PlayGround

Test stuff here.

The 'Divers' team comprises six students from various nations with diverse academic backgrounds. Brought together at ISEP to participate in the EPS, our objective is to leverage our collective skills to develop a sustainable solution for a real-world challenge.

Table 1: Divers team

Name	Country	Field of Study
Hernán Nieto Marabini	Spain	Biomedical Engineering
Chaehee Kim	South Korea	Industrial Engineering
Ida Schmitt	Germany	Interactive Media
Isak Björk	Finland	Electrical Engineering & Automation
Louis Van Nederkassel	Belgium	Product Development
Oda Kristine Johansen Fossvoll	Norway	Information Technology

The motivation for this project is based on the growing concern about the degradation of marine ecosystems and the decline of natural reef habitats. Coral reefs and other complex seabed structures provide important habitats for many marine species, including fish, invertebrates, and algae. However, many of these ecosystems are currently under pressure due to factors such as climate change, pollution, overfishing, and habitat destruction.

Artificial reefs have been proposed as one possible approach to support marine biodiversity and help restore degraded habitats. By creating structures that mimic the complexity of natural reef environments, artificial reefs may provide shelter, feeding areas, and breeding grounds for marine organisms. Understanding how different materials and structural designs influence these habitats is therefore an important topic in marine environmental research.

The idea of this project is to create a marine habitat for underwater enviroments, in order to promote the live of the diferent species that habit the the seabed of the coastal plate. Since this is the environment of many endangered species and its a global problem, our goal is to improve this situation while monitoring the characteristics that may affect this danger that threat the sea life.

For this project, we have thought of an structure made to sit in the sea floor, with the purpose of being colonized by many aquatic species to use it as a shelter where to follow their natural way of living. This intends to recreate a natural environment, and ir order to get that we need to review the most suitable material, as well as the best designs for the viability of the project.

To fulfill the task of monitoring the conditions, we have to research about the sensors that can take that job properly, and an organizational model that allow as to get information we need, without disturbing the environment and complying with all regulations.

Finally, our final target it is to create social awareness, the amount of trouble is going under the sea it is a big problem, and most of the people doesn't even know about it. With all the information we can recolect, the best chance is not only with the science or research, it is to concern people about the biggest resource on earth, the sea.

The basis for develop this idea starts on a global view of a huge environmental problem, the sea is dying. The causes of this problem are multiple; the global warming is raising not only the level of the oceans but the temperature of them. This is alterating the conditions of most of the underwater eco-systems, and this evolves in multiple species having to migrate from their original enviroments to new ones.

Another big problem is the massive fishing made by human hands. All around the wolrd, fishing is a daily practice, and even it is strongly regulated by governments and various institutions, it has affected the natural cycle of the sea-life. Now it has become a huge problem, since a lot of fish species are being depleted and others are being affected by the food chain, every creature in the sea is in danger.

The third big issue going on, concerns the levels of oxygen in the sea. With most of the fauna being altered, the flora is also damaged, the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs responsible of producing between 60 % and 80 % of the oxygen we breath, are rapidly dying, already more than 50 % of it has died in the last decades, so a global problem is incoming, and it is our job to do the possible to solve it.

This project focuses on developing a sustainable and technically feasible solution to remediate the loss of seafloor habitats. Our goal is to counteract current environmental decline by providing artificial structures that serve as refugia for marine life, thereby enhancing biodiversity and population recovery.

More specifically, the objectives are:

Create an appropiate structure for life to happen: This is one of the most challenging objectives, as creating a marine habitat that marine life accepts and colonizes appropriately will undoubtedly be a lengthy process. Understanding how life underwater functions—which shapes, textures, materials, and processes are best accepted by different species—is as complex as life itself. Therefore, constant adaptation will be the core mindset throughout the entire process.
Ensure the sustainability without life disturbance: Accomplishing everything mentioned above sounds great, but the critical factor for life to thrive in a way that mimics natural flow is to minimize human or robotic interactions and disturbances in the environment. Therefore, ensuring total naturalness will also be of vital importance.
Recolect information from this habitats to improve them: Although the project generates a clear positive impact on society, it must provide a way to measure that benefit. This will be achieved through data collected by sensors that we will implement according to specific needs. This information will also be used to improve and pave the way for better models of our project.
Create social awareness about the situation and the urge for a solution: Making people realize the scale of the problem we face is a major step forward; in this way, we will no longer be fighting a constant uphill battle. The goal is to encourage everyone to do their part in improving the state of the sea so that, in the future, these artificial habitats are no longer necessary. However, all of this begins by alerting the public and making them aware of the severe risks involved.

1.6.1 Functional Requirements

The system must collect and transmit real-time environmental data (e.g., water temperature, pH levels, turbidity) using sensors at pre-defined intervals.

A reliable wireless communication protocol must be established to send data to a cloud-based dashboard for real-time analysis.

The solution must incorporate energy-harvesting mechanisms (such as solar or wave energy) and utilize Deep Sleep modes to ensure continuous operation without external power.

The structure must provide complex cavities and textured surfaces, specifically designed to encourage the settlement of local marine species [1], [2].

1.6.2 Non-Functional Requirements

To avoid failures observed in projects such as Osborne Reef, the structure must be composed of pH-neutral, non-toxic, and eco-friendly materials that do not release harmful substances into the marine environment [3], [4].

The habitat must be designed to withstand high currents and storm surges without displacement or structural failure.

All electronic components, including sensors and batteries, must be enclosed in IP68-rated waterproof housing to resist saltwater corrosion [5], [6].

The design should allow for modular expansion and easy access for sensor or battery replacement if necessary.

Chapter	Description
1. Introduction	Brief comments about the project proposal
2. Background and related work	Previous similar projects with commmon useful knowledge
3. Project management	Distribution and important aspects about the project itself
4. Marketing plan	Analysis of the market and economical feasiblity
5. Eco-efficiency Measures for Sustainability	Sustainable responsabilities in diferent aspects
6. Ethical and Deontological Concerns	Diferent ethical points of view for our project
7. Project development	Evolution from the design to the prototype
8. Conclusions	Final ideas of the outcomes achieved and next steps
9. Acknoledgements	…
10. Bibliography	Information sources

2026/02/16 21:05 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

This chapter establishes the technical and scientific foundation for the MARIS HABITATS project by situating it within the broader landscape of underwater monitoring and artificial reef design. While the field of marine biology has long utilized static structures for habitat restoration, the integration of real-time IoT (Internet of Things) capabilities remains a significant hurdle due to high costs and technical complexity.

By analyzing essential water quality parameters—such as pH, temperature, and turbidity—and the embedded systems required to track them, we identify the specific technical gaps that our modular approach aims to fill. This review serves not only as a state-of-the-art summary but as a justification for a cost-effective, sensor-integrated platform that moves beyond traditional, “passive” artificial reefs.

Artificial marine habitats can be designed in several ways to help restore marine ecosystems and support endangered fish species. One approach is the use of 3D-printed reef corals, which can be made from materials such as ceramic, limestone, or eco-concrete. These materials are durable and suitable for marine environments. Examples of projects using this approach include the Reef Design Lab in Australia and SECORE coral restoration projects, both of which focus on rebuilding reef structures that allow coral and marine organisms to grow again [7], [8].

Another commonly used solution is reef balls. These are concrete dome structures with holes that mimic natural reef caves. Because of their simple design they are easy to mass produce and very stable when placed on the seabed. The holes and cavities provide immediate shelter for fish and other marine animals, allowing the structures to quickly function as protective habitats [9], [10].

A different method is the creation of Bio-Rock or electric reefs. These reefs consist of metal structures through which a small electrical current is passed. This current causes minerals from seawater to deposit onto the structure, gradually forming a limestone-like coating. This process helps corals grow much faster than under normal conditions, and fish rapidly colonize these artificial reefs. This technique is known as Bio-Rock technology [11].

Artificial habitats can also be designed as modular “fish cities.” These structures include holes of different sizes so that multiple fish species can use them for shelter. Vertical elements are often incorporated to mimic natural reef cliffs, and the modules can be interconnected to create more complex ecosystems that support a greater diversity of marine life [12].

Another concept is the development of living seawalls. These are harbor walls or seawalls designed with textured panels and cavities so that marine organisms can attach to them and live on them. Instead of smooth concrete surfaces that support little life, these modified structures create habitats for algae, small invertebrates, and fish [13].

Several endangered fish species can benefit from these types of artificial habitats, including the Humphead wrasse, Nassau grouper, Atlantic Goliath Grouper, Smalltooth Sawfish, and the European eel. Although many of these species grow quite large, the habitats are especially important for juvenile fish. Young fish can use the structures as shelter and breeding areas, increasing their chances of survival. When more juvenile fish survive, adult populations can recover and thrive. Larger predators may also benefit by hunting around these habitats.

In habitat design, the shape of the structure is often more important than the material used. It is important to include many holes and cavities in different sizes so that different fish species can find suitable shelter. Vertical structures are also important because they mimic natural reef cliffs. In addition, rough surface textures help corals and algae attach and grow on the structures. Finally, ensuring good water flow around the habitat is essential, as it brings nutrients and oxygen that support marine life.

MEITEC

MEITEC is a company that designs and builds artificial reef structures for marine environments, mainly to support and improve fishery resources [14]. Their products are usually made from strong and durable concrete, which helps the structures stay stable on the seabed even when they are exposed to waves and ocean currents. These reef structures create spaces where marine species can hide, live, and reproduce, which can lead to an increase in fish populations over time.

In some cases, MEITEC also includes simple measuring devices, such as flow meters and water temperature sensors. However, these devices seem to be used separately rather than as part of a connected system. There is no clear indication that the system can collect or process data continuously, and advanced features such as real-time monitoring are not described [15].

Figure 1 presents the flow meter and water temperature meter.

메이텍.jpg — Figure 1: MEITEC flow meter and water temperature meter

메이텍2.jpg — Figure 1: MEITEC flow meter and water temperature meter

ECOncrete

ECOncrete develops special types of concrete that are designed to be more environmentally friendly and better suited for marine life [16]. Instead of focusing only on strength, their technology also considers how the material interacts with the surrounding ecosystem. For example, they adjust the chemical composition and surface texture of the concrete so that it becomes easier for marine organisms to attach and grow. These solutions are commonly used in coastal structures such as seawalls and breakwaters, where they help support marine life while still performing their structural role.

Even though ECOncrete provides clear ecological benefits, their systems mainly act as fixed structures. They help marine life grow, but they do not include any built-in sensors or systems that can track environmental conditions. As a result, there is no real-time monitoring or data collection integrated into their designs [17].

Figure 2 presents armor block units of ECOncrete.

IntelliReefs

The IntelliReefs project, developed by the Reef Life Foundation, focuses on creating modular reef systems that do not rely on traditional concrete materials [18]. Instead, they use alternative materials that are more environmentally friendly and suitable for marine ecosystems. One of the main advantages of this system is its modular design, which allows different pieces to be combined in flexible ways. This makes it possible to create more complex structures that can better match different underwater environments.

Although IntelliReefs offers flexibility and uses sustainable materials, the available information does not show that the system includes any type of sensor or monitoring technology. Similar to the other solutions, it focuses mainly on providing habitat, without offering tools for real-time environmental data collection or analysis [19].

Figure 3 presents one of the projects of IntelliReefs

For our project involving a marine habitat at a maximum depth of 50 m off the Portuguese coast, the materials must withstand a pressure of approximately 5 bar while fostering biological growth and protecting sensitive sensors. To ensure the highest level of efficiency and environmental compatibility, we have analyzed various materials used in international restoration efforts.

The selection of materials and the structural design of artificial habitats are fundamental to ensuring both environmental compatibility and long-term viability. For this project, concrete has been identified as the primary material due to its exceptional durability and its proven track record in underwater construction. Its capacity to provide structural integrity against significant environmental stressors—such as salinity, strong currents, and wave action—makes it the industry standard for creating resilient marine foundations. While the chemical properties of concrete, particularly its initial pH levels, have historically been a point of debate, recent research has shifted the focus toward a more nuanced understanding of its behavior in open marine environments [20].

Studies indicate that the high alkalinity of newly submerged concrete (typically between 12–14) is rapidly diluted by seawater, resulting in no significant long-term detriment to coral growth or benthic colonization [21]. This suggests that ecological success depends less on extended curing periods or pH-neutral mixtures and more on the physical attributes of the habitat. Consequently, the following sections will detail how our project prioritizes structural complexity, substrate durability, and hydrodynamic stability [22]. By optimizing the weight-to-complexity ratio and ensuring low water absorption, we can guarantee that these structures remain stationary during extreme weather events while providing the necessary niches for biodiversity to thrive [23].

Based on the research and articles reviewed, the following table evaluates different material options—ranging from traditional foundations to innovative biocompatible substrates—from which we will select the most suitable components for our specific implementation:

2.4.1. Structural Materials

A. Bacterial (Self-healing) High-Strength Concrete (HSC) This material incorporates bacterial spores, specifically Bacillus sphaericus (strain ATCC 14577), which remain dormant until a crack occurs. Water ingress activates the bacteria, which then precipitate calcium carbonate to seal the crack [24].

Pros: Achieves 96 % recovery in water tightness within 56 days of seawater immersion [25]. It maintains structural integrity above 100 MPa, which is more than sufficient for the pressure at 50 m. It significantly reduces rebar corrosion by sealing entry points for chloride ions [26].
Cons: Higher complexity in mixing and requires specific nutrients like calcium lactate and urea [27].
Price: Estimated at 180 €/m³ – 260 €/m³.

B. Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (BFRP) Basalt fibers, derived from natural volcanic rock, are used to reinforce concrete or as standalone composite laminates [28].

Pros: Naturally non-corrosive and chemically stable in aggressive saline environments [29]. Vacuum infusion manufacturing can produce laminates with flexural strength up to 400 MPa [30]. It provides a more resilient, damage-tolerant failure mode compared to the brittle collapse of traditional reinforced concrete [31].
Cons: Slightly lower peak flexural strength compared to glass fibers, although superior in long-term durability and environmental footprint [32].
Price: Estimated at 160 €/m³ – 220 €/m³ .

C. Geopolymer Gel Concrete A cement-free binder using materials like fly ash and metakaolin modified with nano-silica (SiO₂) [33].

Pros: Significantly lower CO₂ footprint than Portland cement [34]. It shows superior resistance to chloride and sulfate attack in “wet-thermal” marine environments [35].
Cons: Higher production costs currently limit wide adoption [36].
Price: Estimated at 150 €/m³ – 200 €/m³.

D. ECOncrete® / Sulfoaluminate Cement (SAC) A proprietary concrete mix designed to reduce surface alkalinity to a neutral pH [37].

Pros: Surface pH of 9–10 (closer to seawater's 8) promotes the settlement of “ecosystem engineers” like oysters, serpulid worms, and coralline algae. These organisms provide bioprotection, adding a calcified layer that strengthens the structure and limits oxygen/chloride penetration [38].
Cons: Requires specialized design to ensure the lower pH doesn't compromise the protection of internal steel if used.
Price: Estimated at 140 €/m³ – 180 €/m³.

E. Recycled Glass (Partial Aggregate Replacement) Crushed waste glass used to replace up to 30% of fine aggregates in the concrete mix [39].

Pros: Improves chemical resistance and reduces water absorption [40]. It offers an eco-friendly way to utilize waste while maintaining sufficient compressive strength for marine applications [41].
Cons: Replacing more than 30% of aggregate leads to a significant reduction in compressive strength [42].
Price: Estimated at 90 €/m³ – 140 €/m³.

F. Biorock (Mineral Accretion) Uses low-voltage DC electricity to precipitate minerals (limestone) directly from seawater onto an iron frame.

Pros: Accelerates biological growth by 400 % and allows the structure to self-repair after impacts.
Cons: Requires constant power from your buoy; if the power is interrupted, the iron frame corrodes rapidly.
Price: Base infrastructure 120 €/m³ – 160 €/m³ (excluding electrical components).

2.4.1.1 Summary Table

Table 2 …

Table 2: Add caption

Material	Primary Requisite Met	Pros	Cons	Price (est. / $m^3$)
Bacterial HSC	Longevity/Pressure	Autonomous repair; 96% watertight	High complexity	€180–€260
Basalt Reinforcement	Corrosion Resistance	Non-corrosive; volcanic origin	Lower flexural peak	€160–€220
ECOncrete®	Sea-life Friendly	Neutral pH; bioprotection	Specific mix needs	€140–€180
Recycled Glass	Sustainability	Increased chemical resistance	Strength loss >30%	€90–€140
Biorock	Life Promotion	4:1 growth; self-repairing	Power dependent	€120–€160

2.4.1.2 Materials for Prototype vs. Final

Here we have another issue, since we have to present a prototype where it has to be functional and pass some test previously mentioned, we need to select a material with similar characteristics to the actual model, in order to be as close as possible. But also that is easy to get and handle since we are gonna be the ones using it.

TO BE CHECKED

Option 1 : Basalt fabric-reinforced is attached to abandoned concrete or industrial waste. We need to check the pH level is neutral this process.
- pros It is similar to the actual product and cuts down on costs.
- cons It is impossible to modify the model design and there is no marketing advantage because it is not different from existing business.
Option 2 : Polymer-clay is just shaped into the model we want and baked in the oven.
- pros It is possible to be mini version of the actual model in any shape and cuts down on costs.
- cons There are size limitations depending on the oven and it is different from the model of actual project so not sure if it will approve.

2.4.2 Sensor placements

Designing a successful marine habitat involves a delicate technical paradox. On one hand, the project’s primary objective is to encourage biological colonization and the growth of marine life; on the other, the integrated sensors require direct, unobstructed contact with seawater to maintain accuracy. This necessity creates a significant challenge, as the very “bio-friendly” environment we aim to foster can lead to marine biofouling on sensitive equipment, which critically compromises data reliability and sensor sensitivity [43].

To resolve this conflict, our strategy focuses on three integrated design pillars. First, we must carefully select housing materials that support structural life while shielding internal components. Second, we are evaluating specialized anti-fouling coatings that can prevent accumulation on sensor windows without leaching harmful chemicals into the surrounding habitat. Finally, the spatial distribution of the sensors must be strategically planned to allow for clear measurements while minimizing their exposure to rapid biological growth. This balanced approach ensures that our ecological goals do not come at the expense of long-term monitoring precision.

2.4.2.1 Materials for Housing

Titanium alloy (TC4) or 316 L stainless steel are recommended for pressure resistance and durability [44]. For a 200 m depth, Titanium is preferred for long-term corrosion resistance [45].

2.4.2.2 Antifouling Coatings

PDMS (Polydimethylsiloxane): A non-toxic, “fouling-release” coating that reduces the adhesion of algae and barnacles [46].
CPT (Camptothecin)-based Paint: A natural compound that has shown virtually no macrofouling after nine months of immersion [47].
SLIPS (Slippery Liquid-Infused Porous Surfaces): These provide exceptional resistance to organism attachment even in stagnant water [48].

2.4.3 Biologic and geographical analysis

Fish structure

Fish populations are generally associated with habitats that exhibit high structural complexity and spatial heterogeneity. Research suggests that complex environments provide essential ecological resources necessary for survival, including food availability, shelter from predators, and suitable areas for reproduction [49]. Structural features such as crevices, cavities, and irregular surfaces may create microhabitats that support a greater diversity of marine organisms and increase the overall ecological value of reef systems [50].

Artificial and natural reefs typically contain irregularities and indentations that form small shelters or “nooks”, which can serve as refuge areas for fish and other marine organisms [51]. These structural features are believed to reduce predation risk and provide protected spaces where fish can rest or reproduce.

Studies also indicate that fish communities tend to perform better in connected habitat mosaics rather than isolated structures [52]. Networks of habitats may facilitate movement, feeding opportunities, and ecological interactions between species, which can contribute to more stable and diverse marine ecosystems [53].

Location

The location of artificial reefs plays a key role in determining their effectiveness. The chosen site should encourage marine life to settle while avoiding interference with human activities such as shipping routes or commercial fishing areas. Water depth is another important consideration. Reefs placed too deep may not receive enough sunlight to support the growth of marine plants like algae, whereas reefs that are too shallow can be more vulnerable to damage from storms or human activity [54].
Most of the Artificial reef projects are placed at the depth of 10-30m but it all depends on which species and what type of marine life you are aiming the reefs for (see table 3).

The selected solutions were evaluated based on criteria such as cost, monitoring capability, structural complexity, sustainability, durability, and ecological performance.

Table 3: State of the art comparative analysis

Criteria	MEITEC	ECOncrete	IntelliReefs
Cost	Medium	High	Medium–High
Real-time Monitoring	No	No	No
Data Transmission	No	No	No
Structural Complexity	Low–Medium	Medium	High
Sustainability	Medium	High	High
Durability (Corrosion Resistance)	High	High	Medium
Ecological Performance	Medium	High	High
Material Type	Conventional concrete	Eco-enhanced concrete	Alternative eco-materials
Modularity	Low	Medium	High
Scalability	High	Medium	Medium
Maintenance Requirements	Low	Low–Medium	Medium
Data-driven Decision Support	No	No	No
Innovation Level	Low	Medium	Medium–High

2.6 Summary

Provide here the conclusions of this chapter and make the bridge to the next chapter.

Based on this study of the state of the art, the team decided to adopt the following <specify here the architecture, technique(s), material(s), component(s)> because <specify here the technical/scientific reasons>.

The comparison indicates that current artificial reef solutions primarily focus on structural and ecological aspects. Solutions such as ECOncrete and IntelliReefs demonstrate strong performance in sustainability and ecological enhancement, while MEITEC emphasizes structural stability and durability.

However, none of the analyzed solutions incorporate real-time monitoring or data transmission capabilities. This represents a significant limitation, as the effectiveness of marine restoration projects cannot be easily measured or optimized without continuous environmental data.

In addition, while modularity and structural complexity vary among solutions, scalability and long-term adaptability remain key challenges in existing systems.

Based on this analysis, it was observed that existing solutions provide valuable approaches to habitat design and ecological enhancement, but lack integration with data-driven technologies. These observations served as both a limitation and a source of inspiration for the proposed project.

The design direction was therefore developed to combine the strengths of current solutions—such as sustainability, structural performance, and ecological support—while addressing their limitations through the integration of real-time monitoring and data collection capabilities.

2026/02/16 21:06 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

Managing a project that intersects marine ecology, hardware engineering, and software development requires a framework that balances rigid constraints with creative flexibility. This chapter details the management strategy employed by the group, organized across key knowledge areas including scope, risk, and procurement.

Due to the unpredictable nature of environmental hardware testing, we adopted an Agile (Scrum-inspired) methodology. This iterative approach was essential for managing the project’s high-risk components, such as waterproofing and sensor calibration. By prioritizing continuous feedback loops and adaptive planning, the team was able to pivot in response to technical challenges without compromising the project's primary milestones or budgetary limits.

The scope of this project is the design and development of a functional prototype of a smart marine habitat intended to support seafloor biodiversity and enable environmental monitoring in underwater conditions. The project focuses on creating a concept that combines an artificial habitat structure with a basic sensor system, while taking into account sustainability, durability, and ecological compatibility.

From a product perspective, the project includes the development of a modular underwater habitat structure designed to provide shelter, attachment surfaces, and spatial complexity for marine organisms. In addition, the product includes an integrated monitoring concept based on selected sensors capable of collecting environmental data relevant to the surrounding habitat, such as temperature, pH, turbidity, or depth, depending on technical feasibility and component availability. The solution also includes a basic embedded electronics system for sensor integration, power management, and data handling, as well as a conceptual approach for transmitting or presenting the collected data. The overall product is intended to demonstrate how habitat restoration and environmental monitoring can be combined into a sustainable solution.

From a project perspective, the scope includes the research and analysis required to understand the environmental problem, existing artificial reef solutions, suitable structural materials, and underwater sensor technologies. It also includes the definition of requirements, concept development, design selection, structural modelling, component selection, and prototype integration. The project covers the testing and validation of the prototype under limited and controlled conditions, together with the assessment of market, sustainability, ethical, and project management aspects. The preparation of all academic deliverables, including the report, presentation, poster, flyer, and supporting documentation, is also part of the project scope.

The main outcome of the project is a functional prototype that demonstrates the technical feasibility and conceptual value of a smart artificial marine habitat. The prototype is intended to serve as a foundation for future development, testing, and scaling in real-world marine applications.

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) presented in the figures illustrates how the MARIS HABITATS system is divided into its main components and subsystems. The diagram provides an overview of the product architecture, showing how the habitat structure, sensor system, energy and communication, deployment, and maintenance elements are organized.

Each main component is further broken down into smaller elements, representing the key functionalities required for the system to operate. This visual representation helps clarify the scope of the project by identifying all relevant parts of the system and their relationships.

Figure 4 presents the WBS for the product and Figure 5 the WBS of the project.

To ensure effective time management and the timely completion of the project, the team aimed to complete as much work as possible during school hours and before weekends. This approach helped maintain steady progress and allowed time for review and adjustments when needed.

The team followed the milestone schedule defined by the project supervisors. These milestones provided a structured framework to monitor progress and ensure alignment with the overall project timeline. Table 4 presents the defined milestones.

Table 4: Milestones for the project

Date	Description
2026-02-28	Choose and share your top-3 preferred project proposals via email to epsatisep@gmail.com
2026-03-11	Upload the “black box” System Diagrams & Structural Drafts to the wiki (Deliverables)
2026-03-18	Upload the List of Components and Materials (what & quantity) to the wiki (Deliverables)
2026-03-21	Define the Project Backlog (what must be done and key deliverables - every member should preferably participate in every task), Global Sprint Plan, Initial Sprint Plan (which tasks should be included, who does what) and Release Gantt Chart of the project and insert them on the wiki (Report)
2026-03-25	Upload the detailed System Schematics & Structural Drawings to the wiki (Deliverables) and do the cardboard scale model of the structure
2026-04-12	Upload the Interim Report and Presentation to the wiki (Deliverables) [55]
2026-04-16	Interim Presentation, Discussion and Peer, Teacher and Supervisor feedbacks
2026-04-22	Upload 3D model video to Deliverables
2026-04-29	Upload the final List of Materials (local providers & price, including VAT and transportation) to Deliverables
2026-05-02	Upload refined Interim Report (based on Teacher & Supervisor Feedback)
2026-05-13	Upload packaging solution to Deliverables and Report
2026-05-27	Upload the results of the Functional Tests to the Report
2026-06-13	Upload the Final Report, Presentation, Video, Paper, Poster and Manual to Deliverables
2026-06-18	Final Presentation, Individual Discussion and Assessment (reserve the whole day)
2026-06-23	Update the wiki, report, paper with all suggested corrections
	Place in the Shared section of the MS Teams channel of your team a folder with the refined deliverables (source + PDF) together with all code and drawings produced
	Hand in to the EPS coordinator a printed copy of the poster, brochure and leaflet
2026-06-25	Demonstration of the operation of the prototype
	Hand in the prototype and user manual to the client
	Receive the EPS@ISEP certificate
	Bring typical food from your country

Describe your project budget and its key components. Explain how your budget was managed throughout the project. Document the planned vs. effective costs of your project.

Quality in this project is ensured by defining clear quality metrics for both the system and the documentation, together with acceptable thresholds and review procedures.

For the product, key quality metrics include system functionality, structural stability, and sensor reliability. The system is considered acceptable when all core functions operate as intended, the structure remains stable under expected conditions, and the sensors provide consistent and reasonable data. These aspects are reviewed through testing in controlled environments and validation of system performance.

For the documentation, quality is measured in terms of clarity, structure, consistency, and completeness. The report must clearly explain the project, follow a logical structure, and include all required sections. The acceptable threshold is that the documentation is understandable, coherent, and meets the academic guidelines provided. This is reviewed through internal checks within the team and feedback from supervisors.

Regular reviews during sprint meetings are used to monitor progress and identify issues early. Corrections are made continuously to ensure that both the system and the documentation meet the expected quality standards.

Human factors represent a significant source of uncertainty in project development, as team members may exhibit varying levels of engagement, performance, and responsibility. For this reason, it is essential to establish clear roles and responsibilities within the team, ensuring that each member understands their tasks and contributions to the overall project. This helps reduce the risk of unequal workload distribution and lack of participation.

To achieve effective task allocation and maximize project outcomes, responsibilities are assigned based on each team member’s skills, field of study, and previous experience. This approach ensures that tasks are aligned with individual competencies, promoting efficiency, accountability, and overall team performance.

Academic supervisors from ISEP act as a key stakeholder by providing guidance, feedback and evaluation trouhgout the project. Their role is essential in ensuring that the project meets academic and technical standards.
External stakeholders include research intsitutions, NGOs and governmental organizations intressted in marine conservation and environmental monitoring. These stakeholders are potential future users or partners, as they can benefit from the data collected and the ecological impact of the solution.

Although marine life cannot be considered a traditional stakeholder, it is the primary beneficiary of the project. Therefore, its needs are considered throughout the design process to ensure that the solution is environmentally safe and supportive of biodiversity

Effective communication was essential to ensure coordination and steady progress throughout the project. Communication within the team was primarily facilitated through daily Scrum meetings, where members discussed completed tasks, ongoing work, and upcoming activities. These meetings helped maintain alignment, identify challenges early, and ensure continuous progress.

In addition, regular communication with key stakeholders, particularly project supervisors, was maintained through weekly meetings held on Thursdays. These sessions provided valuable feedback and guidance, supporting informed decision-making throughout the project. Furthermore, collaborative tools such as Microsoft Teams were used to support documentation, information sharing, and quick communication among team members.
Altogether, this structured communication approach contributed to efficient collaboration, transparency, and timely problem-solving.

The project involves several potential risks related to both technical and organizational aspects. One of the main risks is technical failure, particularly in the integration of sensors, electronics, and structural components in a marine-like environment. To reduce this risk, the system is tested in controlled conditions and components are selected based on reliability and compatibility.

Another significant risk is project delays due to time constraints and task dependencies. This is managed through sprint planning, regular meetings, and the use of buffer time to accommodate unforeseen issues.

There is also a risk related to limited resources, including budget constraints and access to specialized equipment or testing environments. This is addressed by prioritizing essential features and selecting cost-effective solutions.

Team-related risks such as miscommunication or uneven workload distribution may affect progress. These risks are mitigated through regular Scrum meetings, clear task allocation, and continuous collaboration among team members. (See Table 5 ).

Table 5: Table of different risks

Risk	Description	Probability	Impact	Risk Level	Mitigation Strategy
Technical failure (sensors/electronics)	Failure in integration of sensors, electronics, and structure in marine conditions	Medium	High	High	Test components and validate system
Power system failure (battery/solar)	Unstable or insufficient energy supply affecting system performance	Medium	High	High	Optimize energy use and include backup
Integration issues (hardware/software)	Difficulties combining system components effectively	Medium	High	High	Modular design and incremental testing
Project delays	Delays caused by time constraints and task dependencies	Medium	High	High	Sprint planning, regular meetings, and buffer time
Limited resources	Budget constraints and limited access to equipment or testing environments	Medium	Medium	Medium	Prioritize essential features and use cost-effective solutions
Team miscommunication	Lack of coordination or unclear communication within the team	Low	Medium	Low	Regular Scrum meetings and clear communication
Uneven workload distribution	Some team members contribute less, affecting progress	Low	Medium	Low	Clear task allocation and team collaboration
Loss of buoy connection (data/power cable failure)	Interruption of data or power transfer between buoy and system	Low	High	Medium	Reinforced cables and redundancy
Corrosion of metallic components	Degradation due to exposure to saltwater	Medium	Medium	Medium	Use corrosion-resistant materials (BFRP, coatings)
Extreme weather (storms, currents)	Harsh conditions affecting stability and performance	Low	High	Medium	Stable structure and secure anchoring
Waterproofing failure (IP68 breach)	Water entering electronic components causing malfunction	Low	High	Medium	Seal testing and proper enclosure
Data transmission failure	Loss or interruption of data communication	Medium	Medium	Medium	Local data storage and redundancy

To further support the risk assessment, a risk matrix based on probability and impact was used (see Figure 6 figur). The matrix classifies risks into three categories: low, medium, and high, depending on their likelihood of occurrence and potential impact on the project.

Based on this matrix, risks such as technical failure, power system failure, integration issues, and project delays are classified as high risk, as they combine medium to high probability with high impact. These risks require priority attention and mitigation.

Risks such as limited resources, corrosion, extreme weather conditions, and data transmission failure fall into the medium-risk category. These are monitored and addressed through preventive design measures and planning.

Lower-risk factors, including team miscommunication and uneven workload distribution, are classified as low risk, as they have limited impact and can be managed through regular communication and task organization.

The use of this risk matrix provides a clear and structured way to prioritize risks and supports more effective decision-making throughout the project.

Document your procurement management strategy including make vs buy decisions, materials/services to be acquired, sources, costs, timings, etc.

Gantt Chart

The project schedule was visualized using a Gantt chart to illustrate the timeline and key phases of the project.

As shown in Figure 7, the project timeline spans from March to June and includes overlapping phases such as research, prototype development, and documentation.

Figure 7: Gantt chart showing the project timeline from March to June.

Global Sprint

The global sprint plan provides an overview of the project timeline, including the duration of each sprint, start and end dates, and the number of available working days. Its main purpose is to ensure a realistic distribution of workload based on the team’s availability throughout the project period. (See Table 6 for the global sprint plan)

By defining how long each sprint lasts and how many working days are available, the team can better plan tasks and avoid overloading specific periods. Variations in working days reflect differences in availability, such as holidays or other commitments, which allows for more accurate and achievable planning.

Sprint	Start	Finish	Working Days	Status
1	5 Mar	12 Mar	5 days	Done
2	12 Mar	19 Mar	5 days	Done
3	19 Mar	26 Mar	5 days	Done
4	26 Mar	2 Apr	5 days	Done
5	2 Apr	9 Apr	0 days	Started
6	9 Apr	16 Apr	3 days	To do
7	16 Apr	23 Apr	5 days	To do
8	23 Apr	30 Apr	5 days	To do
9	30 Apr	7 May	3 days	To do
10	7 May	14 May	3 days	To do
11	14 May	21 May	5 days	To do
12	21 May	28 May	5 days	To do
13	28 May	4 Jun	5 days	To do
14	4 Jun	11 Jun	5 days	To do
15	11 Jun	18 Jun	5 days	To do
16	18 Jun	25 Jun	5 days	To do

Table 6: Table of Global Sprint Plan.

Backlog

The project backlog contains all identified tasks required to complete the project.

Tasks are continuously updated and prioritized based on project needs, deadlines, and dependencies.

Completed tasks are marked as “Done”, while ongoing and future tasks are labeled accordingly.

(See Table 7 for the backlog).

PBI	Title	Status
A	Define project	Done
B	System diagrams and structural plans	In progress
C	Project backlog	Done
D	State of the Art	In progress
E	Gantt chart	Done
F	System diagrams and drafts	To do
G	Global sprint plan	Done
H	List of components and materials	In progress
I	Schematics and structural drawings	In progress
J	Design development	In progress
K	Interim deliverables	In progress
L	3D model and video	To do
M	Interim report and presentation	To do
N	Functional testing	To do
O	Packaging solution	To do
P	Poster	To do
Q	Folder and manual	To do
R	Brochure and leaflet	In progress
S	Prototype	To do
T	Video	To do
V	Final report	To do
W	Upload final deliverables	To do
X	Final presentation	To do
Y	Final review and submission	To do

Table 7: Table of Backlog.

Initial Sprint Plan

Sprint 1 (Week 3: 19 Mar – 26 Mar)

Sprint Goal: Establish the project foundation by defining roles, conducting initial research, and setting up key project documentation (see Table 8).

Sprint	Period	Sprint Goal	Task
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Selection of materials
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Backlog, global & initial sprint plan, Gantt chart
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Detailed schematics )
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Researching information
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Define project roles )
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Flyer & logo presentation
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Cardboard model
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Wiki updates
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Daily scrum meetings
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Selection of components
1	19 Mar – 26 Mar	Establish project foundation	Structural drawing

Table 8: Initial Sprint Plan.

The tasks in the sprint were divided into smaller activities, including research, documentation, design, and planning, in order to ensure efficient progress. Responsibilities were distributed among team members based on their respective roles, with a focus on areas such as research, documentation, and design. By the end of the sprint, key project elements such as clearly defined team roles, initial research, and planning documents had been completed, providing a solid foundation for the subsequent sprints.

The sprints officially started from 19 March to 26 March, as the previous weeks were mainly used to become familiar with Jira and project tools.

However, the initial work began earlier, and the first weeks were structured as follows:

An overview of the outcomes from the initial sprints is presented in Table 9 and Table 10.

Sprint	Period	Objective	Activities	Outcome
1	Week 1	Define project scope and direction	Brainstorming of project ideas, discussion of possible approaches, evaluation of feasibility	Selection of project concept and initial understanding of project scope

Table 9: Week 1 outcome

Sprint	Period	Objective	Activities	Outcome
2	12 Mar – 19 Mar	Develop system concept and research state of the art	Continued research on artificial reefs and sensors, worked on the state of the art chapter, explored materials and structural ideas, started defining system components, followed milestone plan	Clearer understanding of technical solutions and initial system concept defined

Table 10: Week 2 outcome

The burndown chart for sprint 3 shows that additional tasks were identified and added at the beginning of the sprint, resulting in an increase in the total amount of work. This reflects a better understanding of the project requirements as the team moved from concept to design.

During the middle of the sprint, progress remained relatively stable, indicating that fewer tasks were completed in that period. Towards the end of the sprint, a significant decrease in remaining work can be observed, showing that most tasks were completed close to the deadline.

This pattern indicates that the team made substantial progress during sprint 3, particularly in the final phase, where key design elements and system components were defined. It also highlights the need for improved task distribution to ensure more consistent progress throughout the sprint (See Figure 8).

Second week retrospective

What went good During this week, the team worked well together and showed good coordination in roles and responsibilities. The wiki and Jira were kept relatively updated, and the team made solid progress in research and design. There were also strong ideas developed for the project’s features, structure, and overall concept, along with progress on the ethics work. Overall, the team showed improvement in both collaboration and organization.

What went bad During this week, the team faced several challenges. There was a lack of clear discussion about project expectations, which led to some uncertainty. Task division was not always effective, and deadlines were not used efficiently. The wiki and report structure were somewhat disorganized, with resources not properly organized or uploaded. Additionally, the team could have shown more initiative and been more critical of their work. Overall, better structure, clarity, and efficiency are needed moving forward.

Ideas During this week, the team developed ideas to improve the project by focusing on one main “smartblock” with simpler supporting blocks. They also explored sustainable materials, clearer separation between prototype and final product, and ways to improve functionality, such as adding sensors and using 3D printing.

Actions For the next week, the team should focus on finalizing the structure and deciding on the materials for the project. It is important to continue and complete the necessary research while also developing the product design. The team should create a few sketches and present them for feedback. Additionally, roles and tasks need to be clearly defined, and the wiki should be properly updated with sources and kept organized. Work on communication materials such as a flyer, key facts, and an elevator pitch should also be continued.

Summary The team developed ideas to simplify the concept by focusing on one main solution, while also exploring sustainable materials and improving both design and functionality. They also considered ways to make the system more practical and efficient.

Third week retrospective

What went good During this week, the team made strong overall progress and showed improved organization. The wiki was well maintained, and Jira was used effectively to keep track of tasks. The product design became clearer, supported by good structural drawings and a successful cardboard model. There was also progress in marketing, and the team had good planning for the upcoming weeks. Overall, collaboration was strong, with everyone showing up on time and contributing to steady progress.

What went bad During this week, the team faced challenges due to missing components, which slowed progress and led to some waiting time. There were still uncertainties regarding materials, sensors, and electronics, and decisions about these were not finalized. Parts of the wiki were disorganized, and project management could have been more structured. Additionally, the team had not clearly defined a target customer and needed to improve consistency in updating and sharing progress.

Ideas During this week, the team developed ideas to improve planning and analysis. This included visualizing the market analysis more clearly and creating a risk matrix to better understand potential challenges. The team also focused on preparing for the interim presentation in order to improve communication and confidence.

Actions For the next week, the team should focus on deciding on materials and further developing the technical aspects, such as weight and water flow. Each member should take clear responsibility for specific parts of the project and break tasks into smaller subtasks if needed. The team should also create a plan for the upcoming period to stay organized and maintain steady progress.

Summary Overall, the team made good progress in design, organization, and collaboration. However, some uncertainties and planning issues remain, and the team needs to focus on clearer decisions and more structured work moving forward.

Fourth week retrospective

What went good The presentations went good, and the components were selected.

What went bad The communication presentation did not go that well

Ideas No ideas

Actions For the next week, the team need to finish the interim report, and deliver it.

Fifth week retrospective

What went good The interim report was delivered

What went bad Should have done the report finish before the sunday.

Ideas No ideas

Actions For the next week, the team are prepering for the interim presentation.

Sixth week retrospective

What went good The prep for the presentation

What went bad …

Ideas Some of the feedback from the supervisors were to have fish in the flyer/brand. The team will look in to it.

Actions For nexts week, the team are going to research more of the smart box, to check if there are different batteries to use and how to design it in the best way. Also to create a 3D-model video of the product.

Summary

The project has been managed using an iterative and structured approach, allowing the team to balance technical challenges with continuous development. Through defined scope, milestone planning, and Agile methods, the team has made steady progress in both design and implementation. While some challenges remain, particularly related to decision-making and organization, the project is moving forward with a clearer direction and improved collaboration.

2026/02/16 21:07 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

The marketing plan for MARIS HABITATS moves beyond traditional product promotion to define a niche within the emerging blue economy. Currently, the market is split between high-end scientific monitoring equipment and low-tech habitat restoration structures; our strategy identifies the opportunity for a hybrid value proposition.

By assessing the global market environment—where artificial reefs are already utilized in over 40 countries—we position our product as a dual-purpose tool for both ecosystem support and operational data collection. This chapter explores our target user personas, from environmental NGOs to commercial fisheries, and outlines how structural complexity and material choice serve as key differentiators in a competitive environmental landscape.

The ocean is losing its natural habitats at an alarming rate. This isn't just an ecological tragedy; it is an economic crisis. The degradation of marine environments leads to:

Trophic Cascades: The collapse of food chains disrupts global fish stocks, endangering food security [56].
Economic Volatility: Decreased supply leads to hyper-inflation in the $400B+ global seafood market [57] [58].
Loss of Ecosystem Services: Without bottom-cleaning species and reef barriers, ocean contamination increases and coastal erosion accelerates, threatening billions in real estate [59].

Our solution bridges the gap between waste management and marine restoration through two proprietary pillars: Eco-Engineered Recycled Glass: We transform waste glass (primarily SiO₂) into pH-neutral, bio-receptive modular structures. This diverts waste from landfills while providing a superior substrate for coral and mollusk calcification. Recoverable “Smart” Modules: Unlike traditional “dumb” reefs, our structures are equipped with a modular sensor suite. Once the habitat reaches a self-sustaining maturity (Phase 1), the most expensive component—the electronics—is recovered and redeployed, drastically reducing the Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) for future projects.

While the “users” are marine life, our paying clients are the human beneficiaries of a healthy ocean. We operate in the emerging Blue Carbon and Biodiversity Credit markets, , targeting the $700 billion annual financing gap in nature restoration [60].

Primary Clients: National and regional governments seeking coastal protection and climate adaptation [61].
Secondary Clients: The insurance and tourism industries, which rely on reef barriers to mitigate storm damage and attract revenue [62].
Stakeholders: ESG-focused corporations looking to meet “Nature Positive” mandates by funding habitat restoration [63].

We acknowledge that marine restoration requires significant upfront Capital Expenditure (CAPEX). To move beyond “blind trust,” we utilize a Data-as-a-Service (DaaS) model:

Phase 1: Validation. Small-scale deployment to prove the biocompatibility of our recycled glass.
Phase 2: Revenue Generation. Sale of biodiversity offsets and real-time environmental data (pH, temperature, biomass) to research institutions and NGOs.
Phase 3: Scale. Massive deployment funded by government “Blue Bonds” and coastal protection grants.

Impact Note: The “price” of our intervention is high, but the cost of inaction—the total collapse of coastal economies—is infinitely higher. We aren't just building reefs; we are building Climate Insurance.

In this part we are going to present the business model canva, the next image is a initial white board with quick ideas from the brainstorming. Then every section is explained ahead. Same colour post-its refer to the same customer/partner/activity related by colours (See Figure 9).

1. Customer Segment We are creating a product for the fish and the sea-life, they are a very niche market where few people are helping. It is very diversified but we will try to narrow it down. Concerning who are we selling our product to, it is intended to be bought by governments and non profit organizations, who are the ones gaining the secondary advantage of the impact. A third part is involucrated, not the fish as the main beneficiary, or the society because the improvement in general of the seas, but also the science, since we will be working with researching institutions to manage the data we will recollect.

2. Value Proposition For the sea-life, we propose an improvement on the life quality and the environments in order to provide shelter and increase the reproduction. For the researching institutions we will try to provide them high quality data usable to many research purposes. For governments it is interesting since it will help restore the sea life, this helps in the water quality for human use, the quality and the price of the fishes in the market, and improves the general quality of society

3. Channels Mainly we will focus on reaching our buyers personally, but also create social awareness and transparency via website and social media.

4. Customers Relationships With the underwater life, we will try to have 0 contact to not disturb them. With the researching centers, we provide real time data by automated services, and we also ask for reports and the manegment to be shared for multiple places co-operation. And for the governments we will be looking forward to long term environmental partnerships that allow a good investment foundation

5. Revenue Streams The governments through different funding programs for sustainable programs and we will try different non-profit organizations to give us some extra money for the project in order to restore the sea. Also look for private funding from philanthropist and private NGO

6. Key Resources Our main resource is the place where we are gonna work, a facility that has to have a first area where to research and work in our computers, and a second area fully dedicated to build the models, from modeling the materials, to implement the sensors, and test them. If we are about to produce the structures in mass, we Will need a factory to produce them sequentially and fast.

7.Key Activities From all the steps of the process, we are gonna handle the design and building of the hábitats, incluiding the instalation of the sensors. And with all that the installation of the hábitats on the seabed and initialization. But about the managin of the data, we Will let that to the researching centers and institutions.

8. Key Partners From the governments we expect not only for them to be our clients, but also to help us with the emplacement locations, as well with some regulation about fishing in those places. Our relation with the institutions Will help us both, they Will have some data to work with, and they Will provide us with feedback about the project. We Will also look for a partnership with some marine business as bouy deployers, big ships owners or divers enterprises for help us with the transportation and deployment in the sea.

9. Cost Structure The whole Bill Will divide among the model (the materials cost and the process to build it), the sensors and all the electronics materials needed, and the cost asociated with the deployment (ship, deliver, divers…) As well the workers salaries in case we go bigger to mass production.

Marine ecosystem degradation is increasingly recognized as both an environmental and economic challenge. The decline of marine habitats has been associated with reduced fish stocks, loss of coastal protection, and greater exposure to climate-related risks such as erosion and storm damage [64], [65].

Artificial reefs have been widely implemented as a restoration strategy across different regions of the world. However, most existing solutions are designed as passive structures, providing physical habitats without the ability to monitor environmental conditions or assess their ecological performance in real time [66], [67].

At the same time, there is a growing demand for data-driven environmental management. Public authorities, research institutions, and environmental organizations increasingly require measurable and real-time data to support decision-making processes and justify investments in restoration projects.

This situation reveals a clear gap in the current market. Traditional artificial reefs are capable of providing structural support for marine life, but they lack monitoring capabilities. Conversely, environmental monitoring systems can generate valuable data, yet they do not contribute directly to habitat formation. The proposed solution aims to bridge this gap by integrating both functions into a single system.

The primary target market consists of institutional clients, particularly government agencies, research institutions, non-governmental organizations, and coastal infrastructure operators. In addition, secondary stakeholders include sectors such as insurance, tourism, and corporations focused on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives.

Market growth is supported by several converging trends. These include the expansion of blue carbon and biodiversity credit markets, the increasing adoption of nature-based solutions, the rising demand for IoT-based environmental monitoring technologies, and the transition toward circular and sustainable materials.

The economic potential of this sector is significant. The global seafood market exceeds 400 billion USD, while there is an estimated annual financing gap of approximately 700 billion USD in nature restoration efforts [68], [69].

Given these conditions, the most feasible market entry strategy is based on gradual validation. Initial deployment through pilot projects, research collaborations, and government-funded trials allows the solution to be tested and refined before scaling through public funding mechanisms and environmental credit markets.

4.4.1 SWOT Analysis

4.4.1.1 Strengths

Integration of artificial reef structures with IoT-based real-time environmental monitoring systems
Use of sustainable and eco-friendly materials (e.g., recycled glass, eco-concrete)
Enhanced durability through advanced materials (e.g., nano-SiO₂, basalt fiber reinforcement)
Contribution to biodiversity restoration, coastal protection, and ecosystem services
Ability to generate continuous environmental data for research and decision-making

4.4.1.2 Weaknesses

High initial development and deployment costs (CAPEX)
Technical complexity of integrating sensors, materials, and marine infrastructure
Long-term maintenance requirements in harsh marine environments
Dependence on reliable energy sources (solar/wave) for continuous operation
Need for validation and certification before large-scale deployment

4.4.1.3 Opportunities

Growing global investment in marine ecosystem restoration and climate adaptation
Expansion of blue carbon and biodiversity credit markets
Increasing demand for data-driven environmental monitoring solutions
Government policies supporting nature-based and coastal protection solutions
Potential partnerships with research institutions, NGOs, and environmental agencies

4.4.1.4 Threats

Harsh marine conditions (corrosion, biofouling, storms) affecting system lifespan
Regulatory and permitting challenges for marine deployment
Competition from established artificial reef solutions and ecological infrastructure companies
Risk of system or sensor failure impacting data reliability
Uncertainty in long-term funding and policy support

Figure 10 …

4.4.2 PESTEL ANALYSIS

A Pestel analysis is a tool used by many businesses to study the general enviroment in order to decide a business strategy. This general environment is divided in several segments from the industry and competitor environment. We are doing this analysis for identify changes in society to adapt and integrate the business over it.

4.4.2.1 Political

Politically, we find ourselves in a highly advantageous position. The European Union has also identified the same problem as we have and has addressed it by publishing The Nature Restoration Law (NRL), which mandates that member states take corrective action. This is where our involvement comes in: faced with a sudden surge in demand, our market supply position is excellent, making the participation of government agencies in our project even more likely.

4.4.2.2 Legal

Following the framework of section 4.4.2.1, the United Nations (UN) has also published The High Seas Treaty (BBNJ). This international law reaches more than 60 nations and provides a legal framework for establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in international waters, emphasizing area-based management tools and environmental impact assessments in the deep seas. This benefits our operations as it aligns perfectly with our business proposal and provides a structured framework for us to follow.

4.4.2.3 Economic

Economically, 2026 has marked a leap from research to large-scale implementation, and the funds and budgets allocated to these efforts have grown accordingly. In line with the previously mentioned points and regulations, various organizations have made substantial amounts available:

The EU, through the LIFE Program, is financing approximately 60–70% of projects with grants ranging between €1M and €5M for those within the “Nature and Biodiversity” calls. Furthermore, under the specific mission “Restore our Ocean and Waters,” calls have been launched with a budget exceeding €115M for nature-based solutions and habitat mapping.
The UN, following the BBNJ Treaty, has also activated the Global Environment Facility (GEF) with a total fund of €5.3B, which supports environmental challenges through projects similar to ours. From this special fund, 50% is being allocated to finance large protected areas in international waters.
Lastly, at the national level, both Spain and Portugal (both potential target locations) have initiatives such as the PLEAMAR and Empleaverde+ programs, or the NextGen funds (Spain), as well as the Blue Fund (Fundo Azul) and the 2026 State Budget (Portugal). All of these collectively aim toward fishing sustainability, marine restoration, and ecosystem recovery.

On a social level, we also possess arguments that gain momentum year after year. The restoration and creation of habitats have their primary impact on the creation of “shelter zones.” This allows for an increase in biomass, which socially stabilizes the economy of fishing areas and reduces conflicts arising from resource scarcity. Furthermore, it indirectly boosts diving tourism by diverting tourist pressure toward controlled areas.

In addition, the improvement of marine habitats enhances water quality and protects beaches from erosion. This increases the overall quality of life in coastal cities, particularly in high-tourism regions such as our target countries, Spain and Portugal.

4.4.2.5 Technological

Technologically, we find ourselves at our least robust point. We are currently in a boom where everything must be monitored, recorded, and measured to demonstrate efficacy and numerically evaluate utility. Funding bodies, in particular, need and demand project reliability. We rely on a simple system that allows us to meet these requirements without overcomplicating the process.

Other projects involve 3D scanning of the implementation or restoration area for simulations, or high-resolution mapping using sonar. However, our goals do not include these types of systems; due to the technological gap, we prefer a simpler monitoring system to provide the necessary security without resorting to excessive, highly invasive, and ultimately unnecessary testing.

4.4.2.6 Enviromental

The implementation of marine habitats is subject to strict oversight by regulatory bodies, which require studies proving that the intervention will not negatively alter the pre-existing dynamics. To this end, Baseline characterization studies are conducted for subsequent comparison after implementation.

Another study of great importance is ecological connectivity to assess interaction with the environment; this will be our Gold Standard for creating ecological corridors that facilitate species migration and climate change adaptation. Finally, other impact assessment and ecosystem service studies will also support our project to ensure its success.

Despite all these well-defined tests and studies, this area may prove challenging, as there are many regulatory requirements to meet and we have limited professional experience in the field. Consequently, we will intensify our efforts to satisfy both technical and social requirements.

4.5.1 Strategic Objectives

To determine our objectives, we will follow a SMART framework, ensuring our goals are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. We have defined a 3 to 5-year horizon to minimize ambiguity and ensure strategic alignment.

Short-to-Medium Term: The primary objective is to demonstrate the system's feasibility through a functional prototype and establish strategic partnerships with research institutions, NGOs, and local authorities for pilot deployment.
Long Term: Beyond the initial scope, the project aims to scale the solution into a modular and sustainable artificial reef system dedicated to marine ecosystem restoration and data-driven coastal management.

Monitoring, Metrics, and Baselines The implementation of specific and measurable KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) will serve as the project’s compass. We will utilize a longitudinal monitoring approach, comparing post-deployment data against a rigorous environmental baseline (the “Year 0” measurements). This comparative analysis is the only scientifically valid method to quantify biodiversity net gain, water quality improvement, and structural integrity over time.

Critical Relevance in a Global Context The urgency of these objectives cannot be overstated. As detailed previously, marine ecosystems are approaching a critical tipping point. The degradation of these habitats threatens keystone species responsible for essential ecosystem services, including global oxygen production—driven by phytoplankton and healthy reef systems—and the sustenance of human populations that rely on the sea for food security. Our strategy is not merely a business goal; it is a response to a global ecological imperative.

Achievability and the “Experimental” Paradigm In alignment with the WWF’s classification, this project is categorized under the Experimental Frontier. Unlike “Mature” projects with predictable outcomes, ours operates in a dynamic environment where we must push technical boundaries. Recognizing this “experimental” nature allows us to maintain operational flexibility. We acknowledge that marine variables—such as current shifts, temperature fluctuations, and pH levels—require an adaptive management style, allowing us to pivot our tactics without compromising our core strategic objectives.

4.5.2 Segmentation and Targeting

Unlike traditional consumer products, our solution is not defined by standard demographic or psychographic segments. Instead, our segmentation strategy is geographically and ecologically driven, focusing on coastal regions that share specific environmental parameters.

Currently, our primary focus is the Atlantic coast of Portugal and Northern Spain. These regions share nearly identical marine conditions and biodiversity profiles, allowing us to optimize our system's performance across multiple sites with minimal structural adaptation.

While the European Union is our primary institutional ally and initial market, our long-term scalability plan involves expanding to analogous maritime environments globally. Our expansion roadmap targets regions with similar “Cold-Temperate” or “Upwelling” ecosystems, such as the Northeastern U.S., Southwestern Canada, Western New Zealand, and Central Chile.

In future phases, we aim to diversify our technology to accommodate different climates—ranging from tropical to arctic conditions—maximizing our global footprint and impact on marine restoration.

From this perspective, our targeting strategy focuses on the stakeholders and key beneficiaries within our geographical segments. Having established where the system will be deployed, we must now define who benefits from its implementation to justify and analyze the required investment.

The primary environmental impact of our project is the restoration of marine biodiversity in coastal areas, which facilitates the growth of fish populations and improves overall water quality. Additionally, a significant socio-economic benefit is the mitigation of coastal erosion and current control. By buffering the impact of storms and high-energy waves, our system enhances the resilience of coastal communities and protects critical infrastructure.

Consequently, our primary target audience consists of national and regional governments, as well as coastal municipalities. Given the specialized nature of our solution and the limited direct competition, prioritizing governmental entities and the public sector as our lead stakeholders is a strategic imperative.

Our partnership with these entities is based on three critical criteria:

Environmental Awareness: The urgency of addressing marine degradation.
Financial Capacity: The ability to allocate long-term infrastructure investment.
Strategic Alignment: Consistency with global sustainability mandates.

In this context, the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy serves as a definitive catalyst, ensuring that our objectives are perfectly aligned with the European Union's regulatory and funding frameworks.

4.5.3 Positioning

4.5.4 Marketing-Mix

4.5.5 Brand

The name of the product is Maris Habitats. Maris is of Latin origin, meaning “of the sea.” We chose this name to reflect our mission: to give back to the ocean and support the growth of new marine habitats.

Logo

Figure 11 …

Figure 11: Maris Habitats Logo

The Maris logo is inspired by the movement of the ocean: fluid and continuous. It captures the essence of water through a single, uninterrupted line, symbolizing flow, connection, and natural rhythm.

Color System

Figure 12 …

The Maris color palette is inspired by the depth and diversity of the ocean. It balances cool aquatic tones with a vibrant accent, reflecting both calmness and life beneath the surface.

Deep Sea Blue — #14004D  Foundation color Represents depth, mystery, and stability
Ocean Blue — #004AAD  Core brand color Clear, strong, and evoking open water
Fish Blue — #5C9FD5  Secondary tone Adds lightness and movement
Sky Blue — #DDEBF6  Background color Soft, breathable, and minimal
Coral Orange — #EE4C01  Accent color Inspired by coral reefs, used for highlights, energy, and contrast
Orca White — #F9F9F9  Neutral base Clean, modern, and versatile

Graphic Elements

Figure 13 …

The graphic language of Maris is derived from marine ecosystems, translating organic underwater forms into bold, modern visuals. The organic shapes are inspired by coral, sea plants, and flowing water. Shapes are soft, rounded, and natural. The elements overlap to create depth, mimicking underwater environments and ecosystems.

4.6.1 Programmes

4.6.2 Budget

4.6.3 Control

Summary

Provide here the conclusions of this chapter and make the bridge to the next chapter.

Based on this market/economic analysis, the team decided to create <specify the type of product> intended for <specify the market niche> because <specify here the relevant market-related reasons>. Consequently, the team decided to design a solution with the following <specify here the features added for market reasons>.

2026/02/16 21:08 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

This chapter examines the environmental, economic and social dimensions of the project, as well as the product’s life cycle, in order to assess its overall sustainability. The aim is to highlight the considerations taken to minimize negative environmental impacts when introducing artificial structures into marine ecosystems.

Particular attention is given to ensuring that the solution does not further disrupt or degrade existing ocean environments. This includes evaluating how the design, material selection, and long-term use of the product can prevent pollution and reduce ecological harm. By adopting a lifecycle perspective, the chapter also addresses how the product can be managed responsibly from production to end-of-life.

This section considers the environmental impact of the project using principles inspired by the butterfly diagram, a model that represents circular material flows. The model distinguishes between biological processes, where materials safely integrate into natural systems, and technical processes, where products are maintained, reused, and recycled to extend their lifespan. (See Figure 14).

The MARIS HABITATS concept reflects these principles by combining long-term environmental integration with efficient use of technical components. From a biological perspective, the habitat is designed to function as part of the marine ecosystem over time. The use of non-toxic and durable materials allows marine organisms such as algae and microorganisms to attach and grow on the structure, gradually transforming it into an artificial reef. In this way, the structure contributes positively to biodiversity rather than becoming waste.

From a technical perspective, the system is designed with longevity and adaptability in mind. The structure itself is intended to remain in the environment for long periods, while the electronic components are treated as separate elements. Sensors and electronic modules can be replaced, upgraded, or removed without disturbing the entire habitat, which reduces material waste and extends the usability of the system.

Maintenance is minimized through the selection of robust materials that can withstand harsh marine conditions. However, when intervention is required, the modular design allows specific components to be handled individually. This approach reduces unnecessary replacement and supports more efficient resource use.

The project also considers the potential for reuse and recovery of electronic components. Once the habitat has reached a stable ecological state, parts of the monitoring system can be redeployed in new installations. This reduces both environmental impact and overall system cost.

Recycling is addressed through the selection of materials that either have recycled content or can be processed at the end of their technical life. Although the structure is intended to remain in the environment, the design avoids materials that could cause long-term harm.

The economic aspect of MARIS HABITATS is mainly related to the long-term benefits that can be created through ecosystem restoration and its integration with existing marine infrastructure. By improving marine biodiversity and supporting the growth of fish populations, the system can help increase fishery productivity over time. This can bring direct economic benefits to local communities that depend on fishing as a source of income and food.

In addition, previous studies have shown that artificial reefs can increase fish biomass and support the development of fisheries, which can lead to economic improvements in coastal areas [71]. This means that the impact of the project is not limited to the fishing sector, but can also extend to other activities such as tourism and marine-related services.

Another important point is that the system can be used together with existing structures, such as offshore wind farms or coastal protection systems. Instead of building completely new infrastructure, this approach makes it possible to use what already exists and add ecological functions to it. In this way, resources can be used more efficiently while still achieving environmental benefits.

The use of sensors also adds an extra layer of value to the project. The data collected from the system can be useful for research, environmental monitoring, and decision-making processes. Over time, this can help improve how marine resources are managed and may reduce costs caused by inefficient management.

A further advantage of the project is its modular and scalable design. Since the habitat units can be deployed gradually and adapted to different marine environments, the system does not require full-scale investment at the initial stage. This makes pilot implementation more realistic and allows costs to be spread over time.

The modular monitoring system can also help reduce maintenance and operational costs. Instead of replacing the entire structure when technical issues occur, only specific components need to be repaired, upgraded, or replaced. This makes maintenance more practical and helps avoid unnecessary replacement.

In addition, the project may benefit from collaboration with public institutions, research organizations, and environmental programs. As marine restoration and biodiversity protection are becoming more important in sustainability policies, the project may be supported through grants, pilot funding, or public-private partnerships. This could improve the feasibility of both initial deployment and future expansion.

Even though the initial investment may be relatively high, the expected benefits are likely to outweigh these costs over time. These benefits include improved ecosystem services, increased fish production, and better protection of coastal areas. For these reasons, MARIS HABITATS can be considered not only environmentally sustainable, but also economically viable in the long run.

The project contributes to social sustainability by supporting marine ecosystems that are vital to the livelihoods and well-being of coastal communities. Healthier fish populations can enhance food security, strengthen local economies, and promote sustainable fishing practices.

The integration of environmental sensors facilitates the collection of valuable data that can be used for research, education, and public awareness. This supports knowledge sharing and fosters innovation within marine science and environmental management.

The project aligns with the principles of inclusive and collaborative development, particularly in relation to Sustainable Development Goal 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) [72]. Promoting cooperation between governments, research institutions, local communities, and environmental organizations, the project fosters a collaborative approach that strengthens shared responsibility and encourages collective action. The active involvement of local stakeholders in the planning, implementation, and monitoring processes enhances transparency, builds trust, and ensures that the project reflects community needs and values. Such participatory practices are essential for achieving long-term social acceptance and sustainability.

The life cycle of the project is considered from material selection to end-of-life, with the aim of minimizing environmental impact while ensuring long-term functionality and sustainability.

In the material phase, the project prioritizes environmentally responsible and durable materials. The selected solution is based on basalt fiber-reinforced concrete. Basalt fibers are derived from natural volcanic rock and are described as non-corrosive and chemically stable in saline environments. This makes them suitable for marine applications where long-term durability is required. Electronic components, including ESP32-based sensors, are evaluated in terms of energy efficiency, reliability, and lifespan.

During the manufacturing phase, the habitat structure is built and the sensor system is integrated while aiming to reduce energy consumption and resource use. Efficient production methods are emphasized to lower the overall environmental footprint.

The testing phase involves validating both the structural performance of the habitat and the functionality of the sensor system. Special attention is given to energy efficiency, long battery life, and reliable data collection, which helps reduce the need for maintenance.

The design also considers structural resilience and long-term environmental integration. The habitat is intentionally designed with varied shapes and surface features to support marine colonization and ecological functionality. This ensures that the habitat continues to function even if parts of the structure degrade over time.

The monitoring system is separated from the main structure through a modular component that contains all sensors. This unit can be retrieved for maintenance, data collection, or replacement without disturbing the habitat. By isolating electronic components from the permanent structure, the design reduces the risk of long-term pollution.

At the end-of-life stage, the structure is intended to remain in the marine environment and gradually integrate into the ecosystem, functioning as an artificial reef. Instead of becoming waste, the structure contributes positively to biodiversity. Electronic components can be removed, reused, or redeployed in new systems, supporting more efficient use of resources.

5.6 Summary

This chapter has examined the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of the project, together with a lifecycle perspective, in order to evaluate its overall sustainability. The analysis highlights the importance of minimizing environmental impact while ensuring long-term functionality, economic viability, and social value.

Based on this sustainability analysis, the team selected a modular habitat design combined with a separate monitoring system and the use of basalt fiber-reinforced concrete as the primary structural material. This choice is supported by its durability, resistance to marine conditions, and suitability for long-term deployment without causing environmental harm. In addition, the separation of electronic components from the main structure contributes to reducing pollution risks and improving resource efficiency.

Consequently, the solution was designed with features that support sustainability throughout its lifecycle. These include a structure that can integrate into the marine ecosystem over time, a modular and retrievable sensor system that enables maintenance without disturbing the habitat, and a design that promotes marine colonization through varied shapes and surface characteristics. Together, these elements ensure that the system not only minimizes negative environmental impacts but also contributes positively to marine biodiversity and long-term ecosystem health.

2026/02/16 21:09 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

The deployment of technological solutions within natural and often fragile marine ecosystems involves significant ethical considerations. This chapter examines the deontological principles that have guided the decision-making process, with the aim of ensuring that the proposed intervention does not unintentionally harm the systems it is designed to protect.

Key considerations include the long-term lifecycle of materials, particularly in relation to preventing marine pollution and the accumulation of debris. In addition, the integrity and reliability of the environmental data collected are of central importance, as such data must accurately reflect ecosystem conditions. The ethical implications of material selection, including the use of reusable versus virgin resources, are also addressed.

This chapter highlights the responsibility of engineers to ensure transparency and objectivity in reporting project outcomes. Providing accurate and unbiased information about the performance of the habitat is essential to avoid misleading claims and to prevent “greenwashing.” In this way, the project seeks to uphold principles of responsible engineering and contribute to genuine ecological stewardship.

Engineering ethics play a critical role in the design and development of artificial marine habitats intended to support endangered fish species. Structures must be designed with a high degree of structural integrity, durability, and reliability to withstand harsh marine environments and maintain long-term functionality. Engineers have a responsibility to ensure that both the habitats and any associated monitoring systems are safe for marine organisms, installation personnel, and the surrounding environment. Equally important is the need to minimize ecological disruption. Artificial habitats should be carefully designed to avoid damaging the seabed or interfering with existing ecosystems. Instead, their purpose should be to complement and enhance natural habitats, thereby promoting biodiversity and ecological balance.

Material selection is another key ethical consideration. Engineers must prioritize the use of non-toxic, environmentally sustainable, and long-lasting materials. The production processes involved in creating these habitats should follow to principles of sustainability, ensuring that environmental impact is minimized throughout the lifecycle of the project.

Transparency is an essential in ethical engineering practice. Engineers should ensure that all data collected through habitat monitoring systems is accurate, openly shared, and reported honestly regardless of whether the findings are positive or negative. Such transparency supports scientific collaboration and contributes to a deeper understanding of marine ecosystems, ultimately improving conservation strategies. In conclusion, engineers have a fundamental ethical obligation to develop solutions that not only support the recovery of endangered fish species but also promote the long-term health and resilience of marine ecosystems for future generations.

HERNAN: I WILL CHECK THIS

The duty of safety and quality assurance requires that all underwater sensors and electrical components are designed and implemented in a manner that ensures they are safe for both users and marine life. This includes minimizing potential risks associated with system failures by incorporating reliable design solutions and protective measures that reduce the likelihood and impact of malfunctions.

The duty of information transparency emphasizes the importance of providing accurate and accessible data. Sensor data should be disclosed in a clear and reliable manner, allowing stakeholders to assess environmental performance and understand the actual impact of the system on sustainability outcomes.

The duty to maximize economic utility involves supporting clients in achieving cost efficiency over time. This includes designing systems that reduce long-term maintenance requirements and operational costs, thereby increasing the overall economic value of the solution.

The project aims to support marine ecosystems while minimizing negative environmental impacts. The artificial habitats are designed to promote biodiversity and contribute to the restoration of natural fish populations without disrupting the surrounding ecosystem.

Material selection prioritizes durability and environmental compatibility in order to reduce pollution and long-term ecological harm. Care is taken to ensure that the structures do not release harmful substances into the marine environment.

The project also contributes to environmental awareness and education by enabling the collection of monitoring data through integrated sensors. This data supports researchers and local communities in developing a deeper understanding of marine ecosystems and the factors that influence their health.

The design considers ecosystem balance, ensuring that the habitat supports species that naturally coexist and avoids introducing elements that could negatively affect the existing ecological structure. This approach aligns with principles of environmental responsibility and sustainable marine management.

HERNAN: I WILL CHECK IT

Liability relates to the responsibility for potential consequences if the system does not perform as intended. This includes risks such as incorrect environmental data, failure of monitoring components, or unintended interactions with the surrounding marine environment.

Particular attention is given to the reliability of the monitoring system, as inaccurate data could affect research outcomes and decision-making processes. Ensuring proper calibration, testing, and data validation is therefore essential.

Another aspect concerns responsibility in case of long-term system degradation. Even though the structure is intended to integrate into the environment, it is important to ensure that no harmful elements remain if components fail or deteriorate over time.

Clear documentation and transparency are also part of liability, as they define how the system is used, monitored, and maintained. This helps reduce misuse and ensures that responsibility is properly understood.

6.6 Summary

This chapter has examined the ethical and deontological considerations associated with the development of a smart artificial marine habitat. Key aspects included ensuring environmental protection, maintaining data integrity, promoting transparency, and minimizing potential risks related to system deployment and operation.

Based on this ethical and deontological analysis, the team chose a modular habitat design combined with a separable sensor system and durable, environmentally compatible materials such as basalt fiber reinforced concrete. These choices were made to reduce long-term environmental impact, avoid pollution, and ensure that the system can be maintained without disturbing the marine ecosystem.

Consequently, the team decided to design a solution that prioritizes structural stability, safe integration into the seabed, and the ability to retrieve and maintain electronic components independently from the habitat structure. This approach supports responsible engineering practices and reduces potential risks related to system failure and environmental harm.

2026/02/16 21:10 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

Transitioning from a theoretical model to a functional underwater prototype involves a rigorous process of synthesis and troubleshooting. This chapter documents the technical execution of the project, detailing the mechanical assembly, electronic integration, and software architecture of the MARIS HABITATS system.

It serves as a technical log of the development lifecycle, highlighting how the theoretical foundations established in Chapter 2 were translated into physical components. From the challenges of ensuring watertight integrity for the sensor housing to the optimization of low-power data transmission, this section provides a comprehensive look at the engineering hurdles overcome during the fabrication and programming phases.

The goal of our project is to design artificial marine habitats that can help endangered fish species and corals thrive again. Climate change and the warming of the oceans are disturbing marine ecosystems and damaging the natural balance of life underwater. Because of this, many species are losing safe places to live, hide, feed, and grow. Our design is therefore focused on supporting nature itself, especially fish, corals, and other marine organisms.

From the beginning, we knew that the structure had to meet several important requirements. It had to be modular, so that different units could be combined and adapted depending on the location and the needs of the ecosystem. It also had to be made from a material that would not harm the marine environment. Since corals need to grow on the structure, the material had to be suitable for marine life and preferably porous. At the same time, the habitat could not be excessively large or heavy, since this would complicate transport and installation. The design therefore had to balance practical deployment with sufficient weight and stability to remain in place and withstand sea currents.

To develop our concept, we started with brainstorming sessions and research into similar existing projects. We looked at different types of artificial reefs and marine restoration systems, and we also studied which materials could safely be used in the sea. During this ideation phase, we created around six to seven different structural concepts. While the overall shapes of these concepts were quite similar, the main differences were in the materials and possible additional features such as sensors.

We explored several material options, including basalt fabric-reinforced structures, polymer-clay, bacterial HSC, ECOncrete, recycled glass, and Biorock. Each material had its own advantages and disadvantages. Some were more expensive, while others were less suitable for coral growth or did not provide the level of porosity needed by marine organisms. Since fish and corals benefit from rough and porous surfaces, this became an important factor in our decision-making process.

After comparing the different options, we selected basalt fabric-reinforced concrete as the most suitable material for our design. This material offered a strong balance between cost, weight, stability, and ecological suitability. It is not overly expensive, heavy enough to remain stable underwater, and easy to shape into modular forms. In addition, its porous surface makes it a good choice for encouraging coral growth and creating shelter for fish. The material can be formed by first making a mould in the desired shape and then placing the basalt fabric or mesh inside it. Depending on the required strength, the fabric can be arranged in one or several layers. Fine concrete or mortar is then poured, sprayed, or pressed around the reinforcement. After curing, the concrete becomes rigid while the basalt fabric remains embedded inside as reinforcement. For these reasons, basalt fabric-reinforced concrete was chosen as the best material for our final concept.

7.4.1 Introduction

This section presents the development of the artificial marine habitat concept. The aim was to design a structure that is both ecologically suitable for marine life and technically feasible to produce and deploy underwater. Throughout the design process, attention was given to stability, modularity, material choice, and the ability of the habitat to support a wide variety of species.

The concept was developed through sketches, design variations, and structural ideas that were gradually refined into a more practical and adaptable solution. The following subsections describe the design considerations and the structural concepts explored so far.

7.4.2 Design

The design phase focused on creating a habitat that could function as a safe and supportive environment for marine organisms. Several key requirements were identified from the beginning. The structure must be heavy enough to remain stable underwater, with anchoring to the seabed if necessary. It should also be modular, so that it can be expanded and adapted over time depending on the needs of the site.

Another important design aspect is the material. The habitat should be made from a material that allows algae and other marine organisms to attach and grow easily. For this reason, a rough surface is important. In addition, the design should include openings of different sizes, together with indentations and protrusions, so that both small and large species can find shelter. Height is also an important factor, as it helps create a more natural, cliff-like underwater environment.

During this stage, the work included initial structural drafts, material selection, detailed drawings, a 3D model with load and stress analysis, and a colour palette. These elements helped guide the development of the habitat concept into a more realistic and applicable design.

7.4.3 Structure

The structural development of the habitat started with initial sketches and concept ideas. At this stage, attention was given to material selection, detailed drawings, 3D modelling with load and stress analysis, and the overall appearance of the structure. The images shown are illustrative examples of the concept.

Several important structural requirements were identified. The habitat must be heavy enough to remain stable underwater and, if needed, be anchored to the seabed. It should also be modular, so it can be expanded over time. The material must support the growth of algae and other marine organisms, which is why a rough surface is important. In addition, the structure should include openings of different sizes, as well as indentations and protrusions, to provide shelter for different species. Height is also important, as it helps mimic a cliff-like environment (see Figure 15 for illustration).

Another concept is a hexagonal module supported by six pillars, which lift the structure above the seabed and avoid fully blocking the movement of species living close to it. On top of the pillars lies a hexagonal base with surfaces designed to encourage the growth of marine vegetation and other organisms.

The edges of the module are serrated so that multiple units can connect securely, like puzzle pieces, without horizontal displacement. This creates a stable and adaptable modular system that can be expanded depending on the site. The design also allows openings of different sizes, providing shelter for both small and large fish species.

Figure 16 illustrates the proposed habitat modular design.

Figure 16 presents the hexagon drawings.

Other structural ideas were also considered, although they have not yet been implemented. One idea was to vary the size of the arches formed by the pillars in order to accommodate different species, while some sides could be made into full walls to create more enclosed shelter spaces. Another proposal was to include a larger base element that could serve as both a connection point for the modules and an anchoring system to improve stability against currents and waves.

A first variation of this concept used larger and smaller pillar-based units to create openings of different sizes. These elements could be stacked, fitted into one another, or placed flat on the seabed, making the system flexible and adaptable. (See Figure 17).

After further research, another structural concept was developed that may be taken forward. This design is modular, allowing the elements to be stacked and connected in different ways depending on the site. As a result, the structure can create both larger and smaller openings and can be extended vertically and horizontally.

One of the main advantages of this concept is its flexibility. It can cover a large area of the seabed and create a more complex habitat for fish, corals, algae, and other marine organisms. By changing the arrangement of the modules, the structure can provide shelter and living space for both small and large species.

Another advantage is that the design is relatively easy to manufacture. Its simple modular form makes it suitable for construction in concrete and other possible materials for the final habitat. (See Figure 18 and Figure 19).

7.5.1 Hardware

Black Box Diagram

Throughout this project, we explored various approaches to data collection. Initially, Version 1 was developed, while this version enabled continuous data communication, it proved to be highly complex and more prone to potential failures. Based on these findings, Version 2 was selected as the preferred because it prioritises robustness, reduced complexity, and ease of deployment, while accepting compromises regarding limited operational duration and the lack of continuous data communication.

Version 1 (V1) Buoy-Connected System

Figure 20 presents the smart system black box diagram. The system corresponds to a living laboratory where the:

Sun (top left corner) is the source of energy. A buoy equipped with solar panels on top will store power in a battery and provide power to the system.
Sea water (bottom right corner) is the growth medium. Four sensors will monitor the water environmental conditions (diamond).
Fish and sea life (bottom left corner) are under observation. Fish and algae will be monitored (presence and size) to determine biodiversity and measure photosyntethic effects and chlorophyll on surfaces.

All this data will be reunited and sent to the On Board Computer (OBC) while also getting a timestamp by a Real Time Clock (RCT). All this will be powered by the battery through a Power Management System (PMS) that received the power from the buoy.

Both the buoy and the structure will have a positioning module, that will count with a Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU), a Doppler velocity Log (DVL) and a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver, to have everything registered about the position of both elements and make sure nothing goes wrong due to external factors such as storms, currents or human factors.

From the structure to the buoy, there will be a chain and a cable, for both structural support and data and power connection between the 2 elements. Finally, all the data collected will be sent to a data center, this will be done via the standard Iridium Satellite Network.

The main output will be a report with all the obtained data.

Figure 20: Black Box Diagrams V1, different versions

Version 2 (V2) Smart Block System

Figure 21 illustrates a simplified, self-contained underwater monitoring system integrated into our modular artificial reef structure.

In this configuration, the system is based on a “Smart Block” that houses all electronic components, including the power supply, sensors, and data storage, eliminating the need for external infrastructure such as surface buoys, solar panels, or cable connections.

The system is powered by an internal battery designed for approximately 49 days of operation, after which maintenance is required. Environmental data is collected via sensors that measure pressure (depth), temperature, pH, and conductivity. All collected data is stored locally on an SD card; real-time transmission is not possible. Consequently, data retrieval and system maintenance are performed manually by divers, who replace the battery at regular intervals and collect the stored data. After retrieval, the data is transferred to a research facility for analysis and evaluation, ultimately contributing to environmental monitoring and reporting.

Microcontroller & Battery

We chose to use the Arduino Uno R4 Minima microcontroller. This version does not include WiFi or Bluetooth, but we would not have any use for those features underwater anyway.

The battery we used is a 12 V 10 Ah lead-acid battery. Since it is a lead-acid battery, it should not be discharged more than 50 %.

Based on the total power consumption of the system and the battery capacity, one charge would last approximately 49 days.

To save energy, measurements are performed only once per hour. The system is designed to be active for only 2 minutes per hour, which should be more than sufficient for the sensor values to stabilize and for the data to be written to the SD card.

The total power consumption of the system is 1.505 W.

Battery capacity: 12 V × 10 Ah × 0.5 = 60 Wh

Daily energy consumption (2 min/hour operation): 1.505 W/30 × 24 h = 1.204 Wh

Number of days: 60 Wh / 1.204 Wh = 49.83 d

Sensors

Selecting sensors was quite challenging, as most sensors such as pH and conductivity probes are designed for temporary measurements and not for long term submersion. Additionally, the sensors must withstand the high pressure at the seabed, and many are not suitable for seawater. This resulted in expensive sensors, mainly sourced from suppliers in the United States.

The BarXT sensor measures both pressure and temperature. From the pressure data, the depth can be calculated. An I2C level converter is required to convert the 3.3 V logic signal to 5 V so it can be read by the Arduino.

The pH sensor is sourced from Atlas Scientific. It is used together with a pH Surveyor, which converts the signal into an analog signal that can be directly read by the Arduino’s analog inputs.

For the conductivity sensor, no similar ready-made solution was available. It outputs a current signal of 4 mA–20 mA, which must be converted into a voltage of 0 V–5 V to be read by the Arduino. This is done using a 250 Ω resistor, according to Ohm’s law (U=I×R).

0.004 A × 250 Ω = 1 V

0.020 A × 250 Ω = 5 V

Enclosure

The enclosure is one of the most critical and costly components of the system, as it must withstand high external pressure at the seabed. Suitable enclosures are therefore difficult to source.

A pressure relief valve is installed to regulate internal pressure. Additionally, condensation is expected to form inside the enclosure due to temperature differences between the internal air and the surrounding environment. To mitigate this, silica gel packets are placed inside the enclosure to absorb moisture.

The sensors from Atlas Scientific use ¾“ NPT threads, while the enclosure is designed with M10 threads. This requires sealing the existing holes and machining new threaded openings in the enclosure.

However, the sensor from Blue Robotics is equipped with M10 threads, allowing direct installation into the enclosure without modification.

Table 11: Sensor components

Sensor	Type	Power supply (V)	Current (A)	Price (€)	Quantity	Supplier	Link	Other/Comment
BarXT	Depth / Pressure / Temp	2.5 - 5.5	0.0015	329.19	1	Bluerobotics	Link
I2C Level Converter	Level converter board	5		25.65	1	Bluerobotics	Link
Surveyor™ Analog pH Sensor / Meter	pH surveyor	3.3 - 5.5	0.003	21.52	1	Atlas Scientific	Link
Industrial pH Probe – No Temp	pH test probe	3.3 - 5.5		531.45	1	Atlas Scientific	Link
Industrial Conductivity Kit K 1.0	Conductivity	9.0 - 36.0	0.045	595.05	1	Atlas Scientific	Link	Calibration certificate
Total			0.0495	1502.86

Table 12: Electrical components

Product	Type	Power supply (V)	Current (A)	Output	Price (€)	Quantity	Supplier	Link	Comment
Adafruit 254	SD - module	3.3-6	0.1		6.45	1	Mouser	Link
Arduino ABX00080	Microcontroller	6-24	0.038	5 V / 3.3 V	16.69	1	Mouser	Link
FDMM004GMC-XE00	MicroSD - card				21.88	1	Farnell	Link
MC3090082	Silica gel (moisture absorber)				42.26	1	Farnell	Link	Pack of 100
REC10-12	Lead-acid battery			10 Ah 12 V	71.32	1	Farnell	Link
Watertight Box 5L	Underwater electrical box				805.66	1	Bluerobotics	Link
Pressure Relief Valve	Pressure Relief Valve (M10)				27.85	1	Bluerobotics	Link
WetLink Penetrator Blank	Penetrator blank (M10)				28.20	6	Bluerobotics	Link	4.70 * 6
MCMF0W4BB2500A50	250 Ω resistance				0.29	1	Farnell	Link2
Adafruit 2670	Perfboard / Breadboard				4.26	1	Mouser	Link	Pack of 10
M316 SOA2CSS50-	M3 screws for perfboard				5.55	1	Farnell	Link	Pack of 50
Total			0.138		1030.41

Figure 22: Electrical schematic overview

KEEP GOING

(ii) hardware component selection (use tables to compare the different options for each component; (iii) detailed schematics; (iv) power budget.

7.5.2 Software

Describe in detail the: (i) use cases or user stories for the smart device and app; (ii) selection of development platforms and software components (use tables to compare the different options); (iii) component diagram.

7.5.3 Packaging

Present and explain the: (i) initial packaging drafts; (ii) detailed drawings; (iii) 3D model with load and stress analysis, if applicable.

Refer main changes in relation to the designed solution.

Structure

Detail and explain any changes made in relation to the designed solution, including structural downscaling, different materials, parts, etc.

Hardware

Detail and explain any change made in relation to the designed solution. In case there are changes regarding the hardware, present the detailed schematics of the prototype.

Software

Detail and explain any changes made in relation to the designed solution, including different software components, tools, platforms, etc.

The code developed for the prototype (smart device and apps) is described here using code flowcharts.

Tests & Results

Hardware tests

Perform the hardware tests specified in Tests. These results are usually presented in the form of tables with two columns: Functionality and Test Result (Pass/Fail).

Software tests

Software tests comprise: (i) functional tests regarding the identified use cases / user stories; (ii) performance tests regarding exchanged data volume, load and runtime (these tests are usually repeated 10 times to determine the average and standard deviation results); (iii) usability tests according to the System Usability Scale.

7.7 Summary

Provide here the conclusions of this chapter and make the bridge to the next chapter.

2026/02/16 21:11 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

Discuss here what was achieved (wrt the initial objectives) and what is missing (wrt the initial objectives) of the project.

Identify here the limitations of the solution and prototype.

Provide here your recommendations for future work.

2026/02/16 21:12 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

[1], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] Nicholas A. J. Graham, Kirsty L. Nash, 2013. The importance of structural complexity in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs, 32, pp.315–326.

[2], [54], [66] PHAROS Project, 2024. Artificial Reefs.

[3] Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2024. Osborne Reef Waste Tire Removal Project.

[4] Artificial reef preparation

[5] Tao Yu Vivian W.Y. Tam Wenkui Dong Wengui Li Fulin Qu, 2021. Durability deterioration of concrete under marine environment from material to structure: A critical review. Journal of Building Engineering, 35, pp.102074, ISSN 2352-7102.

[6] Polycase, 2020. IP68 Waterproof Rating.

[7] Reef Design Lab

[8] SECORE, 2026. SECORE uses in vitro fertilization for coral reef conservation.

[9] Eternal Reef

[10] Reef Innovations

[11] BioRocks, 2026. BioRocks.

[12] rrreefs, 2026. the rrreef system.

[13] Living seawalls

[14], [15] MEITEC.

[16], [17] ECOncrete.

[18], [19] IntelliReefs.

[22] New Heaven, 2016. Artificial Reefs: What works and what doesn’t.

[24], [25], [27] Ammar Fayez Al-Shayeb Ibrahim Dubdub Nurul Ain Harmiza Abdullah Mugahed Amran Muhd Afiq Hizami Abdullah Mohammed Al-Yaari, 2026. Innovative development of self-healing high-strength concrete using a polymeric air-entraining agent and Bacillus sphaericus: durability performance in aggressive saline environments. Reviews on Advanced Materials Science, 37, na, ISSN na.

[26] S. Packialakshmi Prajeesha M.P, 2026. Study of Bacterial Concrete Corrosion Resistance in Marine Environment. SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering, 13, pp.149-165, ISSN 2348-8352.

[28], [29], [30], [31], [32] Effect of Manufacturing Processes on Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Composites for Marine Applications. Journal of Composites Science, 9, 2025, pp.233, ISSN 2504-477X.

[33], [34], [35], [36] Yuanxun Zheng Xiaobing Dai Peng Zhang Canhua Lai, 2026. Prediction of Impact Resistance of Nano-SiO2 and Hybrid Fiber Modified Geopolymer Gel Concrete in Marine Wet–Thermal and Chloride Salt Environment. MDPI Materials.

[37], [38] Blue is the new green – Ecological enhancement of concrete based coastal and marine infrastructure. Ecological Engineering, 84, 2015, pp.260-272, ISSN 0925-8574.

[39], [40], [41], [42] Kyla Marie Ayodoc Earl Jhon Lazaga Cyril Jane Fullido Michelle Daarol, 2026. Recycled Glass as Partial Replacement for Fine Aggregates in Concrete for Marine Structure Application. E3S Web of Conferences, 694, pp.01002, ISSN 2267-1242.

[43], [44], [46], [47], [48] Martin Møller Greve Paul Thomas Peter James Thomas Bichitra Nanda Sahoo, 2025. Antibiofouling Coatings For Marine Sensors: Progress and Perspectives on Materials, Methods, Impacts, and Field Trial Studies. ACS Sensors, 10, pp.1600-1619.

[55] The interim report must contain the the following chapters: Introduction, Project Management, State of the Art, Marketing Plan, Eco-efficiency Measures for Sustainability, Ethical and Deontological Concerns, Proposed Solution and Bibliography. In particular, the Project Management chapter includes the updated project progress register, the sprint report for completed sprints (tasks that were included, statuses, assignees, allocations) and the updated release Gantt chart.

[56], [64] Lars Gamfeldt & Mary I. O’Connor J. Emmett Duffy Andrew Gonzalez Kristin L. Matulich Bruce A. Hungate Jarrett E. K. Byrnes Bradley J. Cardinale E. Carol Adair David U. Hooper, 2012. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature, 486, pp.105-108.

[57], [68] Fortune Business Insights, 2026. Seafood Market Size, Share, and Industry Analysis, By Type (Fish, Crustaceans, Molluscs, and Others), By Form [Fresh and Processed (Canned, Chilled, and Frozen)], By Distribution Channel [B2C (Supermarkets/Hypermarkets, Convenience Stores & Specialty Stores, Online Sales Channel, and Others) and B2B], and Regional Forecast, 2026-2034.

[58] FAO, 2024. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024 - Blue Transformation in action. Rome.. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations., ISSN 978-92-5-138763-4.

[60], [69] Sethid, Suresh A. Alqayam Meghjid Alejandro Delmard Zhu Lic Terry Townshendc Eric Swansonc Rose Niuc Geoffrey M. Healb Andrew Deutza, John Tobin-de la Puente, 2020. Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap. Paulson Institute, na, na.

[61] HEALTHY OCEANS • HEALTHY ECONOMIES • HEALTHY COMMUNITIES, 2022 ANNUAL REPORT. PROBLUE by THE WORLD BANK.

[62], [65] P. et al. Menéndez I.J. Losada M.W. Beck, 218. The global flood protection savings provided by coral reefs. Nature Communications, 9.

[63] Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures.. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), 2023.

[67] Artificial reef preparation

[70] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021. The Circular Economy System Diagram (Butterfly Diagram).

[71] Artificial reef preparation

[72] United Nations, 2015. Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals.

PlayGround

1. Introduction

1.1 Presentation

1.2 Motivation

1.3 Product

1.4 Problem

1.5 Objectives

1.6 Requirements

1.6.1 Functional Requirements

1.6.2 Non-Functional Requirements

Tests

Report Structure

2. Background and Related Work

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Concepts

2.3 Products

2.4 Projects

2.4.1. Structural Materials

2.4.1.1 Summary Table

2.4.1.2 Materials for Prototype vs. Final

2.4.2 Sensor placements

2.4.2.1 Materials for Housing

2.4.2.2 Antifouling Coatings

2.4.3 Biologic and geographical analysis

2.5 Comparative Analysis

2.6 Summary

3. Project Management

3.1 Introduction

3.1 Scope

3.2 Time

3.3 Cost

3.4 Quality

People & Stakeholder Management

Communications

Risk

Procurement

Project Plan

Gantt Chart

Global Sprint

Backlog

Initial Sprint Plan

Sprint Outcomes

Sprint Evaluations

Summary

4. Marketing Plan

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Business Idea Formulation

4.3 Business Model Canvas

4.4 Market Analysis

4.4.1 SWOT Analysis

4.4.1.1 Strengths

4.4.1.2 Weaknesses

4.4.1.3 Opportunities

4.4.1.4 Threats

4.4.2 PESTEL ANALYSIS

4.4.2.1 Political

4.4.2.2 Legal

4.4.2.3 Economic

4.4.2.4 Social

4.4.2.5 Technological

4.4.2.6 Enviromental

4.5 Strategy

4.5.1 Strategic Objectives

4.5.2 Segmentation and Targeting

4.5.3 Positioning

4.5.4 Marketing-Mix

4.5.5 Brand

Logo

Color System

Graphic Elements

4.6 Marketing Programmmes

4.6.1 Programmes

4.6.2 Budget

4.6.3 Control

Summary

5. Eco-efficiency Measures for Sustainability

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Environmental

5.3 Economical

5.4 Social