DOI: 10.5061/dryad.7pvmcvf72
title: Community-based marine restoration to generate social license and ecological knowledge for upscaling oyster reef restoration

description: Community-led restoration operates at the intersection of ecological
 feasibility and social acceptability. In the marine realm, restoration is
 challenging due to gaps in ecological knowledge on how and where to
 restore lost ecosystems and limited public engagement that provides social
 license for restoration. The restoration of lost oyster reefs provides a
 prime example because these ecosystems have been degraded to functional
 extinction on many coastlines, resulting in limited knowledge on their
 restoration potential and generational amnesia among communities that
 these ecosystems ever existed. To generate an evidence-based and social
 license for future restoration work, we engaged high school students and
 coastal residents in research on where to restore lost oyster reefs in
 South Australia’s iconic Coffin Bay. Using a mixed methods approach, we
 aimed to understand (1) the motivation of high school students to
 participate in restoration research, (2) to quantify ecological responses
 to habitat provision (oyster and biodiversity recruitment) to identify
 appropriate restoration sites, and (3) assess the response of residents’
 to the ecological outcomes, including their willingness to support future
 restoration efforts. The high school students anticipated
 personal benefits (e.g., new experiences, career development),
 environmental benefits (e.g., nature connection), and benefited the local
 community (e.g., recreational activities). Students received SCUBA diving
 certification that enabled them to deploy 28 restoration units (shell
 baskets) at 8 sites throughout Coffin Bay. This experiment was retrieved
 after 3 months to reveal high-density recruitment of oysters and
 biodiversity at all sites, key environmental indicators for identifying
 suitable sites for restoration. Most residents engaged with the results
 expressed surprise in the ecological outcomes (the density of native
 oyster recruitment and associated diversity of marine life) and were very
 supportive of more oyster restoration occurring (91% of respondents). This
 study demonstrates that ecological feasibility and social licence are not
 sequential hurdles to be overcome independently, but mutually reinforcing
 processes that can be co-generated through community-based research. These
 results show that when restoration is designed as a socio-ecological
 learning system, rather than a technical intervention alone, it can unlock
 local stewardship, political momentum, and generate restoration-ready
 knowledge.
description: <strong>Study overview</strong>
 This social-ecological research describes the initial phase of an
 ongoing program to restore native <em>Ostrea angasi</em>
 oyster reefs across South Australia through community-led restoration. In
 this paper, we focus on the program’s initiation in Coffin Bay, including
 project conceptualisation, study co-design, student engagement, ecological
 fieldwork, and community response. Our social analyses focus on student
 motivations to participate and residents’ responses to our ecological data
 because these provide insight into how people connect with local
 environments and how they perceive restoration (Fox & Cundill,
 2018; Furness, 2021). Ecologically, our analyses focus on oyster
 recruitment dynamics and biodiversity enhancement because these provide
 key knowledge to inform the location and timing of restoration efforts
 (McAfee & Connell 2020). First, we provide a brief overview of the
 program’s development to date, followed by detailed methods for each
 phase. This project was conceptualised through
 collaboration between Coffin Bay residents, local business owners, marine
 parks managers and m, and marine scientists. A marine ecologist and a
 local NT and SCUBA diving business owner (co-authors D. McAfee and M.
 Katz, respectively) coordinated the project’s development through a series
 of online and face-to-face meetings with key stakeholders. To enable
 knowledge sharing between the community and the project leads, these
 meetings included a catered community forum that approximately 80
 residents attended (~16% of Coffin Bay’s residents), and targeted meetings
 with existing conservation groups (Lower Eyre Coastcare), oyster farmers,
 and State Government marine park managers. These meetings contributed to
 the co-design of the ecological field experiment, including site
 identification using local ecological knowledge. Meetings with the marine
 parks managers led to the inclusion of experimental sites within Sanctuary
 Zones to assess their influence on biodiversity recruitment (key knowledge
 for government managers). This collaborative approach ensured the research
 generated data relevant to both oyster restoration (e.g., spatial
 distribution of oyster recruitment) and local stakeholders, aligning with
 guidance for integrating ecological and social dimensions in marine
 restoration (Saunders et al. 2024). Once the ecological
 experiment was designed and scientific research permits received
 (MR00234-1, D. McAfee), regional high school students were engaged with
 the project through scientific presentations at two local high schools.
 Following a recruitment and training process (described in section 2.3),
 10 high school students worked alongside diving professionals to construct
 and deploy the field experiment across eight sites within Coffin Bay (Fig.
 1).  After three months, researchers retrieved and processed the
 experiment with the assistance of the same high school students.  The
 ecological results were shared with the broader community through a poster
 displayed on local community notice boards and at a public nature
 festival, and were shared through social media. Community responses were
 then recorded via online surveys (described in section 2.5). Finally,
 outcomes from both the ecological and social data were presented to
 government stakeholders to inform the next phase of this restoration
 project, which is ongoing. All human data was collected following human
 ethics approval from the University of Adelaide (H-2021-140).
  <strong>Study location</strong>
 The ecological research was conducted in the sheltered temperate
 waters of Coffin Bay, on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula. The Eyre
 Peninsula is a large agricultural region with a sparse population (0.25
 people km<sup>-2</sup>), known for its coastal towns,
 recreational fishing, seafood industries, and mining. The waters of Coffin
 Bay are within the Thorny Passage Marine Park that includes multiple
 Sanctuary Zones that exclude all fishing activity (Fig. 1). The bay’s
 tidal regime includes mixed semidiurnal and diurnal patterns influenced by
 several narrow inlets that restrict water movement, resulting in slow
 flushing and variable water flow across the various bays (Kampf &
 Ellis 015). Coffin Bay is part of the ancestral lands
 of the Nauo people, who fished these coastal waters for thousands of years
 before European settlement. Large oyster reef ecosystems formed by
 <em>Ostrea angasi</em> characterised the seafloor at the time
 of European settlement in South Australia. The first colonial settlement
 of Coffin Bay (early 1840s) was called “Oyster Town” due to the productive
 oyster dredge fishery it supported (Alleway & Connell 2015).
 Coffin Bay had some of the largest oyster reefs in South Australia, but
 decades of overharvesting drove the native oyster population to functional
 extinction, and the oyster dredge fishery collapsed within a century
 (Alleway & Connell 2015). The combined impacts of oyster dredging,
 which removed all the shell substrate that oysters need to recruit and
 regenerate reefs, and coastal land use change that resulted in sediment
 runoff that smothered the remaining shell, mean that there has been very
 little natural reef recovery since dredging ended (McAfee et al. 2022a).
 Coffin Bay has maintained its oyster industry through the highly
 successful aquaculture of introduced Pacific oysters (<em>Magallana
 gigas</em>) that continues to underpin the local economy. This
 historical context highlights the long-term socio-economic and ecological
 significance of oysters to the region, and the opportunity for
 community-engaged restoration of native oysters.
 <strong>Recruitment and analysis of student motivation to
 participate</strong> To engage local high school
 students in the project, 10 students (~15-17 years old) were recruited to
 participate following scientific presentations given by the project leads
 at their schools (Cummins Area High School, Port Lincoln High School).
 Presentations described the ecological role of oysters, current
 restoration efforts, and the project’s aims. The students were encouraged
 to apply to participate in the preparation and deployment of the field
 experiment, a process that included the students' SCUBA diving
 training and PADI Open Water Diver certification at no cost to the
 students (training was funded by an Environmental Citizen Science Small
 Grant from the South Australian Government, E. Katz). To apply, students
 were asked to submit a 1-page essay on why they would like to be involved
 in the project, which was submitted with parental consent. Ten students
 were accepted into the program and completed their diving certification
 before assisting researchers with the underwater experiment (Section
 2.4). Student motivations were analysed using inductive
 thematic coding to identify recurring motivational themes across all
 essays (Williams & Moser, 2019). Essays included multiple
 motivations that were categorised into three emergent themes related to
 (1) Personal Benefits, (2) Environmental Benefits, and (3) Community
 & Social Opportunities (Pichler et al. 2025). All motivations were
 captured; however, each motivational word or phrase was assigned to a
 single theme to avoid double-counting. We tallied the number of times each
 motivation was mentioned and used a word cloud generator to visually
 represent each motivation’s relative contribution (font size increasing
 with the frequency of use). This process provides insight into the varied
 and multifaceted reasons that motivate students to engage in restoration
 and helps to demonstrate how youth participation can contribute to
 generating social license for restoration initiatives (Bela et al. 2016;
 Kelly et al. 2019). While ocean literacy was not the primary focus, the
 process of students reflecting on their motivations to participate can
 contribute to a deeper understanding of marine ecosystems and human–ocean
 relationships (Jefferson et al. 2015; O'Brien et al. 2023).
  <strong>Ecological restoration
 experiment</strong> <em>Experimental
 design</em> To assess the feasibility and
 biodiversity benefits of restoring oyster reefs and identify priority
 sites for future restoration efforts, the ecological research was designed
 to assess where oyster larvae and marine biodiversity recruitment were
 greatest to oyster habitat “restoration units”. Additionally, to assess
 the influence of spatial closures aimed to protect marine biodiversity, we
 utilised four no fishing Sanctuary Zones within Coffin Bay, complimented
 by four adjacent Control sites outside sanctuary boundaries
 (<em>n</em> = 8 sites total; Fig. 1). Within each Sanctuary
 Zone and Control site, four and three restoration units were respectively
 positioned on sandy seafloor by the school students, equalling a total of
 <em>n</em> = 28 restoration units deployed across eight
 sites. Each “restoration unit” consisted of 100 clean
 <em>O. angasi</em> oyster shells (shell height: ~10–15 cm)
 placed inside a plastic mesh crate (L×W×H: 40×20×15 cm, open top) that
 enabled water and small animals to freely move through the shell
 substrata. This shell layer within each restoration unit represents the
 non-living structure of oyster reefs that provide habitat for recruiting
 oyster larvae and associated organisms (McAfee et al. 2024). The dead
 oyster shells, which were collected from historical reef sites that had
 long been covered by sediment, were collected by the school students on
 SCUBA by gently excavating them by hand from the sediment surface. Any
 organisms present were removed by hand and s, and sand holes were cleaned
 by high-pressure hose before being dried and sterilised in the sun.
 Thereafter, shells were randomly assigned to the 28 restoration units*.*
 Each restoration unit had two vertically-attached settlement panels (15 ×
 15 cm concrete board; Williams et al. 2024) to provide a standardised unit
 with which to assess oyster recruitment and size among sites. To maximise
 the likelihood of natural oyster recruitment, restoration units were
 deployed during the known oyster recruitment season (January to April;
 McAfee & Connell 2020). All units were deployed on the same day
 and were collected after three months at the end of the recruitment season
 for immediate onshore processing. <em>Processing
 restoration units</em>  Immediately following
 collection, researchers and school students identified marine organisms
 within the restoration units to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Large
 and readily identifiable organisms were immediately released, while small
 invertebrates and cryptic species were preserved in 70% ethanol for later
 identification in the laboratory under a stereo microscope. Identified
 species were uploaded to the iNaturalist database to cross-reference their
 spatial distribution with other records (www.inaturalist.org; an open-access network of experts and citizen scientists recording and verifying biodiversity). Oyster recruitment was quantified on both the er oyster settlement panels. Recruitment to oyster shells was immediately assessed for each restoration unit using magnifying glasses. In the laboratory, oyster recruits on the settlement panels were counted under disseca tion microscope and categorised by shell length (&lt;2 mm, 2–5 mm, 5–10 mm, 10–15 mm, 15–20 mm, &gt;20 mm; Fig. S1) as a proxy for settlement timing. For the settlement panels, oyster counts were standardised per m² and averaged between the two panels on each restoration unit to provide a single value per replicate unit (i.e., <em>n</em> = 4 per Sanctuary Site and <em>n</em> = 3 per Control site). <em>Statistical analysis of oyster recruitment and biodiversity</em> To assess factors influencing oyster recruitment and biodiversity, we used a combination of negative binomial generalised linear models (GLMs), Wilcoxon rank sum tests (for non-parametric comparisons where data did not meet assumptions of normality), and permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA). Due to the loss of two restoration units at the Eely Point Control site, both Eely Point sites were excluded from statistical analysis to avoid an unbalanced design, although Eely Point data were still visualised within figures to avoid loss of informative data. Therefore, GLMs were applied to evaluate the effects of <em>Site</em> (3 levels: Dutton Bay, Kellidie Bay, Yangie Bay) and <em>Area</em> (2 levels, fixed: Sanctuary vs. Control), with post-hoc comparisons to identify the direction of differences. All statistical analyses were conducted using R (v.4.3.1; R Core Team 2023) using packages: <em>MASS</em> for negative binomial models, <em>vegan</em> for NMDS and community structure, <em>ggplot2</em> for visualisation, and <em>emmeans</em> for post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Oyster recruitment, species richness, and organism abundance data (excluding oysters) were highly variable and violated the assumptions of ANOVA (normality and equal variance). Therefore, GLMs were used to account for overdispersion, confirmed by comparing the residual deviance to the degrees of freedom in initial Poisson models. Full models included Site (3 levels), Area (2 levels), and their interaction (Site × Area). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted with Tukey-adjusted p-values (emmeans package). Species diversity was further assessed using Shannon-Weiner and Simpson diversity indices that account for species richness, evenness, and dominance. Indices were calculated per basket for comparison between sites and protection areas using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Differences in community composition among Sites, Areas, and their interaction were assessed using PERMANOVA via the adonis2() function, with pairwise post-hoc comparisons explored using pairwise.adonis(). Before analysis, species abundance data were square root-transformed and Wisconsin double-standardised to reduce the influence of dominant taxa. Differences were visualised using NMDS on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, performed using the metaMDS() function in the <em>vegan</em> package in R, based on the full species-by-site matrix. <strong>Public survey design</strong> <strong>and analysis</strong> Following processing of the ecological data, Coffin Bay residents were engaged with the main ecological outcomes through face-to-face presentations by the project leaders and through information sheets distributed via social media platforms, local community group newsletters, and via posters positioned in public places (e.g., noticeboards). Accompanying the information sheets was a QR code for residents to access a short online survey designed to gather community responses to the project outcomes and people’s likelihood of supporting future restoration activities (Appendix 2). Because we were interested in perceptions of the restoration work and not public opinion on Sanctuary Zones, which are politically divisive in this region (Kirkman 2013), the ted data did not mention the use of the Sanctuary Zones. The survey was hosted by SurveyMonkey and was accessible for two months (October – December 2024), during which time <em>n</em> = 44 members of the public completed the survey (~7% of localents). The survey consisted of four components that could be answered quickly (i.e., multiple-choice and Likert-scale responses), and an open-ended question to allow participants to elaborate on their thoughts (Appendix 2). Briefly, the survey consisted of questions related to: (1) demographic information, including participant age group and postcode to confirm residency; (2) which aspect of the data most surprised the participant (e.g., oyster recruitment outcomes; amount of biodiversity; no surprises); (3) likelihood of supporting larger restoration work (using a five-point Likert-scale approach); and (4) an open-ended question to enable additional comments. Outcomes of the multiple-choice and Likert-scale responses were summarised using descriptive statistics (proportions, percentages). Open-ended responses were assessed to identify recurring ideas, concerns, or novel suggestions. Additionally, ANOVA was used to test whether age group or postcode location influenced responses to the question: <em>“How likely would you be to support larger oyster reef restoration in Coffin Bay?”</em>
description: # Community-based marine restoration to generate social license and
 ecological knowledge for upscaling oyster reef restoration Dataset DOI:
 [10.5061/dryad.7pvmcvf72](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7pvmcvf72) ##
 **Description of the data and file structure** This dataset contains the
 ecological and social data used in Lindsey et al., *Community-based marine
 restoration to revive ecology and human connections to forgotten reef*.
 The study tested the concept that ecological feasibility and social
 licence can be co-generated through community-based marine restoration
 research. The project was conducted in Coffin Bay, South Australia, where
 high school students and residents participated in the deployment and
 monitoring of small-scale oyster reef restoration units. Ecological data
 include oyster recruitment counts, species richness, abundance, and
 community composition recorded from 28 shell-based restoration units
 deployed across eight sites (four within Marine Protected Areas and four
 in adjacent Control areas). These data were used to assess patterns of
 oyster settlement, biodiversity enhancement, and site-level variation in
 recruitment dynamics. Social data include anonymised student essay
 responses describing motivations to participate in restoration and
 de-identified community survey responses capturing perceptions of the
 ecological outcomes and willingness to support future restoration work.
 All data and R code necessary to reproduce the statistical analyses (e.g.,
 GLMs, diversity indices, PERMANOVA, and visualisations) are included. 
 
 ### **Files and variables** **File: Coffin_Bay_Biodiversity_2024.xlsx and
 Coffin_Bay_Biodiversity_2024.csv** **Description:** This file contains
 species-level biodiversity data collected from shell-based oyster
 restoration units deployed at eight sites in Coffin Bay, South Australia,
 between January and April 2024. Each row represents a restoration unit
 (“basket”), with columns detailing the presence and abundance of
 macroinvertebrate and fish taxa identified from samples. The dataset
 includes taxonomic classification, site metadata, and counts of
 individuals per species. Species richness, abundance, and community
 composition data were collected from shell-based restoration units
 deployed at eight sites across Coffin Bay, South Australia. These data
 were used for multivariate community analysis (NMDS, PERMANOVA) and
 calculation of diversity indices. **Variables** * `Order` – Taxonomic
 order of each species (e.g., Decapoda, Isopoda, Polychaeta). * `Family` –
 Taxonomic family (e.g., Portunidae, Dromiidae, Sphaeromatidae). * `Site` –
 Sampling location (Dutton Bay, Eely Point, Kellidie Bay, Yangie Bay). *
 `Area` – Protection status: *Sanctuary Area *or *Control*. * `Basket_ID` –
 Identifier for individual restoration units (1–28). **File:
 Coffin_Bay_Oyster_Panels_2024.xlsx and Coffin_Bay_Oyster_Panels_2024.csv**
 **Description:** This dataset contains raw counts of oyster spat and
 barnacle recruits recorded from settlement panels attached to oyster
 restoration units deployed across Coffin Bay, South Australia. Data were
 collected between January and April 2024 to quantify spatial variation in
 oyster settlement, size structure, and recruitment density across Control
 (non-sanctuary) and Experimental (sanctuary) zones. **Variables** * `Site`
 – Sampling location (Dutton Bay, Eely Point, Kellidie Bay, Yangie Bay). *
 `Panel_ID` – Unique identifier for each settlement panel. * `&lt;2 mm` –
 Count of oyster spat less than 2 mm in shell length (individuals per
 panel). * `&lt;5 mm` – Count of oyster spat less than 5 mm in shell length
 (individuals per panel). * `5–10 mm` – Count of oyster spat 5–10 mm in
 shell length (individuals per panel). * `10–15 mm` – Count of oyster spat
 10–15 mm in shell length (individuals per panel). * `15–20 mm` – Count of
 oyster spat 15–20 mm in shell length (individuals per panel). * `&gt;20
 mm` – Count of oyster spat greater than 20 mm in shell length (individuals
 per panel). * `Barnacles` – Total number of barnacle recruits observed per
 panel. * `Total_Oysters` – Total number of oyster recruits summed across
 all size classes per panel. * `Average_Per_Basket` – Mean number of oyster
 recruits per restoration unit (unitless). * `Average_Per_m²` –
 Standardised oyster density per square metre (individuals m⁻²). **File:
 Coffin_Bay_Oysters_Baskets_2024.xlsx and
 Coffin_Bay_Oysters_Baskets_2024.csv** **Description:** This dataset
 contains oyster recruitment and barnacle settlement data recorded from
 shell-filled restoration baskets deployed across Coffin Bay, South
 Australia. Each basket served as a small-scale restoration unit for
 quantifying oyster settlement success, size-class distribution, and
 associated invertebrate colonisation. Data were collected between January
 and April 2024 across multiple sites representing Control and Experimental
 (sanctuary) areas. These data were used to quantify site-level oyster
 settlement, recruitment rates, and ecological feasibility for larger-scale
 reef restoration. **Variables** * `Site` – Sampling location (Dutton Bay,
 Eely Point, Kellidie Bay, Yangie Bay). * `Basket_ID` – Unique identifier
 for each restoration basket. * `&lt;2 mm` – Count of oyster spat less than
 2 mm shell length (individuals per basket). * `&lt;5 mm` – Count of oyster
 spat less than 5 mm shell length (individuals per basket). * `6–10 mm` –
 Count of oyster spat 6–10 mm shell length (individuals per basket). *
 `11–15 mm` – Count of oyster spat 11–15 mm shell length (individuals per
 basket). * `16–20 mm` – Count of oyster spat 16–20 mm shell length
 (individuals per basket). * `&gt;20 mm` – Count of oyster spat greater
 than 20 mm shell length (individuals per basket). * `Barnacles` – Total
 number of barnacle recruits observed per basket. * `Total_Oysters` – Total
 number of oysters summed across all size classes per basket. *
 `Average_of_100_Oysters_per_Site` – Normalised mean oyster count per site
 (unitless; scaled to 100 oysters for standardisation). **File:
 Word_cloud.xlsx and Word_cloud_.csv** **Description** This file contains
 the coded word-frequency data used to generate word clouds and descriptive
 theme summaries for the qualitative component of Lindsey et al. (in
 review). Words were extracted from high school student reflection essays
 completed after participating in oyster reef restoration activities in
 Coffin Bay, South Australia. Each word was coded into one of three
 overarching thematic categories — **Self**, **Nature/Environment**, and
 **Community**— representing how students described their motivations,
 feelings, experiences, and personal connection to the project. The counts
 represent the number of times each word appeared across all student
 essays. Theme totals and proportional contributions (%) are provided to
 quantify the relative emphasis students placed on each dimension of their
 experience. This dataset was used to visualise student reflections,
 explore dominant themes, and support the interpretation of social outcomes
 (e.g., enjoyment, learning, belonging, marine connection, future hope).
 **Variables** Theme * The overarching conceptual category assigned to each
 word. * Categories include: * Self (e.g., love, enjoyment, memories,
 passion, well-being * Nature/Environment (e.g., oyster, ocean, animals,
 protecting, reefs) * Community (e.g., local, involved, school,
 recreational activities) Word * The specific word or short phrase coded
 from student essays. * Examples: *Love*, *Explore*, *Animals*, *Fishing*,
 *Future/Hope*, *Connection*, *Place/Home*, and  *Recreational activities*.
 Count * Frequency of each word across all student submissions (integer).
 Theme_Total * Sum of all word counts within each theme (e.g., Self = 107;
 Nature/Environment = 97; Community = 93). Theme_Percentage * The
 proportion (%) of total coded words attributed to each theme. **File:
 Coffin_Bay_Oyster_Survey_Questions.docx** **Description** This document
 contains the community survey instrument used in Lindsey et al. (in
 review) to assess lesidents’ awareness, perceptions, and support for
 oyster reef restoration in Coffin Bay, South Australia. The survey was
 delivered to participants following the deployment and monitoring of
 small-scale restoration units and was designed to capture social licence,
 community attitudes, and perceived ecological outcomes. The survey
 includes a combination of multiple-choice, Likert-scale, and short-answer
 questions. These items explore participants’ knowledge of native oyster
 reefs, perceived changes in the marine environment, trust in science and
 management, willingness to support future restoration efforts, and
 personal connection to Coffin Bay’s coastline. All responses collected
 from this instrument were anonymised, de-identified, and analysed only at
 the aggregate level. This file is included to ensure transparency and
 reproducibility of the social research methods. Structure of the Survey
 The survey contains the following components: 1\. Demographic questions *
 Basic, non-identifying attributes (e.g., residency type, time spent in
 Coffin Bay). 2\. Knowledge and awareness of oyster reefs * Questions
 assessing familiarity with native oysters, historical reef loss, and
 restoration activities. 3\. Perceptions of ecological condition * Items
 regarding perceived changes in water quality, biodiversity, and marine
 life over time. 4\. Views on restoration feasibility and value *
 Likert-scale questions on whether restoration is important, achievable,
 and beneficial. 5\. Social licence and willingness to support projects *
 Measures of trust in scientists, managers, and community groups. *
 Willingness to participate in or advocate for future restoration efforts.
 6\. Open-ended reflections * Space for participants to describe their
 feelings toward the project, observations, and any suggestions for future
 work. ### **Code/software** **File:** Rstudio.zip **Description:**  All
 data analyses and figures were generated using **R version 4.3.2** (R Core
 Team, 2023), an open-source statistical computing environment available at
 [https://www.r-project.org](https://www.r-project.org/). The following R
 packages were used: * **tidyverse (v2.0.0)** – data manipulation,
 cleaning, and plotting. * **vVegan(v2.6-4)** – ecological community
 analysis, including diversity indices and NMDS ordinations. * **lme4
 (v1.1-34)** – linear and generalised mixed-effects models. * **ggplot2
 (v3.4.4)** – figure generation. * **multcomp (v1.4-25)** – post-hoc
 testing and multiple comparisons. * **readxl (v1.4.3)** and **writexl
 (v1.5.1)** – importing and exporting Excel files. * **dplyr (v1.1.4)** –
 data wrangling and summarisation. * **cCar(v3.1-2)** – ANOVA and model
 diagnostics. All code files provided in this repository include: *
 **`01_data_cleaning.R`** – loads and cleans raw ecological and social
 datasets. * **`02_analysis_ecological.R`** – performs GLMs, diversity
 indices, and PERMANOVA. * **`03_analysis_social.R`** – analyses coded
 student essay data and community survey results. *
 **`04_visualisations.R`** – generates all figures used in the manuscript
 and supplementary material. All scripts are written in R Markdown format
 (`.Rmd`) and can be executed sequentially to reproduce all analyses and
 visualisations in the publication. No proprietary software is required to
 access or reproduce these results. ### Access information Other publicly
 accessible locations of the data: * None. This dataset and associated code
 are published exclusively in this Dryad repository. Data was derived from
 the following sources: * All data were collected directly by the authors
 and community participants during the Coffin Bay oyster reef restoration
 project. No data were obtained from external or previously published
 sources. ## Human subjects data All human data included in this dataset
 were collected under the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics
 approval H-2021-140. Participants (and, in the case of minors, their
 parents or guardians) provided informed consent for their de-identified
 responses to be used in research and made publicly available. All
 identifying information (names, addresses, school identifiers, and any
 contextual details that could reveal individual identity) were removed
 prior to data archiving to ensure full anonymity in accordance with
 ethical and legal standards