preparation. T.H.
contributed to survey design and manuscript preparation. S.L. and
C.L. contributed to survey data analysis and manuscript preparation.
K.L.N. contributed to the literature review, survey data analysis and
visualization. T.H.M. co-led the literature review, survey design and
data collection and contributed to the survey data analysis and
manuscript preparation.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version
contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02291-4.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
Emily M. Ogier.
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Christopher L.
Cummings, Yuwan Malakar and Yoshitaka Ota for their contribution to
the peer review of this work.
Reprints and permissions information is available at
www.nature.com/reprints.

1
nature portfolio  |  reporting summary
April 2023
Corresponding author(s):
Emily M. Ogier
Last updated by author(s): 06/02/2025
Reporting Summary
Nature Portfolio wishes to improve the reproducibility of the work that we publish. This form provides structure for consistency and transparency
in reporting. For further information on Nature Portfolio policies, see our Editorial Policies and the Editorial Policy Checklist.
Statistics
For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.
n/a Confirmed
The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement
A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly
The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one- or two-sided
Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.
A description of all covariates tested
A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons
A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient)
AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals)
For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted
Give P values as exact values whenever suitable.
For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings
For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes
Estimates of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated
Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above.
Software and code
Policy information about availability of computer code
Data collection
Qualtricsxm online survey program (v. 09.2022)
Data analysis
Qualtricsxm online survey program (v. 07.2023)
For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors and
reviewers. We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g. GitHub). See the Nature Portfolio guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.
Data
Policy information about availability of data
All manuscripts must include a data availability statement. This statement should provide the following information, where applicable:
- Accession codes, unique identifiers, or web links for publicly available datasets
- A description of any restrictions on data availability
- For clinical datasets or third party data, please ensure that the statement adheres to our policy

The raw dataset generated by the survey research is not available due to restrictions to protect study participant privacy, in accordance with the Australian National
Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, 2007 (Update 2018) (approval number H88845). The processed and de-identified dataset is subject to controlled
access, whereby access can be permitted for ‘extended’ use of data in future research projects that are either (i) an extension of, or closely related to, the original

2
nature portfolio  |  reporting summary
April 2023
project; or (ii) in the same general area of research (for example, social research), in accordance with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research, 2007 (Update 2018). The authors will respond to requests made via email to make data available within 6 weeks.
Research involving human participants, their data, or biological material
Policy information about studies with human participants or human data. See also policy information about sex, gender (identity/presentation),
and sexual orientation and race, ethnicity and racism.
Reporting on sex and gender
Not applicable
Reporting on race, ethnicity, or
other socially relevant
groupings
Groupings of survey participants was reported on the basis of professional engagement with novel marine-climate
interventions. Groupings used in reporting results were: scientists; policymakers; Non-Government Organisation
practitioners; representatives of Traditional Owners and First Nations; representatives of local community or industry
sectors; representatives of industry organisations.
Population characteristics
Practitioners engaged in novel marine-climate interventions constitute a specialist group. The survey was designed to target
participants in this group via their participation in professional networks associated with interventions. Participation selection
was therefore opportunistic and stratified sampling was not pursued. However, the survey-questionnaire was made available
in six languages: English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese (Simplified).
Recruitment
This specialist group was recruited for survey through professional open online networks and using published affiliations
information. The survey instrument was designed to collect both descriptive and attitudinal data about the broad array of
observed interventions as well as those specific interventions for which respondents had subject matter expertise and direct
professional experience.

Recruitment methods included general broadcast emails using professional international email lists and social media posts in
six languages via Twitter using professional accounts. Professional communities approached were invited to respond based
on their engagement with “new and emerging” marine-climate interventions. Examples of interventions were provided in
recruitment materials to assist in clarifying the term, and these included assisted evolution, cloud brightening, seaweed
farming, coral propagation and translocation. These examples were not exhaustive of a broader range of interventions and
may have had limited recruitment of potential respondents engaged in other types of interventions. Representativeness of
the survey data was therefore subject to sample bias but this was accepted as an expected limitation due to the nature of the
specialist group being targeted and the online survey-questionnaire instrument used.
Ethics oversight
Jame Cook University Human Research Ethics Committee
Note that full information on the approval of the study protocol must also be provided in the manuscript.
Field-specific reporting
Please select the one below that is the best fit for your research. If you are not sure, read the appropriate sections before making your selection.
Life sciences
Behavioural & social sciences
 Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences
For a reference copy of the document with all sections, see nature.com/documents/nr-reporting-summary-flat.pdf
Behavioural & social sciences study design
All studies must disclose on these points even when the disclosure is negative.
Study description
Observations and attitudes to novel marine-climate interventions were surveyed using an online survey-questionnaire targeting
active practitioners. Questions were designed using mixed methods to capture quantitative and qualitative observational data
describing the state-of-play of governance of interventions and positional attitudinal data concerning perceived benefits and costs,
gaps in governance, risks, and missed and emerging opportunities. The questionnaire used a mix of selected choice questions, ratings
and open-ended text response.
Research sample
The research sample were practitioners professionally engaged in novel marine-climate interventions, inclusive of funders, research
scientists, representatives of First Nations, industry or community groups partnering in interventions, and government agency staff
involved in policy development or regulation. The research sample was not representative. Rationale for the chosen research sample
was based on the emergence of this professional community and its unknown population size.
Sampling strategy
Opportunistic sampling was used. No statistical methods were used to pre-determine the sample size because the total population of
practitioners being targeted for the research was not known (i.e., as an emergent practitioner community). As no sample sizes were
chosen, the sample size obtained (n=332) was deemed to be sufficient as thematic saturation was observed in the qualitative
responses to open-ended questions.
Data collection
Data was collected via the questionnaire, which was delivered using Qualtricsxm online survey software (v. 09.2022). The
questionnaire was completed at the participants' convenience and no researcher was present. Researchers involved in collecting the
study data were aware of the study hypothesis. No experimental conditions were used in the research.

3
nature portfolio  |  reporting summary
April 2023
Timing
The online survey was conducted continuously between 31/10/2022 - 15/03/2023.
Data exclusions
Two data exclusions were applied, as follows:
- Data which was personally identifying (three instances). One instance of this occurred where a participant entered a written text
response to an open-ended question which named another researcher. Two additional instances included the respondents providing
specific identifying details of their professional roles.
- Data entered in response to open-text questions which did not meet data inclusion criteria (79 instances). Specifically, data were
excluded where the entries were not recognisable as text and thematic coding was not possible.
Non-participation
The number of participants who did not proceed once informed consent had been indicated via the online survey screening question
was 46. This group was not included in the sample for analysis.
Randomization
Participants were not allocated into experimental groups. Reported groups were based on self-selected choice options provided in
the questionnaire for type of practitioner.
Reporting for specific materials, systems and methods
We require information from authors about some types of materials, experimental systems and methods used in many studies. Here, indicate whether each material,
system or method listed is relevant to your study. If you are not sure if a list item applies to your research, read the appropriate section before selecting a response.
Materials & experimental systems
n/a Involved in the study
Antibodies
Eukaryotic cell lines
Palaeontology and archaeology
Animals and other organisms
Clinical data
Dual use research of concern
Plants
Methods
n/a Involved in the study
ChIP-seq
Flow cytometry
MRI-based neuroimaging
Novel plant genotypes
N/A
Seed stocks
N/A
Authentication
N/A
Plants

    Scientific Research Study Methods:

Answer: We used an online questionnaire to survey the emerging global community of marine–climate intervention practitioners, bringing together critical information on this rapidly emerging field. We gathered data from 332 participants, including the types of novel interventions being developed or deployed, how these interventions are being designed, their geographic distribution and stage of development, types of climate goals and benefits pursued, and the arrangements (if any) for responsible governance. Using these results, we developed a typology of major types and sub-types of novel marine–climate interventions. To track the extent to which governance arrangements are keeping pace with novel marine–climate interventions, we extended existing frameworks for responsible research and innovation to incorporate the governance phase. We examined the arrangements currently used to assess, plan for and manage interventions in marine systems against our responsible governance framework. Our approach allowed us to assess the extent of governance preparedness in this global arena of emerging technologies.