playground:playground

PlayGround

Test stuff here.

This chapter introduces the project's foundational elements, beginning with the team’s composition and motivation. It defines the core problem, the proposed solution, and the primary objectives. Finally, it outlines the technical requirements and the testing procedures used to verify their fulfillment.

The 'Divers' team comprises six students from various nations with diverse academic backgrounds. Brought together at ISEP to participate in the EPS, the team objective is to leverage the collective skills to develop a sustainable solution for a real-world challenge. Figure 1 shows the group that represents Maris Habitats.

Figure 1: The 'Divers' team
Table 1: Divers team
NameCountryField 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.

Maris Habitats is a modular reef infrastructure and environmental monitoring system designed for underwater environments. The product combines physical Reef Blocks with an optional removable Smart Module, allowing it to provide both habitat support and long-term environmental data collection.

The Reef Blocks are concrete habitat structures designed to be placed on the seabed. They include surfaces, cavities, and sheltered spaces that may support habitat formation over time. Instead of claiming immediate biological recovery, the product focuses on providing a physical structure that can be used in marine restoration, research, or environmental monitoring projects.

The Smart Module is the removable monitoring assembly of the system. It consists of the Smartlogger and the Smartlogger attachment. The Smartlogger is the rectangular box that contains the sensors, battery, SD card, and electronic components used for environmental monitoring. The Smartlogger attachment supports and holds the Smartlogger on the Reef Block.

The Smartlogger collects environmental data from selected locations around the reef structure. This data can help users understand local site conditions and observe how the reef and surrounding marine environment change over time. The monitoring system is designed to operate with low power consumption and store data locally, reducing the need for continuous communication infrastructure.

The final product is intended for organizations such as public institutions, coastal municipalities, research groups, environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), port authorities, aquaculture operators, and marine infrastructure companies. These customers may use Maris Habitats as part of restoration projects, long-term monitoring programs, sustainability reporting, or environmental decision-making.

The basis for this idea is the global environmental challenge of marine ecosystem degradation. The causes of this problem are multiple; global warming are raising ocean levels and ocean temperatures. This is altering the conditions of most of the underwater ecosystems, and this evolves in multiple species having to migrate from their original environments to new ones.

Another major issue is the impact of human fishing activities on marine ecosystems. Fishing is practiced worldwide and is regulated by governments and various institutions. However, in some areas, intensive fishing can disturb marine food chains and contribute to the decline of certain fish populations. These changes may also affect other species that depend on balanced marine ecosystems.

The third environmental concern is the decline of marine oxygen production and overall ecosystem balance. Changes in marine fauna can also affect marine flora, including algae and coral reef ecosystems. Coral reefs, such as the Great Barrier Reef, are under pressure from climate change, rising sea temperatures, and other environmental stressors. Their degradation can affect biodiversity, habitat quality, and the stability of marine ecosystems. Therefore, there is a growing need for solutions that support marine restoration and long-term ecosystem monitoring.

This project focuses on developing a sustainable and technically feasible concept for a modular artificial reef system with environmental monitoring functions. The main goal is not to prove immediate biological recovery, but to design a reef structure and a basic sensing system that can support future marine restoration and monitoring projects.

The first objective is to design a modular reef structure that can be adapted to different sites and project sizes. The structure should be made of repeatable Reef Blocks that can be combined in several ways. These blocks should provide surfaces, cavities, and sheltered spaces that may support habitat formation over time.

Another important objective is to select materials that are suitable for marine conditions. For the final design, durable and environmentally compatible materials, such as basalt fiber-reinforced concrete, are considered because they can improve resistance to seawater conditions and reduce long-term environmental risks [1], [2].

The project also aims to include a removable Smart Module. Instead of placing electronics permanently inside the Reef Block, the system uses a Smartlogger placed in a Smartlogger attachment. The Smart Module consists of the Smartlogger and the Smartlogger attachment. This makes it easier to check, repair, or replace electronic components without removing the whole Reef Block from the seabed.

A further objective is to collect useful environmental data. In the final system, the intended parameters include temperature, pressure or depth, pH, and conductivity. This data can help users understand the conditions around the installation site and observe how the surrounding marine environment changes over time.

For the prototype, the objective is more limited. The prototype is intended to validate the basic sensing and data logging concept under controlled conditions. Due to budget and component availability, it uses a simplified sensor set, including temperature, pressure, and total dissolved solids (TDS). The pH and conductivity sensors are reserved for the final product.

Finally, the project aims to reduce unnecessary disturbance to the marine environment. The removable Smart Module allows maintenance, battery replacement, and data collection to be carried out without disturbing the main Reef Block. Since the Smartlogger can be removed from the Smartlogger attachment, failed or damaged electronic components can also be taken out instead of being left underwater.

This section defines the main requirements of the Maris Habitats system. The requirements are divided into functional and non-functional categories. Functional requirements describe what the system should do, while non-functional requirements define the conditions needed for safe and reliable operation in a marine environment.

Because the project separates the final product from the prototype, the requirements are also considered at two levels. The final product is intended for long-term marine deployment, while the prototype is designed to validate the basic sensing and data logging concept under controlled conditions.

1.6.1 Functional Requirements

The physical reef structure must include cavities, textured surfaces, and sheltered spaces that may support the attachment and growth of marine organisms over time [3].

The structure must be modular, so that several Reef Blocks can be combined and adapted to different project sizes and site conditions.

The final system must collect environmental data at predefined time intervals. The intended final measurement parameters include water temperature, pressure/depth, pH, and conductivity.

The prototype uses a simplified sensor set due to budget and component availability. For prototype testing, the measured parameters include temperature, pressure, and TDS. The pH and conductivity sensors are reserved for the final product.

The collected data must be stored locally using a data storage unit such as a Secure Digital (SD) card. This allows long-term operation without relying on external communication infrastructure or real-time underwater data transmission.

Energy consumption must be minimized to extend the operational lifetime of the monitoring system. This is achieved through low-power operation, where the system remains active only during short measurement cycles.

The system must perform measurements periodically, typically once per hour. During each cycle, the system remains active only for the time required to stabilize sensor readings and store the data.

The Smartlogger must be removable from the Smartlogger attachment so that battery replacement, sensor inspection, maintenance, and data retrieval can be carried out without removing the whole Reef Block from the seabed.

1.6.2 Non-Functional Requirements

In addition to functional capabilities, the system must satisfy several non-functional requirements to ensure safe and reliable operation in marine environments. Since the structure is deployed underwater and interacts directly with marine ecosystems, material selection, structural stability, waterproofing, and maintenance access are critical.

To avoid environmental risks, the Reef Block structure must be made from durable, non-toxic, and environmentally compatible materials that do not release harmful substances into the marine environment. Poorly selected artificial reef materials can create long-term environmental problems, as shown by previous failed reef projects such as Osborne Reef [4].

For the final product, basalt fiber-reinforced concrete is considered as the main structural material because basalt fibers are known for corrosion resistance and chemical stability in marine environments [5].

The Reef Block must be designed to remain stable under expected currents and wave conditions without displacement. Artificial reef guidelines emphasize that reef materials should be stable and remain at the intended deployment site [6].

All electronic components, including sensors, batteries, and storage units, must be enclosed in a waterproof Smartlogger housing with at least IP68 protection to prevent water ingress and support underwater operation [7].

The Smartlogger must be designed to reduce the risk of leakage, corrosion, and internal moisture. Moisture-absorbing materials may be used inside the enclosure to help control condensation.

The Smartlogger design must allow access for maintenance, battery replacement, and data retrieval. This is especially important because the system stores data locally and requires scheduled retrieval.

The prototype does not need to meet the same marine-grade requirements as the final product. It is intended for controlled testing and should be clearly presented as a simplified validation model rather than a final deployable system.

The main objective of testing the prototype is to verify that the Maris Habitats concept functions as intended under controlled conditions. Since the prototype is a simplified validation model, the testing phase focuses on three main aspects: the basic operation of the sensor system, the structural stability of the Reef Block, and the protection of the electronic components. The final product is intended for long-term marine deployment, whereas the prototype is primarily used to validate the measurement and data-logging concept in a controlled environment. For this reason, the prototype tests will focus on temperature, pressure, and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) measurements, while more advanced parameters such as pH and conductivity are reserved for the final product.

A structural test will be carried out using SOLIDWORKS simulation tools. This test will be used to analyze how the Reef Block structure responds to applied forces and to evaluate whether the design can withstand expected mechanical loads. The simulation will help identify possible weak points in the structure and support further design improvements before physical production or deployment.

A prototype test will be performed in air to verify the basic functionality of the Smartlogger electronic system. This test will confirm whether the sensors, microcontroller, power supply, and data storage system operate correctly before any water-related testing is considered. The purpose of this stage is to reduce technical risk by ensuring that the system can collect and store sensor data under safe and controlled conditions.

These tests will provide an initial validation of the prototype and help determine whether the system is ready for further development and more realistic environmental testing.

Chapter Description
1. Introduction Introduction to the project and the report
2. Background and related work Previous similar projects with common useful knowledge
3. Project management Distribution and important aspects about the project itself
4. Marketing plan Analysis of the market and economic feasibility
5. Eco-efficiency Measures for Sustainability Sustainable responsibilities in different aspects
6. Ethical and Deontological Concerns Different ethical points of view for the project
7. Project development Evolution from the design to the prototype
8. Conclusions Final ideas of the outcomes achieved and next steps
9. Bibliography Information sources
2026/02/16 21:05 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

This chapter reviews and compares several companies with relevant prior projects. The analysis focuses not only on their core concepts and features but also on the materials, sensor mechanics, and distinguishing factors such as biological and geographical analysis.

This chapter establishes the technical and scientific foundation for the Maris Habitats project by situating it within the broader context of artificial reef design and underwater environmental monitoring. Traditional artificial reefs are usually passive structures that provide physical habitat support, while marine monitoring systems are often treated as separate technical equipment.

Maris Habitats aims to connect these two areas by combining modular reef infrastructure with a removable Smart Module. Instead of focusing on real-time data transmission, the system is designed for long-term local data logging. This approach reduces technical complexity and makes the concept more realistic for a low-power underwater system.

The chapter reviews artificial reef concepts, existing companies, material options, sensor placement challenges, and biological and geographical factors. This background helps justify the project direction: a modular Reef Block system supported by environmental data collection rather than a fully live underwater Internet of Things (IoT) platform.

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 structures, 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 Reef Design Lab in Australia, which develops 3D-printed reef structures for marine habitat restoration, and SECORE coral restoration projects, which focus on rebuilding damaged coral reefs by supporting coral growth and reef recovery [8], [9].

Figure 2 shows an example of a 3D-printed artificial reef structure. This type of design is relevant to Maris Habitats because it shows how repeated artificial structures can create habitat complexity underwater.

Figure 2: Example of a 3D-printed artificial reef structure used for marine habitat restoration [10]

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 [11], [12].

Figure 3 presents an example of a reef ball structure. The holes in the concrete dome show how a simple shape can still provide sheltered spaces for marine life.

Figure 3: Example of reef ball structures used as artificial reef habitats [13]

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. Previous research showed that corals under biorock treatment had higher growth than the control group, with an observed growth ratio of 4:1 in the studied case. This technique is known as Bio-Rock technology [14].

Figure 4 shows an example of a Biorock reef structure that has been colonized by coral after installation.

Figure 4: Example of a Biorock reef structure colonized by coral in Indonesia. Image by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, licensed under CC BY 2.0 [15]

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 [16].

Figure 5 shows rrreefs’ modular clay reef structure. This example is relevant to Maris Habitats because it shows how repeated modular units can be arranged to create complex underwater habitats.

Figure 5: rrreefs modular clay reef structure used for coral reef regeneration [17]

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 [18].

Figure 6shows different living seawall panel designs. The image is useful because it shows how surface texture, cavities, rock pools, and swim-through spaces can be added to hard coastal structures to support marine life.

Figure 6: Examples of living seawall panel designs with different textures, cavities, rockpools, and swim-through spaces [19]

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.

This section reviews selected companies related to artificial reef systems and marine habitat infrastructure. The aim is to understand how existing companies approach reef structure, material choice, modularity, and ecological design.

The review also considers whether these solutions include monitoring or environmental data collection as a core feature. This helps identify the position of Maris Habitats as a modular reef infrastructure system with a removable Smart Module and long-term local data logging.

ECOncrete

ECOncrete is a company that develops bio-enhancing concrete technologies for coastal, marine, and offshore infrastructure. Its solutions are designed to improve the ecological performance of concrete structures while still maintaining their engineering function. The company’s approach is applied in infrastructure such as ports, seawalls, coastal protection systems, offshore assets, and subsea cable protection.

The main idea of ECOncrete is to make marine infrastructure less biologically poor than conventional smooth concrete structures. This is achieved through changes in concrete composition, surface texture, and structural design. According to the Living Ports project, ECOncrete’s rough and irregular surfaces, gaps, and swim-through holes can create habitats, shelter, and breeding spaces for marine organisms [20].

One example of ECOncrete’s application is the Living Ports Project at the Port of Vigo. In this project, ECOncrete Coastalocks and ecologically enhanced seawalls were used to create nature-inclusive port infrastructure. As shown in Figure 7, marine growth can develop on these concrete elements over time, showing how infrastructure can maintain its coastal protection function while also supporting ecological value.

However, ECOncrete is different from Maris Habitats in its main focus. Based on the available product descriptions, ECOncrete mainly provides bio-enhancing concrete infrastructure rather than a modular reef system with a removable Smart Module. There is also no clear indication that long-term local data logging is included as a core product feature. Therefore, ECOncrete is a useful benchmark for ecological concrete design, while Maris Habitats aims to add environmental data collection through a removable Smart Module.

Figure 7: ECOncrete bio-enhancing coastal protection units used in the Living Ports Project at the Port of Vigo [21]

Reef Design Lab

Reef Design Lab is an Australian design and fabrication company that develops artificial reef and marine habitat solutions. The company describes its work as the design, prototyping, and manufacturing of coastal solutions, with a focus on improving ecological performance in artificial reefs and coastal habitat infrastructure [22].

One of its well-known systems is MARS, which stands for Modular Artificial Reef Structure. MARS is a ceramic 3D-printed modular system designed to construct reef habitat without the need for heavy-duty equipment. The system can be deployed from small boats and assembled by divers, making it suitable for reef restoration projects in locations where large marine construction equipment may be difficult to use [23].

Figure 8 shows Reef Design Lab’s MARS system. The image helps illustrate how a modular reef structure can create habitat complexity while still being based on repeated units.

Reef Design Lab is relevant to Maris Habitats because both projects use modular reef structures and focus on creating physical habitat infrastructure in underwater environments. The use of repeated modular units also makes Reef Design Lab a useful benchmark for comparing scalability, deployment, and structural complexity.

However, Reef Design Lab differs from Maris Habitats in its main focus. Based on the available product descriptions, Reef Design Lab mainly focuses on reef design, 3D-printed structures, and project-based marine habitat solutions. There is no clear indication that a removable Smart Module or long-term local environmental data logging is included as a core product feature. Therefore, Reef Design Lab is useful as a benchmark for modular reef design, while Maris Habitats aims to combine Reef Blocks with a removable Smart Module for long-term environmental observation.

Figure 8: Reef Design Lab's MARS system, a ceramic 3D-printed modular artificial reef structure [24]

IntelliReefs

IntelliReefs is a reef restoration initiative and technology platform connected to Reef Life Foundation. It focuses on engineered artificial reef structures made from Oceanite, a bio-enhancing marine substrate designed to mimic natural ocean mineral compounds. According to IntelliReefs, Oceanite can be customized according to site, species, and function, and is used to create reef modules that support coral, seaweed, kelp, and other marine organisms [25].

The main idea of IntelliReefs is to combine material science with reef design. Its Oceanite material is described as a complex mineral matrix held together by a proprietary nanobinder, developed to support diverse species growth and integration into local ecosystems [26]. The structures are designed with textured and porous surfaces, as well as small spaces where marine organisms can attach, be protected, and grow over time.

As shown in Figure 9, IntelliReefs uses modular reef units that can be arranged to create complex underwater habitats. These structures are relevant to Maris Habitats because both concepts use modular reef elements and aim to create underwater infrastructure that can interact with the surrounding marine environment.

However, IntelliReefs differs from Maris Habitats in its main focus. Based on the available information, IntelliReefs mainly focuses on Oceanite-based artificial reef structures and marine restoration solutions. There is no clear indication that a removable Smart Module or long-term local environmental data logging is included as a core product feature. Therefore, IntelliReefs is a useful benchmark for alternative reef materials and ecological reef design, while Maris Habitats aims to combine Reef Blocks with a removable Smart Module for long-term environmental observation.

Figure 9: IntelliReefs modular artificial reef structures made with Oceanite material [27]

rrreefs

rrreefs is a Swiss start-up that focuses on rebuilding and regenerating degraded coral reefs. The company develops a 3D-printed modular reef system made from clay, designed to support coral growth and provide habitat for marine life [28].

The rrreefs system is based on interlocking clay modules that can be arranged in different shapes depending on the local reef conditions and restoration needs. These modules are designed to mimic natural reef structures, create habitat diversity, and provide sheltered spaces for coral larvae, juvenile fish, crustaceans, and other marine organisms. As shown in Figure 10, the modular units can form complex underwater structures.

rrreefs is relevant to Maris Habitats because both concepts use modular reef structures and aim to create underwater infrastructure that can interact with the surrounding marine environment. The company is also relevant as a business benchmark because it operates as an impact-driven reef restoration start-up and works with local partners to implement reef projects in different countries.

However, rrreefs differs from Maris Habitats in its main focus. rrreefs mainly focuses on coral reef regeneration through 3D-printed clay reef modules and local restoration partnerships. Based on the available product descriptions, there is no clear indication that a removable Smart Module or long-term local environmental data logging is included as a core product feature. Therefore, rrreefs is a useful benchmark for modular reef design and reef restoration business models, while Maris Habitats aims to combine Reef Blocks with a removable Smart Module for long-term environmental observation.

Figure 10: Underwater view of rrreefs modular clay reef structures used for coral reef regeneration [29]

The selected companies and solutions are evaluated based on criteria such as reef structure, modularity, material approach, monitoring capability, data collection method, maintenance, and suitability for long-term environmental observation.

Since Maris Habitats is designed to observe how an artificial reef and the surrounding marine conditions change over time, the comparison looks beyond ecological enhancement. It also considers whether each solution can collect, store, and retrieve environmental data for later analysis.

Table 2: Comparative overview of selected artificial reef and marine infrastructure companies and the proposed Maris Habitats system
Criteria ECOncrete Reef Design Lab IntelliReefs rrreefs Maris Habitats
Main business focus Bio-enhancing concrete for marine and coastal infrastructure Designed and 3D-printed reef structures Oceanite-based artificial reef restoration 3D-printed modular clay reef restoration Modular reef infrastructure and environmental data
Product type Eco-engineered concrete infrastructure units Modular reef modules and design services Artificial reef modules made with Oceanite marine substrate Interlocking 3D-printed clay reef modules Reef Blocks with an optional removable Smart Module
Main application Ports, seawalls, shoreline protection, offshore assets, and subsea cable protection Reef restoration and marine habitat construction Coral reef restoration and marine habitat support Coral reef regeneration and habitat creation Reef installation, environmental monitoring, and long-term site observation
Modularity Moderate High High High High
Ecological design focus High High High High Moderate to high
Material / design approach Bio-enhancing concrete composition, surface texture, and macro-design Ceramic 3D-printed modular reef structures Oceanite bio-enhancing marine substrate 3D-printed clay modules inspired by natural reef structures Basalt fiber-reinforced Reef Blocks and a removable Smart Module
Integrated sensors No clear indication as a core product feature No clear indication No clear indication No clear indication Yes, inside the Smartlogger
Real-time data transmission No clear indication Not specified Not specified Not specified No
Long-term local data logging No clear indication as a core product feature Not specified Not specified Not specified Yes
Data retrieval method Not specified Not specified Not specified Not specified SD card / scheduled annual Smartlogger retrieval
Service model Project-based marine infrastructure solution Design and project-based reef solution Restoration project-based solution Impact-driven reef restoration projects with local partners Reef Blocks with optional Smart Modules and data service
Main differentiation Ecological concrete material and infrastructure integration Complex modular reef design Alternative Oceanite-based reef material 3D-printed clay reef modules and local restoration partnerships Removable Smart Module and long-term environmental data

The comparison presented in Table 2 is based on publicly available information from company websites, project descriptions, and related documentation. The selected companies represent different approaches to artificial reef and marine infrastructure development. ECOncrete focuses on bio-enhancing concrete for marine and coastal infrastructure [30]. Reef Design Lab focuses on designed and 3D-printed reef structures for artificial reefs and coastal habitat infrastructure [31]. IntelliReefs uses Oceanite-based artificial reef structures for reef restoration and marine habitat support [32]. rrreefs develops interlocking 3D-printed clay modules for coral reef regeneration [33].

Compared with these companies, Maris Habitats is positioned as a modular reef infrastructure and environmental data solution. The project does not focus only on ecological design or reef structure, but also on collecting environmental data around the reef over time.

The main difference is the removable Smart Module, which includes the Smartlogger and the Smartlogger attachment. The Smartlogger stores data locally and allows scheduled retrieval during maintenance.

For this project involving a marine habitat at a maximum depth of 50 m off the Portuguese coast, the materials must withstand a hydrostatic pressure of approximately 5 bar while supporting biological growth and protecting the Smartlogger and its internal monitoring components. To ensure a high level of efficiency and environmental compatibility, various materials used in international restoration efforts have been analyzed.

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 durability and proven use in underwater construction. Its capacity to provide structural integrity against significant environmental stressors, such as salinity, strong currents, and wave action, makes it a common material 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 [34].

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 [35]. 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 this project prioritizes structural complexity, substrate durability, and hydrodynamic stability [36]. By optimizing the weight-to-complexity ratio and ensuring low water absorption, the design can help ensure that these structures remain stationary during extreme weather events while providing the necessary niches for biodiversity to thrive [37].

Based on the research and articles reviewed, the following subsection evaluates different material options, ranging from traditional foundations to innovative biocompatible substrates, in order to select the most suitable materials for this specific implementation.

2.5.1. 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 [38].

  • Pros: Achieves 96 % recovery in water tightness within 56 days of seawater immersion [39]. It maintains structural integrity above 100 MPa, which is well above the hydrostatic pressure expected at 50 m. It significantly reduces rebar corrosion by sealing entry points for chloride ions [40].
  • Cons: Higher complexity in mixing and requires specific nutrients like calcium lactate and urea [41].
  • 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 [42].

  • Pros: Naturally non-corrosive and chemically stable in aggressive saline environments [43]. Vacuum infusion manufacturing can produce laminates with flexural strength up to 400 MPa [44]. It provides a more resilient, damage-tolerant failure mode compared to the brittle collapse of traditional reinforced concrete [45].
  • Cons: Slightly lower peak flexural strength compared to glass fibers, although superior in long-term durability and environmental footprint [46].
  • 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) [47].

  • Pros: Significantly lower CO2 footprint than Portland cement [48]. It shows superior resistance to chloride and sulfate attack in “wet-thermal” marine environments [49].
  • Cons: Higher production costs currently limit wide adoption [50].
  • 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 [51].

  • Pros: Surface pH of 9–10 (closer to seawater pH of around 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 [52].
  • Cons: Requires specialized design to ensure the lower pH does not 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 [53].

  • Pros: Improves chemical resistance and reduces water absorption [54]. It offers an eco-friendly way to utilize waste while maintaining sufficient compressive strength for marine applications [55].
  • Cons: Replacing more than 30 % of aggregate leads to a significant reduction in compressive strength [56].
  • 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 [57].
  • Cons: Requires constant power from a buoy; if the power is interrupted, the iron frame corrodes rapidly.
  • Price: Base infrastructure 120 €/m3 – 160 €/m3 (excluding electrical components).
2.5.1.1 Comparative Table

The materials evaluated in the previous subsection are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparative table for materials evaluated
Material Primary Requirement Met Pros Cons Estimated Price / m3
Bacterial HSC Longevity / pressure resistance Autonomous repair; 96 % watertight High complexity 180–260 €
Basalt Reinforcement Corrosion resistance Non-corrosive; volcanic origin Lower flexural peak 160–220 €
Geopolymer Gel Concrete Low carbon and chemical resistance Lower CO2; chloride and sulfate resistance Higher production cost 150–200 €
ECOncrete® Marine-life friendly Neutral pH; bioprotection Specific mix needs 140–180 €
Recycled Glass Sustainability Increased chemical resistance Strength loss above 30 % 90–140 €
Biorock Life promotion 4:1 growth; self-repairing Power dependent 120–160 €
2.5.1.2 Materials for Prototype vs. Final

The final Maris Habitats product and the prototype have different material requirements because they have different purposes. The final product is intended for long-term underwater deployment, while the prototype is mainly used to validate the Reef Block shape, assembly process, Smartlogger attachment, and basic structural concept under controlled conditions.

For the final product, basalt fiber-reinforced concrete was selected as the intended material for the Reef Blocks. This material was chosen because the final Reef Blocks must remain stable on the seabed and resist long-term marine exposure, including saltwater, currents, wave action, and material degradation. Basalt fiber-based materials are suitable for marine applications because they offer mechanical performance and resistance to chemical and environmental degradation [58]. Concrete structures in marine environments must also be designed carefully because seawater exposure, chloride and sulfate attack, corrosion processes, and wave action can cause deterioration over time [59].

For the prototype, the material selection was based on practicality, cost, availability, and ease of production. The prototype does not need to prove full marine durability because it is not intended for real underwater deployment. Instead, it should help the team check whether the Reef Block shape, Smartlogger position, Smartlogger attachment, assembly logic, and general handling are suitable.

During the prototype planning stage, three material options were considered:

Option 1: Polymer clay model

Polymer clay was considered during the early design stage because it can be shaped by hand and hardened in an oven. This makes it useful for quick form exploration when the team needs to test different shapes before deciding on the final Reef Block geometry. Polymer clay remains soft until it is baked, and baking is used to cure the material so that the shape becomes hard [60]. It can also be stretched, cut, rolled, molded, stacked, and sculpted before baking, which makes it practical for small visual models and early design tests [61].

However, polymer clay was not selected as the main prototype material because it is very different from the final concrete-based product. It cannot represent the real weight, concrete surface texture, porosity, or handling of the final Reef Block. It is also limited by oven size and is not suitable for validating structural performance, Smartlogger attachment, seabed stability, or long-term marine durability.

  • Pros: Easy to shape, easy to modify before baking, low cost, and useful for early form exploration.
  • Cons: Very different from the final concrete-based material, limited by oven size, does not represent real Reef Block weight, texture, porosity, or handling, and is not suitable for technical validation.

Option 2: Cement-based prototype cast with a 3D-printed mold

A cement-based prototype is closer to the final concrete-based product because it can better represent the general appearance, surface texture, weight, and handling of the Reef Block. Concrete is widely used for artificial reef construction and can be used to create complex shapes for marine habitat structures [62]. In this approach, PLA filament is used to produce a 3D-printed mold, and cement is poured into the mold and left to cure. Therefore, PLA is not used as the final material of the Reef Block prototype, but as a tooling material for shaping the cement-based model. PLA is suitable for this purpose because it is commonly used for rapid prototyping and can also be used for mold inserts or casting-related applications [63], [64].

This option allows the team to combine the geometric accuracy of 3D printing with the more realistic material behavior of a cement-based prototype. It is also low-cost and possible to produce locally. However, the prototype is not intended for real underwater deployment, and normal cement does not fully represent the final basalt fiber-reinforced concrete. Therefore, this option can be used to check the general shape, handling, assembly, and Smartlogger attachment, but it cannot prove long-term durability or full structural performance in marine conditions. For the final product, basalt fiber-reinforced concrete would still be required because it is more suitable for long-term marine exposure and resistance to chemical and environmental degradation [65], [66].

  • Pros: Similar appearance to the final material, more realistic weight and texture, accurate geometry from the 3D-printed mold, low cost, and suitable for checking general shape, handling, assembly, and Smartlogger attachment.
  • Cons: Does not fully represent basalt fiber-reinforced concrete, harder to modify after casting, requires curing time, and is not suitable for proving long-term marine durability because the prototype is only intended for controlled testing.

Option 3: Fully 3D-printed scale model or 3D-printed details

A fully 3D-printed model can represent the geometry of the Reef Block, Smartlogger, and Smartlogger attachment accurately. 3D printing is useful for rapid prototyping because it allows detailed shapes to be produced and modified more easily during the design process [67]. For this reason, this option can be useful for checking the modular shape, assembly process, Smartlogger attachment, and packaging concept before producing a cement-based prototype.

However, this option means that the Reef Block itself is made from 3D-printed plastic rather than cement or concrete. Because of this, the material properties are different from the final concrete-based product. A fully 3D-printed plastic model cannot represent the real weight, concrete surface texture, porosity, or marine durability of the final Reef Block. Therefore, it is useful for geometry and assembly validation, but not for checking realistic handling, seabed stability, or material behavior.

In the selected prototype approach, 3D printing is used mainly to produce the PLA mold for cement casting, rather than to make the final Reef Block prototype itself. Additional 3D-printed parts may still be used for small details or Smartlogger attachment features that require accurate geometry.

  • Pros: Accurate geometry, easy to modify, fast to produce, suitable for assembly checks, Smartlogger attachment tests, packaging checks, and presentation.
  • Cons: Different from the final material, does not represent real Reef Block weight, concrete surface texture, porosity, or marine durability, and is not suitable for material durability or seabed stability testing.

2.5.2 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 the team aims to foster can lead to marine biofouling on sensitive equipment, which critically compromises data reliability and sensor sensitivity [68].

To resolve this conflict, the strategy focuses on three integrated design pillars. First, a careful selection of housing materials must be made to support structural durability while protecting the internal components. Second, specialized antifouling coatings should be evaluated to 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 the ecological goals do not come at the expense of long-term monitoring precision.

When positioning sensors, it is important to consider factors that may influence measurement accuracy, such as turbulence and disturbed flow conditions. Careful placement can significantly improve the reliability and consistency of the collected data.

The Smartlogger, which contains the sensors, is mounted at the top of the Smartlogger attachment to reduce the risk of interaction with seabed sediment. However, the sensors themselves should not be placed at the very top surface, as this location is more prone to biofouling, sediment accumulation, and coverage by marine organisms, which can degrade sensor performance over time.

Instead, the sensors are preferably mounted on a side surface where there is sufficient and consistent water flow. Positioning them slightly above the seabed further reduces the risk of sand and sediment deposition, ensuring more stable and accurate measurements. This placement also allows the surrounding water to circulate more freely around the sensors, which is particularly important for measurements such as conductivity, where undisturbed water flow is essential for obtaining reliable data.

In addition, the Smartlogger is positioned to be as accessible as possible to facilitate maintenance operations, such as sensor cleaning, battery replacement, and data retrieval.

2.5.2.1 Materials for Housing

The Smartlogger housing material must protect the internal electronics from high pressure and corrosion while maintaining long-term durability in seawater environments.

Titanium alloy (TC4) or 316 L stainless steel are recommended for pressure resistance and durability [69]. For deeper or long-term deployments, titanium can be considered because it is described as a corrosion-resistant housing material suitable for long-term deployment in harsh environments, with a depth rating up to 6000 m [70].

2.5.2.2 Antifouling Coatings

Even with durable housing materials, marine organisms may attach to exposed surfaces over time. For this reason, antifouling coatings are considered to reduce biological growth on sensors and maintain measurement accuracy.

  • Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS): A non-toxic, “fouling-release” coating that reduces the adhesion of algae and barnacles [71].
  • Camptothecin (CPT)-based Paint: A natural compound that has shown virtually no macrofouling after nine months of immersion [72].
  • Slippery Liquid-Infused Porous Surfaces (SLIPS): These provide exceptional resistance to organism attachment even in stagnant water [73].

2.5.3 Biologic and Geographical analysis

Fish structure

Fish populations are generally associated with habitats that exhibit high structural complexity and spatial heterogeneity [74]. Research suggests that complex environments provide essential ecological resources necessary for survival, including food availability, shelter from predators, and suitable areas for reproduction. 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.

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. 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 [75]. Networks of habitats may facilitate movement, feeding opportunities, and ecological interactions between species, which can contribute to more stable and diverse marine ecosystems.

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 [76].
Most of the artificial reef projects are placed at depths of 10-20 meters, but it all depends on which species and what type of marine life the reefs intended for.

Chapter 2 gives an overview of existing artificial reef concepts, relevant companies, material choices, sensor challenges, and biological and geographical factors. It shows that Maris Habitats differs from many existing solutions by combining modular Reef Blocks with a removable Smart Module for long-term local data logging. The chapter also highlights that successful reef design depends on durable marine materials, structural complexity, suitable sensor placement, and careful site selection.

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

This chapter presents the project management approach used to organize and guide the development of Maris Habitats. It briefly explains how the team managed scope, time, cost, quality, stakeholders, communication, risk, procurement, and planning. The chapter also describes how Scrum and sprint evaluations were used to support progress and adapt to challenges during the project

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, an Agile methodology (SCRUM based) was adopted. This iterative approach was essential for managing the project. 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 [77].

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 11 and 12 illustrates how the Maris Habitats system is divided into its main components and subsystems [78]. 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 11 presents the WBS for the product and Figure 12 the WBS of the project.

Figure 11: WBS of the product
Figure 12: WBS of the project

To ensure effective time management and the timely completion of the project, tasks were scheduled to be completed during school hours and before weekends. This approach helped maintain steady progress and allowed time for review and adjustments when needed [79].

The team followed the milestone schedule defined by the project supervisors over a total project duration of 118 days, from 2026-02-28 to 2026-06-25. 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)
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

When estimating the total cost of the project, two main factors must be considered: employee salaries and the cost of materials and components.

The average salary for a junior engineer in Portugal is approximately 1 500 € per month, and the project duration is five months. With a team of six employees, the total salary cost is calculated as: 6 employees × 1 500 € × 5 months = 45 000 €.

The material costs are divided into two categories: components and sensors. The total cost of the electronics and components is 2215.66 €.

A detailed overview of the individual component and sensor costs is provided in Table 5.

Table 5: Components and sensors with price
Item Type Price Quantity Supplier Link
Adafruit 254 SD - module 6.45 € 1 Mouser link
ESP32-C3-DevKitM-1-N4X Microcontroller 6.80 € 1 Mouser link
DFR0570 Buck converter 2.80 € 1 Mouser link
FDMM004GMC-XE00 MicroSD - card 21.88 € 1 Farnell link
MC3090082 Silica gel (moisture absorber) 42.26 € 1 Farnell link
LiFePO4 battery LiFePO4 battery 76.24 € 1 Innpo link
Watertight Box 5L Underwater electrical box 805.66 € 1 Bluerobotics link
WetLink Penetrator Blank Penetrator blank (M10) 70.50 € 15 Bluerobotics link
MCMF0W4BB2500A50 160 ohm resistance 0.55 € 1 Farnell link
Adafruit 2670 Perfboard / Breadboard 4.26 € 1 Mouser link
M316 SOA2CSS50- M3 screws for perfboard 5.55 € 1 Farnell link
BarXT Depth / Pressure / Temp 329.19 € 1 Bluerobotics link
Surveyor Analog pH Sensor / Meter pH surveyor 21.52 € 1 Atlas Scientific link
Industrial pH Probe – No Temp pH test probe 226.95 € 1 Atlas Scientific link
Industrial Conductivity Kit K 1.0 Conductivity 595.05 € 1 Atlas Scientific link
Total 2215.66 €

In addition to the component costs, supplier shipping costs for the electronic components and sensors must also be taken into account. These are presented in Table 6. Including shipping, the total cost of these components increases to 2526.11 €.

Table 6: Transportation and shipping costs
Supplier Cost (inc VAT) Shipping cost Notes
Innpo 76.24 € 5.08 €
Mouser 20.31 € 25.00 € Free over 75 €
Farnell 70.24 € 11.99 € Free over 75 €
Bluerobotics 1205.35 € 175.33 € Prices in dollar
Atlas Scientific 843.52 € 93.05 € Prices in dollar
Total (products) 2215.66 € 310.45 €
Grand Total 2526.11 €

The project includes the cost of structural materials used for the habitat modules. Each block/module is composed of approximately 30 kg of concrete (C) and 70–90 g of basalt fiber (BF). These are shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Price of the blocks
Material Unit price Quantity per block Cost per block Link Backup
Concrete (C) 89 € / 1000 kg 30 kg 2.67 € link
Basalt Fiber (BF) 34.16 € / 1.36 kg 70–90 g 1.76 € link link
Total per block 4.43 €

Based on current market prices, concrete costs 89 € per 1000 kg, while basalt fiber costs 34.16 € per 1.36 kg. This results in an estimated material cost of 2.67 € for concrete and 1.76 € for basalt fiber per block.

Therefore, the total material cost per block is approximately 4.43 €.

It should be noted that this estimate is based on small-scale purchasing prices. For larger production volumes, the cost per unit is expected to decrease due to bulk pricing and supplier agreements.

The total cost of the project, including labor, electronics, components, sensors, transportation and shipping, is estimated to be 47 526.11 €, excluding the structural material cost of the habitat blocks. The structural material cost is estimated at 4.43 € per block, depending on the number of blocks produced.

Table 8: Total cost
Cost category Description Total cost
Labor cost 6 employees × 1 500 € × 5 months 45 000.00 €
Electronics, components and sensors Total product cost including components and sensors 2 215.66 €
Transportation and shipping Shipping costs from all suppliers 310.45 €
Total materials and sensors including shipping Components, sensors and shipping combined 2 526.11 €
Structural material for habitat blocks Concrete and basalt fiber 4.43 € per block
Total project cost excluding habitat blocks Labor + materials and sensors including shipping 47 526.11 €

It is important to note that this cost estimate represents the final product configuration, and not the prototype.

Prototype list

When selecting electronic components for the prototype, efforts were made to replicate the final product as closely as possible within the constraints of a 100 € budget. In addition, components were sourced from as few suppliers as possible in order to minimize transportation and shipping costs.

The selected electronics used in the prototype are presented in Table 9.

Table 9: Prototype electronics
Item Type Price Quantity Supplier Link
DS18B20 Temperature sensor 6.22 € 1 RS link
SEN0244 TDS sensor 10.18 € 1 Farnell link
SEN0257 Pressure sensor 15.09 € 1 Farnell link
Adafruit 254 SD - module 11.60 € 1 RS link
Arduino ABX00080 Microcontroller 17.44 € 1 Farnell link
FDMM004GMC-XE00 MicroSD card 21.88 € 1 Farnell link
4022211111 9 V alkaline battery 5.47 € 1 Farnell link
MP007080 Battery holder 3.41 € 1 Farnell link
MOR01SJ0472A10 4.7 kΩ resistor 0.07 € 1 Farnell link
FIT0096 Breadboard 2.50 € 1 Farnell link
Total 93.86 €

The estimated total cost of the electronics is 102 €, including shipping, as summarized in Table 10.

Table 10: Prototype shipping costs
Supplier Cost (inc VAT) Shipping cost Notes
RS 17.82 € 8.00 € Free over 95 €
Farnell 76.04 € 11.99 € Free over 75 €
Total (products) 93.86 € 8.00 €
Total with shipping 101.86 €

For the remaining component selection, suppliers offering local pickup were prioritized in order to avoid additional transportation costs.

These materials are summarized in Table 11.

Table 11: Low-cost prototype materials (Portugal)
Product Type Price (incl. VAT) Quantity Supplier Link Comment
Cement (CEM II 25 kg) Concrete material 5.39 € 1 Leroy Merlin link Used for structural prototype blocks
Plastic lunchbox (single compartment) Prototype enclosure 3 € 1 IKEA link Simple enclosure
Smaller plastic lunchbox Backup enclosure 1.5 € 1 IKEA link Backup option
PLA filament 1 kg Used for 3D-printed mold 14.60 € 1 Filament 3D link Backup option
Ceys Total Tech Universal Glue and Sealant 290 ml Transparent Silicone sealant 8.99 € 1 Leroy Merlin link
Continente cooking oil 1 L Oil for enclosure 1.69 € 1 Continente link Used only if needed
Total 35.17 €

The different prototype cost scenarios are summarized in Table 12, showing how additional materials such as concrete and 3D printing filament affect the overall cost.

Table 12: Prototype cost scenarios
Scenario Total cost
Prototype (with shipping) 101.86 €
+ Airtight container (IKEA) 104.86 €
+ Silicone sealant 113.85 €
+ Oil 115.54 €
+ Cement 121.19 €
+ PLA (no cement) 130.14 €
+ Cement + PLA 135.53 €

The impact of procurement strategy on shipping costs is shown in Table 13, where the difference between in-store pickup and online ordering is highlighted.

Table 13: Shipping cost comparison for prototype materials
Product Supplier Shipping (store pickup) Shipping (online) Comment
Cement (CEM II 25 kg) Leroy Merlin 0 € TBC at checkout Shipping depends on address and delivery option
Plastic lunchbox (single compartment) IKEA 0 € 6 € Standard small delivery, 4 € with IKEA Family
Smaller plastic lunchbox (backup) IKEA 0 € 6 € Standard small delivery, 4 € with IKEA Family
PLA filament 1 kg Filament 3D 0 € TBC at checkout Shipping must be confirmed before purchase
Silicone sealant Leroy Merlin 0 € TBC at checkout Shipping depends on address and delivery option
Oil Continente 0 € - -
Total 0 € TBC

Although the estimated total cost exceeds the budget, some components and materials may already be available at the university, reducing the need for additional purchases. Furthermore, transportation costs may be avoided if other groups are also ordering from the same supplier and the total order exceeds the free shipping limit. Consequently, the actual cost is difficult to determine precisely but is expected to be lower than the estimated 136 €.

The materials that were actually provided for the prototype were similar to the components and materials originally requested by the team. Although some parts differed slightly from the initial list, they fulfilled the same basic purpose and were suitable for building and testing the prototype. The total cost of the provided prototype parts was approximately 90 €.

Quality in the project is ensured by defining measurable quality metrics for both the product and the documentation. These metrics help the team evaluate whether the system works as intended, meets the project requirements, and is clearly documented.

For the product, the main quality areas are sensor performance, waterproofing, structural stability, data logging, energy efficiency, maintainability, and environmental compatibility. For the documentation, quality is evaluated through clarity, completeness, structure, and consistency. The metrics are reviewed through prototype testing, design reviews, sprint meetings, and supervisor feedback [80] (See Table 14).

Table 14: Product and documentation quality
Metrics Description Threshold Reviewing method
Sensor functionality Sensors collect environmental data such as temperature, pressure, and TDS. All prototype sensors provide readable values. Functional sensor test
Data logging Sensor data is stored locally on an SD card. Data is saved in a readable format after each measurement cycle. SD card inspection
Structural stability Reef blocks remain stable under expected conditions. Structure does not move easily during controlled testing. Stability test
Energy efficiency System uses low power for long-term operation. Final system supports approximately 340 days of operation. Battery calculation
Maintainability Smartlogger can be removed for service. Battery, SD card, and sensors can be accessed without removing the whole reef module. Maintenance check
Documentation quality Report is clear, complete, and well structured. Required sections, figures, tables, and sources are included. Internal review and supervisor feedback
Temperature reading Accuracy of the temperature sensor. Within ±2 °C of reference thermometer. Reference thermometer comparison
Logging interval Accuracy of the time between each saved measurement. 10 seconds ±1 second between logged rows. Compare timestamps in the CSV file
TDS reading Accuracy of the TDS sensor response. Within ±10 % of reference or clearly changes between test samples. Controlled water sample test
Pressure reading Stability of the pressure sensor output. Reading variation less than ±10 % during a stable test condition. Serial Monitor inspection
Turbidity reading Response of the turbidity sensor to interruption. Sensor voltage changes by at least 0.1 V when the sensor area is interrupted. Turbidity interruption test
Review and Validation Process

The prototype will be checked by testing the main parts one by one. First, the team will confirm that the smartlogger starts correctly and that the sensors give values in the Serial Monitor. Then the SD card file will be opened to check that the values are stored with the correct time interval. The physical prototype will also be checked by measuring the structure, testing that it stands stable. The results from these checks will show whether the prototype is good enough for the final demonstration.

Acceptance Criteria

The prototype is good enough when it can run the logging program, read the sensors, and save data to the SD card without stopping during the test. The structure must also be stable and possible to handle without loose parts or damaged connections. Since this is only a prototype, the goal is to prove that the concept works, not to prove that it is ready for long-term underwater use.

People involved in a project can create uncertainty if responsibilities, communication routines and workload are not clearly defined. For this reason, people management is important in the Maris Habitats project. The project requires collaboration between team members from different academic backgrounds, including design, electronics, software, documentation, sustainability and project management.

The team does not have one permanent project manager. Instead, all team members share responsibility for project progress, decision-making and following the project scope. Tasks are distributed based on skills, availability, workload and interest in order to make the work more efficient and balanced.

The key factors considered when assigning tasks are:

Skills and expertise

Each team member has different knowledge and technical strengths. Tasks are therefore assigned according to individual skills, such as design, electronics, software, research, communication or documentation. This helps improve the quality of the project outcome.

Roles and responsibilities

Clear roles and responsibilities are important to avoid confusion, duplicated work and missed tasks. Each team member is responsible for completing assigned tasks and communicating progress to the rest of the group.

Availability and workload

The workload should be distributed fairly between team members. Since the project includes many different deliverables, such as the report, prototype, poster, video, manual and presentation, the team must make sure that no member is overloaded.

Interest and motivation

When possible, tasks are assigned according to each member’s interests. This increases motivation, engagement and productivity, while also helping the team produce better results.

Collaboration and team dynamics

Since Maris Habitats is a multidisciplinary project, collaboration is essential. Team members must share information, support each other and communicate regularly to make sure that the structure, smartlogger, documentation and prototype development remain aligned. See Table 15.

Table 15: Table of Roles and Responsibilities
People / Group Role Responsibility
ISEP Sponsor / Hosting institution Provides the project framework, facilities, academic structure and evaluation criteria.
Hernán Nieto Marabini Team member Participates in research, concept development, design decisions, documentation and project deliverables.
Chaehee Kim Team member Participates in research, planning, documentation and project deliverables.
Ida Schmitt Team member Participates in visual communication, branding, documentation, design support and project deliverables.
Isak Björk Team member Participates in electronics, sensor system development, technical decisions and prototype work.
Louis Van Nederkassel Team member Participates in product design, structural development, modelling and prototype work.
Oda Kristine Johansen Fossvoll Team member Participates in documentation, project management, communication and project deliverables.
EPS Coordinator Coordinator Organizes the EPS process, facilitates control meetings and supports project progress.
Project supervisors Supervisors Provide technical and academic feedback, guide the team and review project progress.
Professors Advisors Provide knowledge, lectures, feedback and resources related to different project areas.

The purpose of this structure is to ensure that all team members understand their responsibilities and contribute to the overall progress of the project. By combining different skills and distributing tasks clearly, the team can reduce uncertainty and improve collaboration throughout the project.

Stakeholder management is used to identify, analyze and communicate with the people, groups and organizations that can affect or be affected by the project. For Maris Habitats, this is important because the project combines academic requirements, technical development, marine restoration, environmental monitoring and potential future users of the system.

The stakeholders were divided into internal and external groups. Internal stakeholders are directly involved in the project development, such as the team members, EPS coordinator, supervisors and professors. External stakeholders are not part of the daily project work, but they may influence the project or benefit from the final solution. These include suppliers, research institutions, environmental NGOs, public authorities, potential customers and marine life.

To understand how the team should communicate with each stakeholder, a power-interest matrix was created. This matrix shows which stakeholders need close involvement, which should be kept informed, and which only require limited monitoring. Figure 13 presents the stakeholder matrix for Maris Habitats.

Figure 13: Stakeholder matrix for Maris Habitats

The project team, supervisors, coordinator and client/project owner are placed in the high-interest and high-power category because they are directly connected to project decisions, evaluation and progress. These stakeholders must therefore be managed closely through regular meetings, feedback, documentation and continuous communication.

Stakeholders such as ISEP and project supervisors have strong influence on the academic framework, but they are not involved in every daily task. They should be kept satisfied through formal deliverables, progress updates and clear communication. Future users, research institutions, NGOs and possible investors have high interest in the final product, but limited influence during the current prototype phase. These stakeholders should be kept informed through reports, presentations and future collaboration opportunities. Stakeholders with low power and low interest, such as logistics partners and the general public, only need to be monitored when relevant.

The stakeholder overview in Table 16 gives a more detailed explanation of each stakeholder’s role, interest and engagement strategy.

Table 16: Stakeholder Overview
Stakeholder Role Interest in the Project Engagement Strategy
Team members Project developers Successful project completion and prototype development Daily communication, Scrum meetings and Jira updates
EPS Coordinator Academic coordinator Ensure that the project follows EPS requirements Weekly meetings and formal communication
Project supervisors Academic and technical supervisors Guide the team and review progress Weekly meetings, feedback sessions and email
ISEP Hosting institution Provide academic framework, resources and evaluation Deliverables, presentations and project documentation
Professors Advisors Support learning and provide expert feedback Classes, feedback sessions and report review
Suppliers Component providers Supply materials, sensors and electronics Email, supplier websites and procurement planning
Research institutions Future users / partners Use environmental data for research and monitoring Reports, presentations and future collaboration
Environmental NGOs Future users / partners Support marine conservation and restoration Project presentations and sustainability documentation
Public authorities Regulators / potential customers Environmental management and deployment approval Formal documentation and future permit processes
Marine infrastructure companies Potential customers / partners Combine infrastructure with environmental monitoring Technical presentations and pilot projects
Marine life Primary beneficiary Safe habitat, shelter and ecosystem support Environmentally safe design and long-term monitoring

The main engagement strategy is based on regular communication and clear documentation. Internal stakeholders are involved through weekly supervisor meetings, team meetings, Jira updates and wiki documentation. Feedback from supervisors and professors is used to improve the design, prototype, report and final deliverables.

For external stakeholders, the engagement strategy is more focused on presenting the value and feasibility of the concept. This includes explaining how Maris Habitats can support marine restoration, collect environmental data and reduce disturbance through the removable smartlogger.

Stakeholder-related risks include unclear communication, delayed feedback, supplier delays and misunderstandings about project expectations. These risks are reduced through regular meetings, defined responsibilities, updated documentation and early procurement planning.

Stakeholder management helps the team keep the project aligned with academic expectations, technical requirements and future user needs. It also supports better decision-making and improves the feasibility of Maris Habitats as a marine restoration and monitoring solution [81].

Effective communication is important to ensure coordination, transparency and steady progress throughout the Maris Habitats project. Since the team consists of members from different academic backgrounds and nationalities, clear communication routines are necessary to avoid misunderstandings, distribute tasks effectively and keep all project work aligned [82].

Guidelines for Meetings

Meeting agenda

For the weekly supervisor meetings, a meeting agenda is prepared before the meeting. The agenda includes the main topics to be discussed, current progress, challenges, questions for the supervisors and tasks that need clarification. This helps the team use the meeting time efficiently and ensures that important issues are addressed.

Meeting minutes

Meeting minutes are written after the weekly meetings and uploaded to the wiki or shared with the team. The minutes summarize the topics discussed, feedback received, decisions made and new tasks or agreements. This makes it easier for all team members to follow up on responsibilities and keep track of project progress.

Pitch

One person is responsible for leading the pitch and making sure that the agenda is followed. This role can change between meetings depending on the topic being discussed and the team member responsible for that area.

Note taker

The note taker documents the main points discussed during the meeting. This includes supervisor feedback, decisions, action points and deadlines. The note taker is also responsible for helping update the meeting minutes.

Time keeper

The time keeper helps the team stay within the planned meeting time. During supervisor meetings, this responsibility is usually supported by the supervisors or professors, while in internal meetings the team members manage the time together.

Table 17 shows the type of communications during the project.

Table 17: Communication Matrix
Communication type Objective Medium Frequency Audience Deliverable
Kickoff meeting Introduce team members, discuss project proposals and define the project direction. Face to face Once Team members Initial project idea
Daily Scrum meeting Share completed work, current tasks and possible obstacles. Face to face / WhatsApp Daily or as needed Team members Task updates
Weekly supervisor meeting Review project status, receive feedback and clarify technical or project-related issues. Face to face Weekly, every Thursday Team members and supervisors Meeting agenda, meeting minutes and updated tasks
Project team meeting Discuss design decisions, divide tasks and solve project issues. Face to face / online As needed Team members Jira updates and task allocation
Documentation updates Keep the wiki and report updated with current project progress. Wiki / Microsoft Teams Weekly or after major updates Team members and supervisors Updated wiki/report
Procurement communication Contact suppliers, compare prices and clarify component availability. Email / supplier websites As needed Team members and suppliers Component list and procurement updates

Communication Tools and Means

Microsoft Teams is used as the main platform for receiving information, resources and announcements from professors and supervisors. It is also used to access shared project material.

Outlook is used for formal communication with professors, supervisors and external contacts. This includes meeting-related communication, questions and supplier contact when needed.

WhatsApp is used for fast internal communication between team members. It is mainly used for daily updates, quick questions, reminders and urgent issues that need to be solved quickly.

Jira is used as the main project management tool. The team uses Jira to organize tasks, update progress, manage sprint work and track responsibilities.

The wiki is used as the main documentation platform. Project information, report content, deliverables, meeting minutes and progress updates are uploaded there throughout the project.

This communication structure helps the team maintain a clear workflow, follow deadlines and solve problems early. Regular meetings, shared documentation and continuous task updates support collaboration and ensure that all members remain informed about the development of Maris Habitats. See 18 table for the communication approaches with stakeholders.

Table 18: Communication Approaches to Stakeholders
People / Stakeholder Role Approach Frequency
Hernán Nieto Marabini Team member Face to face / WhatsApp / Jira Daily
Chaehee Kim Team member Face to face / WhatsApp / Jira Daily
Ida Schmitt Team member Face to face / WhatsApp / Jira Daily
Isak Björk Team member Face to face / WhatsApp / Jira Daily
Louis Van Nederkassel Team member Face to face / WhatsApp / Jira Daily
Oda Kristine Johansen Fossvoll Team member Face to face / WhatsApp / Jira Daily
Project supervisors Academic and technical guidance Weekly meetings / email Weekly
Professors Academic advisors Classes / Microsoft Teams / email As needed
EPS coordinator Project coordination Microsoft Teams / email As needed
Suppliers Component and material providers Email / supplier websites As needed
Research institutions, NGOs and public authorities Potential future users or partners Email / presentations / reports Future project phase

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 [83].

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 19).

Table 19: 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 High 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
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 High 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. 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 (see Figure 14).

Figure 14: Risk matrix

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 [84].

The procurement plan is presented in three tables. Table 20 provides an overview of the electrical components required for the habitat, while Table 21 presents the material composition and cost of the concrete blocks used in the habitat structure.

Each item includes both a primary supplier and a designated backup supplier, ensuring supply reliability and reducing the risk of delays due to stock shortages or delivery issues.

Table 20: Table of components with backup suppliers
Item Type First supplier Price Link Backup supplier Price Link
BarXT Depth / Pressure / Temp Bluerobotics 329.19 € link RobotShop 424.90 € link
Surveyor™ Analog pH Sensor / Meter Ph surveyor Atlas Scientific 21.52 € link RobotShop 27.95 € link
Industrial pH Probe – No Temp Ph test probe Atlas Scientific 226.95 € link RobotShop 296.31 € link
Industrial Conductivity Kit K 1.0 Conductivity Atlas Scientific 595.05 € link Augswan 569.99 € link
Adafruit 254 SD - module Mouser 6.45 € link Farnell 7.11 € link
ESP32-C3-DevKitM-1-N4X Microcontroller Mouser 6.80 € link Digikey 6.80 € link
DFR0570 Buck converter Mouser 2.80 € link Digikey 2.85 € link
FDMM004GMC-XE00 MicroSD - card Farnell 21.88 € link Digikey 21.70 € link
MC3090082 Silica gel (moisture absorber) Farnell 42.26 € link Amazon 55.41 € link
LiFePO4 battery LiFePO4 battery Innpo 76.24 € link Amazon 80.31 € link
Watertight Box 5L Underwater electrical box Bluerobotics 805.66 € link RobotShop 1 075.70 € link
WetLink Penetrator Blank Penetrator blank (M10) 15 pce Bluerobotics 70.50 € link Robotshop 100.50 € link
MCMF0W4BB2500A50 160 ohm resistance Farnell 0.55 € link Digikey 1.87 € link
Adafruit 2670 Perfboard / Breadboard Mouser 4.26 € link Digikey 4.21 € link
M316 SOA2CSS50- M3 screws for perfboard Farnell 5.55 € link Amazon 6.92 € link
Total 2215.66 € 2682.53 €
Table 21: Table of the concrete blocks
Material First supplier Price/kg Link Backup supplier Price/kg Link
Concrete (C) Leroy Merlin 0.09 € link Närpes Byggcenter 0.20 € link
Basalt Fiber (BF) Amazon 25.10 € link Moertelshop 41.40 € link
Total 25.19 € 41.40 €

3.11.1 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 15, the project timeline spans from March to June and includes overlapping phases such as research, prototype development, and documentation.

Figure 15: Gantt chart showing the project timeline from March to June.

3.11.2 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 22 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.

Table 22: Table of Global Sprint Plan.
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 Done
6 9 Apr 16 Apr 3 days Done
7 16 Apr 23 Apr 5 days Done
8 23 Apr 30 Apr 5 days Done
9 30 Apr 7 May 3 days Done
10 7 May 14 May 3 days Done
11 14 May 21 May 5 days Done
13 28 May 4 Jun 5 days Done
14 4 Jun 11 Jun 5 days Done
15 11 Jun 18 Jun 5 days Done
16 18 Jun 25 Jun 5 days Done

3.11.3 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. Table 23 lists the backlog.

Table 23: Table of Backlog.
PBI Title Status
A Define project Done
B System diagrams and structural plans Done
C Project backlog Done
D State of the Art Done
E Gantt chart Done
F System diagrams and drafts Done
G Global sprint plan Done
H List of components and materials Done
I Schematics and structural drawings Done
J Design development Done
K Interim deliverables Done
L 3D model and video Done
M Interim report and presentation Done
N Functional testing Done
O Packaging solution Done
P Poster Done
Q Folder and manual Done
R Brochure and leaflet Done
S Prototype Done
T Video Done
V Final report Done
W Upload final deliverables Done
X Final presentation Done
Y Final review and submission Done

3.11.4 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 24).

Table 24: Initial Sprint Plan.
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

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 March 19th to March 26th, as the previous weeks were mainly used to become familiar with Jira and project tools.

An overview of the outcomes from the initial sprints is presented in Table 25 and Table 26.

Table 25: Week 1 outcome
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 26: Week 2 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

Sprint 3

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 16).

Figure 16: Week 3 burndown chart

Sprint 4

The burndown chart for Sprint 4 shows a noticeable increase in workload at the beginning of the sprint, indicating that additional tasks were identified as the project scope became clearer. This reflects an ongoing refinement of requirements and system definition. Shown in Figure 17.

Throughout most of the sprint, progress was relatively slow, with only minor reductions in remaining work. A more significant decrease occurs towards the end, suggesting that many tasks were completed close to the deadline.

This pattern indicates that work was concentrated in the final phase of the sprint. Although the planned objectives were achieved, this approach suggests a need for better time management and a more even distribution of tasks across the sprint.

Figure 17: Week 4 burndown chart

Sprint 5

The burndown chart for Sprint 5 shows no significant changes in the remaining workload throughout most of the sprint. This indicates that tasks were not actively tracked or completed within the sprint period. Week 5 is shown in Figure 18.

This sprint coincided with the Easter holiday, during which no substantial work was carried out. Additionally, the project management tool (Jira) was not updated during this period, resulting in a lack of visibility and progress tracking.

The sprint did not function as intended and cannot be considered effective from an Agile perspective. The absence of recorded progress highlights the importance of maintaining consistent engagement and updating project management tools, even during periods of reduced activity.

Figure 18: Week 5 burndown chart

Sprint 6

The burndown chart for Sprint 6, shown in Figure 19, indicates limited progress during the initial phase of the sprint, suggesting that relatively little work was carried out at the beginning of the period.

An increase in the remaining workload can also be observed on April 14th, when new tasks were added after the sprint had already started. This was partly caused by incomplete tasks from Sprint 5 being carried over into Sprint 6. As a result, the workload appears to increase rather than decrease at that stage.

Towards the end of the sprint, a noticeable reduction in remaining work is observed, indicating that several tasks were completed before the sprint was concluded.

This pattern reflects an improvement in task completion compared to the previous sprint. However, it also highlights the importance of maintaining consistent progress and timely updates in order to ensure accurate tracking and effective sprint execution.

Figure 19: Week 6 burndown chart

Sprint 7

The burndown chart for Sprint 7 shows that little or no progress was recorded during the first part of the sprint. No significant task completion was registered until April 20th, when a new task was added to the sprint. Most of the remaining work was then checked off on the final day of the sprint. This indicates that tasks were either completed late or not updated continuously in Jira. As a result, the burndown chart does not show a steady reduction in workload. This sprint demonstrates the importance of updating tasks more regularly and ensuring that work is distributed more evenly throughout the sprint. The burndown chart for Sprint 7 is shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Week 7 burndown chart

Sprint 8

The burndown chart for Sprint 8 shows that the sprint was started before all tasks had been properly added and assigned story points. This made the initial sprint planning less accurate and reduced the reliability of the burndown chart.

During the sprint, the workload was adjusted again. On April 28th, story points were added or changed, which affected the chart after the sprint had already started. Despite these changes, all tasks were completed by the end of the sprint.

Although the final outcome was positive, the chart shows that the sprint was not planned according to Scrum principles, since tasks and story points should ideally be defined before the sprint begins. The burndown chart for Sprint 8 is shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21: Week 8 burndown chart

Sprint 9

The burndown chart showed a more positive development during sprint 9 shown in shown in Figure 22. This was mainly because no new tasks were added throughout the week, and completed tasks were checked off regularly. However, the sprint contained relatively few tasks, and several of the tasks that were completed were finished early in the sprint. The remaining tasks were more extensive and required more time than expected, which resulted in them being moved to the next sprint.

Figure 22: Week 9 burndown chart

Sprint 10 Sprint 10 was a short sprint with only two working days. The sprint contained relatively few tasks, and most of them were completed steadily during the sprint period. However, one task was added after the sprint had already started. This is not ideal according to Scrum principles, because the sprint backlog should normally be defined before the sprint begins. Adding tasks during the sprint can make the burndown chart less accurate and affect the team’s ability to evaluate progress correctly.

Despite this, the sprint was mostly successful because the planned workload was limited and the tasks were completed within the short sprint period. The burndown chart for Sprint 10 is shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23: Week 10 burndown chart

Sprint 11 The burndown chart for Sprint 11 shows that no significant progress was recorded until the final day of the sprint. This indicates poor workload distribution, as most tasks were either completed late or not updated in Jira during the sprint. The lack of progress during the earlier part of the sprint made it difficult to track whether the team was on schedule. It also reduced the usefulness of the burndown chart as a project management tool. This sprint highlights the need for better time management, earlier task completion, and more regular updates in Jira. The burndown chart for Sprint 11 is shown in Figure 24.

Figure 24: Week 11 burndown chart

Sprint 12 The burndown chart for Sprint 12 shows that limited progress was made at the beginning of the sprint. As in previous sprints, a new task was added after the sprint had already started, which changed the sprint scope during the sprint period. At the same time, one task was completed and checked off, resulting in some reduction in remaining work. By the end of the sprint, only two incomplete tasks remained. This shows that the team made progress and completed most of the planned work, even though the sprint planning was not fully stable from the beginning. Sprint 12 shows an improvement compared with earlier sprints, but it also demonstrates that tasks should be added and estimated before the sprint starts to improve planning accuracy. The burndown chart for Sprint 12 is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Week 12 burndown chart

Sprint 13 The burndown chart for Sprint 13 shows that no significant progress was recorded until June 1st. On this date, a new task was added to the sprint and assigned story points, which increased the total workload after the sprint had already started. The sprint was also closed one day earlier than planned. As a result, several tasks were not completed during Sprint 13 and had to be transferred to the Week 14 sprint. This affected the accuracy of the sprint outcome and shows that the planned workload was not fully achieved. On June 3rd, a significant part of the sprint work was completed or closed. However, because several tasks had already been moved forward, the sprint does not show a steady or fully successful workflow. Sprint 13 highlights challenges related to late task creation, incomplete sprint execution, and early sprint closure. It also shows the importance of completing and updating tasks within the correct sprint period to ensure accurate progress tracking. The burndown chart for Sprint 13 is shown in Figure 26.

Figure 26: Week 13 burndown chart

Sprint 14 The burndown chart for the sprint from June 3rd to June 11th shows that the remaining work did not decrease steadily according to the ideal guideline. During the first part of the sprint, progress was limited, as the number of remaining story points stayed almost unchanged. A clearer reduction can be seen around June 8th, indicating that several tasks were completed or updated at the same time. Towards the end of the sprint, more progress was made, but the sprint still ended with remaining work. This shows that the team made progress, but task completion and Jira updates were not evenly distributed throughout the sprint. Sprint 14 is shown in Figure 27.

Figure 27: Week 14 burndown chart
Second week retrospective

Positive Aspects 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.

Challenges 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 for Improvement 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 Next Week 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.

Third week retrospective

Positive Aspects 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.

Challenges 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 for Improvement 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 Next Week 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.

Fourth Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects During this week, the team successfully delivered the scheduled presentations, and key project components were selected. This contributed to clarifying the technical direction of the project and ensured alignment among team members.

Challenges The communication presentation did not meet expectations. The content and delivery could have been better structured and more effectively communicated.

Ideas for Improvement No specific improvement ideas were identified during this period.

Actions for Next Week The team will focus on completing and submitting the interim report. Emphasis will be placed on ensuring that all required sections are finalized and meet the expected quality standards.

Fifth Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects The interim report was successfully completed and submitted, marking an important milestone in the project timeline.

Challenges The report was finalized later than planned, indicating inefficiencies in time management and task distribution. Ideally, the report should have been completed before the final deadline to allow time for review and refinement.

Ideas for Improvement No additional improvement ideas were identified during this week.

Actions for Next Week The team will begin preparing for the interim presentation, focusing on improving content clarity, structure, and delivery.

Sixth Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects The team made good progress in preparing for the interim presentation, demonstrating improved coordination and focus on communication aspects.

Challenges Some challenges were encountered during the week; however, they were not clearly identified or documented.

Ideas for Improvement Based on feedback from supervisors, the team identified the need to improve the visual identity of the project, particularly by incorporating marine elements such as fish into the flyer and branding materials.

Actions for Next Week The team will further develop the technical aspects of the smart system, with a particular focus on evaluating alternative battery options and improving the design of the smart module. In addition, work will continue on creating a 3D model video of the product to support visualization and presentation.

Seventh Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects The team identified a more suitable battery for the project, and the wiki was further improved. In addition, a meeting was held with Manuel, the project supervisor, to discuss the project and develop a more concrete plan moving forward.

Challenges The team was not able to create the 3D video as planned.

Ideas for Improvement No specific improvement ideas were identified during this sprint.

Actions for Next Week The team will finalize the selection of sensors, continue improving the wiki, and complete the 3D video.

Eighth Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects The team conducted a meeting with a professor, which provided valuable clarification on how to approach the project. The list of components and materials was finalized, and the smartblock of the product was completed.

Challenges The team has not yet completed the 3D video and continues to face challenges in effectively distributing tasks among members.

Ideas for Improvement

Improved task allocation and clearer responsibility distribution should be implemented to ensure steady progress. In addition, intermediate deadlines may help avoid delays in deliverables such as the 3D video.

Actions for Next Week The team will prioritize completing the 3D video and establish a more structured task distribution plan to improve workflow efficiency.

Ninth Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects The team started working on the scientific paper and completed the renders of the 3D model.

Challenges Due to vacation, limited progress was made during the sprint.

Ideas for Improvement Future sprint planning should take vacation and reduced availability into account to ensure that the workload is realistic and achievable.

Actions for Next Week Next week, the team should focus on completing the leaflet and the packaging solution.

Tenth Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects Despite the shortened working week, several key deliverables were completed, including the leaflet, packaging solution, 3D model, and user manual.

Challenges The sprint did not begin as originally planned, which reduced the available time for completing the sprint tasks.

Ideas for Improvement Future sprints should start according to the planned schedule to ensure that tasks are distributed more evenly throughout the sprint period. It may also be useful to account for vacations or reduced availability when planning sprint goals.

Actions for Next Week Next week, the focus will be on refining the 3D model, starting the prototype, and completing the scientific paper.

Eleventh Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects During this week, the team made important progress by figuring out how to produce the 3D mould. The 3D video was also completed, and work began on both the testing phase and the prototype.

Challenges The main challenge was that not all prototype components had arrived or were available. This limited the team’s ability to continue with the full prototype assembly and testing as planned.

Ideas for Improvement No specific improvement ideas were identified during this sprint.

Actions for Next Week Next week, the team will focus on completing the scientific paper, starting the concrete part of the prototype, and carrying out all planned tests.

Twelfth Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects
During this week, the team made good progress. The smartlogger was successfully made to work, which was an important step for the prototype. The scientific paper is also close to being finished. In addition, both the poster and the user manual were completed.

Challenges
The main challenge this week was that the 3D print drawing needs to be changed. This means that some adjustments must be made before the 3D printed part can be produced or used in the final prototype.

Ideas for Improvement
No specific improvement ideas were identified during this sprint.

Actions for Next Week
Next week, the team will focus on completing the prototype and making sure all parts are ready and working as planned.

Thirteenth Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects
During this week, the team made good progress with the prototype, and the prototype is now working. The first part of the 3D printing was completed, which was an important step toward finishing the physical model. The team also received feedback on the user manual, which will help improve the final version.

Challenges
One challenge this week was the name change from Smartblock to Smartlogger, which required updates in the documentation and project material. In addition, the scientific paper is still not finished. The team is also waiting for the final part of the 3D mould before the prototype can be fully completed.

Ideas for Improvement No specific improvement ideas were identified during this sprint.

Actions for Next Week Next week, the team will focus on completing the concrete prototype and making sure all parts are working as planned. The team will also work on finishing the wiki and updating the remaining documentation.

Fourteenth Week Retrospective

Positive Aspects During this week, the team delivered the scientific paper, completed the 3D print mould, finalized the wiki, finished the video, and prepared the final presentation. These tasks were important steps toward completing the final project deliverables.

Challenges One challenge during this week was that the flowchart still needed to be finished. In addition, the team did not start the concrete part of the prototype as planned, which means this task must be prioritized next.

Ideas for Improvement No specific improvement ideas were identified during this sprint.

Actions for Next Week Next week, the team will focus on completing the concrete prototype and practicing the presentation. The team will also make sure that the remaining documentation and final corrections are completed before submission.

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

This chapter outlines the comprehensive marketing framework for the project. It details the progression from the initial business idea and Business Model Canvas to the final strategic positioning. Furthermore, it details the various market analyzes conducted and concludes with the definition of the brand image.

The marketing plan for Maris Habitats focuses on positioning the project as a modular reef infrastructure and environmental data solution within the blue economy. Rather than claiming immediate biological recovery, the project focuses on what it can directly provide: scalable Reef Blocks, removable Smart Modules, and long-term environmental data.

The Reef Blocks create a physical structure in the marine environment and can provide surfaces, cavities, and sheltered spaces that may support habitat formation over time. The Smartlogger collects environmental data from selected locations, helping customers understand site conditions and environmental changes around the reef.

This positioning is relevant for public institutions, coastal municipalities, research organizations, environmental NGOs, port authorities, aquaculture operators, and marine infrastructure companies. These customers may need reef infrastructure, environmental monitoring, or data-based support for restoration evaluation, sustainability reporting, research, or decision-making.

This chapter defines the market context, target customers, positioning, and marketing-mix strategy for Maris Habitats.

The business idea of Maris Habitats is based on the need for marine habitat restoration and long-term environmental monitoring. Coastal and offshore areas are increasingly affected by habitat degradation, pollution, overfishing, and climate-related pressures. At the same time, the blue economy is becoming more important, as it aims to use ocean resources for economic growth while preserving the health of marine ecosystems [85].

Artificial reefs have already been used for habitat restoration, fishery enhancement, research, and coastal management. However, their effectiveness depends on suitable design, site selection, materials, and long-term monitoring [86], [87]. This creates an opportunity for a solution that does not only provide a physical reef structure, but also supports environmental data collection.

Maris Habitats responds to this need by offering a modular Reef Block system with an optional Smart Module. The Reef Blocks provide scalable underwater infrastructure, while the Smartlogger collects environmental data from selected locations. The purpose of the data is to help customers understand site conditions and observe how the reef and surrounding marine environment change over time.

The paying customers are not individual consumers, but organizations that benefit from better monitored marine environments. These may include public agencies, coastal municipalities, environmental NGOs, research institutions, port authorities, aquaculture operators, and marine infrastructure companies. For these customers, Maris Habitats can provide reef infrastructure and data-based support for restoration evaluation, sustainability reporting, research, and decision-making.

The business model can be developed in stages. First, small pilot projects can be used to test the structure, Smartlogger system, and data collection method. Second, customers can purchase Reef Blocks and optional Smart Modules depending on the scale and purpose of the project. Third, annual monitoring services can be offered, including battery replacement, sensor inspection, data collection, and environmental reports.

This approach allows Maris Habitats to move beyond a one-time product sale. The project can be positioned as a scalable marine restoration and monitoring service, where customers can start with a small installation and expand the system over time.

In this section, the Business Model Canvas for Maris Habitats is presented. Figure 28 provides an overview of the main elements of the business model, including customer segments, value proposition, channels, customer relationships, revenue streams, key resources, key activities, key partners, and cost structure. Each section of the canvas is explained in more detail below.

Figure 28: Business Model Canvas

1. Customer Segments

Maris Habitats is designed to support marine life, but the paying customers are organizations that manage, study, or protect marine environments. These include governments, coastal municipalities, non-profit organizations, environmental NGOs, research institutions, port authorities, aquaculture operators, and marine infrastructure companies.

The project also involves other stakeholders. Marine organisms are the main ecological beneficiaries, while society can benefit from healthier marine environments. Research institutions can also benefit from the collected environmental data, which can support studies, monitoring activities, and decision-making.

2. Value Proposition

Maris Habitats provides modular Reef Blocks that can create physical habitat structure in marine environments. These structures may provide shelter and support habitat formation over time. The project also offers an optional Smart Module for environmental monitoring. The Smartlogger collects data from selected locations, which can help research institutions and public organizations understand site conditions and environmental changes around the reef.

For governments and public institutions, the value of the project is connected to marine restoration, environmental monitoring, and sustainability goals. For research institutions, the main value is access to environmental data that can be used for analysis and long-term observation.

3. Channels

The primary focus is placed on reaching buyers through direct personal contact, while social awareness and transparency are established through a dedicated website and social media presence.

4. Customer Relationships

The project aims to keep unnecessary human disturbance in the marine habitat as low as possible. Since the Smartlogger stores data locally, maintenance and data retrieval can be planned as scheduled operations instead of continuous site disturbance.

For research institutions, Maris Habitats can provide collected data and reports to support analysis and cooperation between different locations. For governments and public institutions, the focus is on developing long-term environmental partnerships that support restoration and monitoring projects.

5. Revenue Streams

Funding is generated through the strategic alignment of the project with government and non-profit sustainability initiatives. By presenting the product as a vehicle for marine restoration and environmental monitoring, the project can attract institutional support. This approach can also extend to the private sector, where philanthropists and NGOs may support specific conservation milestones.

6. Key Resources

The main resource is the workspace, consisting of a facility with an initial area for research and computer-based tasks, and a second area dedicated to building models through concrete molds and structures, ranging from material modeling to sensor implementation and testing. If mass production of the Reef Blocks is required, a factory will be necessary to produce them sequentially and at a higher speed.

7. Key Activities

The scope of activities includes the design and construction of Reef Blocks, as well as the development and installation of the Smartlogger system. This is followed by the deployment of the Reef Blocks on the seabed and the initialization of the monitoring process. The management and analysis of the resulting data can be supported by research centers and institutions.

8. Key Partners

Governments are expected to act not only as clients but also as partners in determining site locations and establishing fishing regulations in those areas. The relationship with research institutions is mutually beneficial, as they are provided with data to analyze while offering feedback for the project. Furthermore, partnerships are sought with marine businesses, ship owners, and diving enterprises to assist with transportation and sea deployment.

9. Cost Structure

The total budget is divided among model construction, material and manufacturing costs, sensors, electronic components, and deployment expenses, including ships, delivery, and divers. In small-scale production, the team salary is also included. In the event of a transition to mass production, worker salaries and factory-related costs would also need to be considered.

Marine ecosystem degradation is increasingly recognized as both an environmental and economic challenge. Coastal and offshore areas are affected by pressures such as climate change, pollution, overfishing, and habitat loss. These pressures can reduce habitat quality and create a need for restoration, monitoring, and better environmental decision-making [88], [89].

Artificial reefs have already been used in different parts of the world as tools for habitat support, fishery enhancement, research, and coastal management. However, their effectiveness depends on suitable site selection, structural design, material choice, and long-term observation [90], [91]. Many existing reef solutions mainly function as physical structures and do not include environmental data collection as a core feature.

At the same time, public institutions, research organizations, environmental NGOs, port authorities, aquaculture operators, and marine infrastructure companies increasingly need measurable environmental information. This data can support restoration evaluation, sustainability reporting, research, and long-term site management.

This creates a market opportunity for a solution that combines modular reef infrastructure with practical environmental monitoring. Maris Habitats responds to this gap by offering Reef Blocks that can be installed alone or combined with an optional removable Smart Module. The Smartlogger collects data at scheduled intervals and stores it locally for later retrieval, instead of relying on real-time underwater communication.

The primary target market consists of institutional and organizational customers rather than individual consumers. These include national and regional authorities, coastal municipalities, research institutions, environmental NGOs, port authorities, aquaculture operators, and companies involved in marine or coastal infrastructure.

The most realistic market entry strategy is gradual validation. Small pilot projects can first be used to test the reef structure, Smartlogger system, maintenance process, and data retrieval method. After technical validation, the system could be expanded through public funding, research partnerships, environmental programs, or project-based services.

In this context, Maris Habitats is positioned as a modular reef infrastructure and environmental data solution. Its market value comes from combining scalable Reef Blocks with optional monitoring services, allowing customers to start with a small installation and expand according to their budget, monitoring needs, and project goals.

4.4.1 PESTEL Analysis

A PESTEL analysis is a tool used by many businesses to study the general external environment before deciding on a business strategy. This environment is divided into political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal factors. The analysis helps identify changes in society and the market, allowing the business to adapt and position itself within this context.

4.4.1.1 Political

Politically, the current situation is favorable for projects related to marine restoration and environmental monitoring. The European Union (EU) has identified similar environmental challenges and has addressed them through the Nature Restoration Law (NRL), which requires member states to take corrective action toward ecosystem restoration [92]. As a result, demand for restoration-related solutions may increase, making the participation of public institutions and government agencies more likely.

Following the same policy direction, the United Nations (UN) has adopted the High Seas Treaty, also known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement. This international agreement 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 sea [93]. These operations align with the business proposal and provide a structured framework that the project can follow.

4.4.1.3 Economic

Economically, marine restoration is moving from research-focused projects toward larger-scale implementation, and the funds and budgets allocated to these efforts are growing accordingly. In line with the previously mentioned regulations, substantial funding opportunities are available through different organizations:

  • The EU, through the LIFE Program, can co-finance environmental and nature-related projects, including projects within nature and biodiversity calls [94]. Furthermore, under the specific mission “Restore our Ocean and Waters,” 2026 calls have been launched with an indicative budget exceeding € 115 M for topics including nature-based solutions and habitat mapping [95].
  • The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is also a relevant international funding mechanism for environmental projects. For the GEF-8 funding period, donor governments pledged USD 5.33 B to support global environmental challenges [96].
  • Lastly, at the national level, both Spain and Portugal, which are potential target locations, have initiatives related to fishing sustainability, marine restoration, and the blue economy. In Spain, examples include the PLEAMAR and Empleaverde+ programs [97], [98]. In Portugal, blue economy funding initiatives such as Fundo Azul and Portugal Blue can also support ocean-related innovation and sustainable marine development [99].
4.4.1.4 Social

On a social level, several arguments 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 can help stabilize the economy of fishing areas and reduce conflicts arising from resource scarcity. Furthermore, these habitats can indirectly support diving tourism by diverting tourist pressure from overexploited natural reefs toward controlled and managed areas, promoting a more sustainable blue economy.

In addition, the improvement of marine habitats can enhance water quality and help protect beaches from erosion. This can increase the overall quality of life in coastal cities, particularly in high-tourism regions such as the target countries, Spain and Portugal.

4.4.1.5 Technological

Technologically, the project is currently at its least mature point. There is an increasing need for environmental activities to be monitored, recorded, and measured in order to demonstrate their effectiveness and evaluate their results. Funding bodies, in particular, require reliable evidence from supported projects. For this reason, the project depends on a simple monitoring system that can meet these requirements without overcomplicating the process.

Other projects may involve 3D scanning of the implementation or restoration area for simulations, or high-resolution mapping using sonar. However, the project goals do not include these types of systems. Because of this technological gap, a simpler monitoring system is preferred to provide the necessary information without relying on excessive, highly invasive, or unnecessary testing.

4.4.1.6 Environmental

The implementation of marine habitats is subject to strict oversight by regulatory bodies under the EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL), which requires studies proving that the intervention will not negatively alter pre-existing environmental dynamics [100]. To this end, baseline characterization studies are conducted for later comparison after implementation.

Another study of great importance is ecological connectivity, which assesses interaction with the surrounding environment. This can support the creation of ecological corridors that facilitate species migration and climate change adaptation. Finally, other impact assessment and ecosystem service studies can support the project and help ensure its success.

Despite these well-defined tests and studies, this area may be challenging due to numerous regulatory requirements and limited professional experience in the field. Consequently, efforts will need to be made to satisfy both technical and social requirements.

4.4.2 SWOT Analysis

The main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of Maris Habitats are summarized in Figure 29.

Figure 29: SWOT Analysis
4.4.2.1 Strengths

One of the main strengths of Maris Habitats is the combination of modular Reef Blocks and a removable Smart Module. The system is not only designed as a physical reef structure, but also as a tool for collecting environmental data around the reef over time.

Another strength is its modularity. Customers can start with a small number of Reef Blocks and later expand the system depending on the project size, budget, and monitoring needs. Since the Smartlogger can be removed from the Smartlogger attachment, maintenance, battery replacement, and data retrieval can be carried out without removing the whole Reef Block from the seabed.

The system also has value for long-term environmental observation. Instead of relying on real-time underwater communication, the Smartlogger stores data locally and allows the data to be retrieved during scheduled maintenance. This reduces technical complexity and power consumption while still supporting later analysis.

4.4.2.2 Weaknesses

A main weakness of Maris Habitats is the technical complexity of combining reef structures with sensors, batteries, waterproof housing, and data storage. Even though the system avoids real-time underwater transmission, the electronic components still need to operate reliably in harsh marine conditions.

Another weakness is the cost of marine-grade components. Pressure-resistant housings, underwater connectors, and durable sensors can be expensive, especially for the final product. The prototype uses lower-cost alternatives, but these are only suitable for controlled testing and cannot fully represent long-term marine deployment.

Maintenance is also a limitation. The system is designed for long-term local data logging, but the Smartlogger still needs to be retrieved periodically for battery replacement, sensor inspection, and data collection. This may require divers or technical partners, which can increase operational costs.

4.4.2.3 Opportunities

Maris Habitats can benefit from the growing demand for marine restoration, environmental monitoring, and data-based decision-making. Public institutions, coastal municipalities, research organizations, NGOs, port authorities, aquaculture operators, and offshore infrastructure companies may need solutions that combine reef infrastructure with environmental data collection.

There is also an opportunity to develop pilot projects with local authorities, universities, or marine infrastructure partners. These pilot projects could help test the modular Reef Blocks, the removable Smart Module, and the annual data retrieval process before larger-scale deployment.

Another opportunity is the development of a service-based model. In addition to selling Reef Blocks, Maris Habitats could offer annual monitoring services, including battery replacement, sensor inspection, data collection, and environmental reports. Basic datasets could also support research and education, while project-specific analysis could be offered as a paid service.

4.4.2.4 Threats

Several threats are related to the marine environment itself. Strong currents, storms, pressure, corrosion, and biofouling can affect the long-term performance of both the reef structure and the Smartlogger. These factors may increase maintenance needs, reduce data quality, or shorten the service life of some components.

Regulatory approval can also be a threat. Since the system is installed underwater and interacts with marine environments, deployment may require permits, environmental assessments, and cooperation with local authorities. This can delay implementation, especially for public restoration or coastal infrastructure projects.

Existing companies in marine infrastructure, reef restoration, and marine monitoring may also create competition. Some competitors may already have stronger market recognition, technical validation, or established partnerships with public institutions and coastal stakeholders.

Funding uncertainty is another threat. Many potential customers, such as public institutions, NGOs, and research organizations, may depend on project-based budgets, grants, or public funding. If funding is delayed or limited, customers may postpone installation or choose only a smaller pilot version.

This chapter details the Maris Habitats marketing strategy, establishing clear objectives, market segmentation, and targeting. It defines the project's strategic positioning and concludes with a comprehensive marketing mix, analyzing the 4 Ps: Product, Price, Place, and Promotion.

4.5.1 Strategic Objectives

To determine the team's objectives, a SMART framework was used, ensuring that the goals are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. A 3- to 5-year horizon was defined to reduce ambiguity and support 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 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) will help guide the project. A longitudinal monitoring approach will be used by comparing post-deployment data with an environmental baseline, also referred to as the “Year 0” measurements. This comparative approach can help assess biodiversity changes, water quality improvement, and structural integrity over time [101].

Critical Relevance in a Global Context

The relevance of these objectives is connected to the increasing pressure on marine ecosystems. Habitat degradation can affect marine biodiversity, ecosystem services, and communities that depend on the sea for food, tourism, and coastal protection. WWF also highlights that marine and coastal ecosystems in Europe face threats from habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change, which makes restoration planning more important [102]. For this reason, the strategy is not only a business goal, but also part of a wider response to marine ecosystem degradation.

Achievability and the “Experimental” Paradigm

In line with recent marine restoration guidance, this project can be considered experimental because it is still at an early validation stage and operates in a dynamic marine environment [103]. Unlike mature projects with predictable outcomes, this project still needs to test technical boundaries through prototypes, pilot deployment, and monitoring. Recognizing this experimental nature allows the team to maintain operational flexibility. Marine variables, such as current shifts, temperature fluctuations, and pH levels, require an adaptive management style, allowing the team to adjust its approach without compromising the core strategic objectives.

4.5.2 Segmentation and Targeting

Unlike traditional consumer products, this solution is not based on standard demographic or psychographic segmentation. Instead, it focuses on geographic and environmental conditions, especially coastal areas with similar marine characteristics.

At this stage, the main focus is on the Atlantic coast of Portugal and Northern Spain. These regions have similar ocean conditions and biodiversity, which makes it easier to apply the system without major design changes.

Although the European Union is the main institutional partner and initial market, the long-term goal is to expand to other regions with similar marine environments. Potential areas include the northeastern United States, southwestern Canada, western New Zealand, and central Chile.

In future developments, the system could also be adapted to different climates, including tropical and colder regions, allowing for wider global application.


From this perspective, the targeting strategy focuses on the main stakeholders within these regions. After identifying where the system can be implemented, it is important to define who benefits from it.

The project aims to support marine biodiversity, fish population growth, and better water quality. In addition, it may help reduce coastal erosion and protect coastal infrastructure by absorbing wave energy.

Unlike traditional solutions, the system also includes an optional Smart Module that collects environmental data at scheduled intervals. This supports data-driven decision-making for coastal management and long-term planning.

For these reasons, the main target audience includes national governments, regional authorities, and coastal municipalities. These stakeholders are responsible for environmental management and have the capacity to invest in long-term infrastructure.

The partnership strategy is based on three main criteria:

  • Environmental awareness: recognition of marine ecosystem degradation
  • Financial capacity: ability to support long-term investment
  • Strategic alignment: consistency with sustainability policies

In this context, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 provides a strong framework because it aims to protect nature, reverse ecosystem degradation, and put biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030. This makes Maris Habitats more aligned with European policy priorities for biodiversity and ecosystem restoration [104].

4.5.3 Positioning

The positioning of Maris Habitats and selected existing companies is shown in Figure 30. The map is based on two criteria: ecological reef design on the horizontal axis and environmental data / monitoring capability on the vertical axis. These criteria were selected because Maris Habitats is intended not only to provide a physical reef structure, but also to collect environmental data around the reef over time.

Figure 30 shows that Maris Habitats is positioned between reef-based habitat solutions and marine data services, aiming to combine both ecological structure and environmental monitoring in one modular system.

The positioning map includes two types of existing solutions. ECOncrete, Reef Design Lab, IntelliReefs, and rrreefs are included as reef-related solutions, while XOCEAN is included as an example of a marine data company. XOCEAN provides turnkey ocean data services using uncrewed surface vessels, including seabed mapping and environmental monitoring. Therefore, it is positioned higher in environmental data / monitoring capability, but lower in ecological reef design because it does not focus on artificial reef or habitat structure development [105].

ECOncrete, Reef Design Lab, IntelliReefs, and rrreefs are positioned on the right side of the map because their public product descriptions focus on ecological reef design, habitat creation, material innovation, or reef restoration. ECOncrete provides bio-enhancing concrete solutions for marine infrastructure [106]. Reef Design Lab designs, prototypes, and manufactures artificial reefs and coastal habitat infrastructure [107]. IntelliReefs develops Oceanite-based reef restoration substrates for marine restoration [108]. rrreefs rebuilds coral reefs using a 3D-printed modular system that supports biodiversity and habitat creation [109].

However, compared with Maris Habitats, their public product descriptions do not clearly present a removable Smart Module as a core feature of the reef system. This does not mean that these companies do not collect any environmental data during projects. Rather, the map focuses on whether environmental monitoring is presented as an integrated product function.

Maris Habitats is positioned in the upper-right area of the map because it combines modular Reef Blocks with a removable Smart Module for environmental data collection. This position shows the intended niche of Maris Habitats between artificial reef infrastructure and marine environmental monitoring services.

Overall, the positioning map shows that Maris Habitats aims to combine ecological habitat support with environmental monitoring in one modular system. Unlike companies that focus mainly on reef structure or companies that focus mainly on data collection, Maris Habitats proposes a combined solution that can support both habitat creation and long-term observation.

Figure 30: Positioning map of selected existing solutions and the proposed Maris Habitats system

4.5.4 Marketing-Mix

Product

Maris Habitats is a modular marine infrastructure and environmental monitoring system. The product consists of Reef Blocks, an optional removable Smart Module, and a monitoring service based on collected environmental data. The Reef Blocks are designed as modular underwater structures with textured surfaces and connection gaps between blocks, which may provide attachment areas and sheltered spaces for marine organisms over time [110].

The Smartlogger collects environmental data such as temperature, pressure/depth, and selected water quality indicators from specific locations around the reef. The data is not intended to prove immediate ecological recovery. Instead, it is used to observe how the reef structure and surrounding marine conditions change over time, since artificial reef projects require long-term monitoring before ecological outcomes can be evaluated [111].

The data-based monitoring service works by combining periodic data collection with maintenance and reporting. The Smartlogger records and stores environmental measurements during deployment. During maintenance visits, the data can be retrieved, checked, documented, and organized into simple reports for the customer [112]. These reports can help public institutions, researchers, or companies understand site conditions, compare changes over time, and plan future maintenance or restoration decisions. In this way, the service adds value to the physical reef structure by supporting long-term observation.

A key part of the product strategy is modularity. Customers can first install only the Reef Blocks and later add the Smart Module if monitoring is needed. This gives public institutions and companies more flexibility because they do not need to invest in the full system from the beginning.

The Smart Module is not included in every Reef Block. For larger installations, only selected Reef Blocks may include the Smart Module in order to collect representative environmental data while reducing the total system cost. The removable design also allows battery replacement, sensor inspection, maintenance, and data retrieval without removing the whole Reef Block from the seabed.

The final product could include different service levels. A basic version would include the Reef Blocks only. A standard version would include Reef Blocks and selected Smart Modules. A premium version could include yearly maintenance, data collection, sensor inspection, battery replacement, and environmental reports. In this way, Maris Habitats becomes more than a physical product; it becomes a modular platform for reef infrastructure, environmental monitoring, and data-based service.

Price

The pricing strategy for Maris Habitats follows a modular, scalable, and tiered pricing model. Since the system is composed of separate Reef Blocks and optional Smart Modules, the total price depends on the number of Reef Blocks, the number of Smart Modules, the selected sensor package, and the level of service required by the customer.

In the early market entry stage, Maris Habitats could apply a penetration pricing strategy through small pilot installations. Penetration pricing means setting a lower initial price for a new product or service to attract customers and gain market share at the beginning of the product life cycle [113]. In this project, the first installations could be offered at a lower introductory price to reduce the financial risk for customers and encourage adoption. After the product gains credibility, field data, and customer trust, the price could gradually move toward a standard market-based level.

The reef structure can be priced per Reef Block. This allows customers to start with a small pilot installation and expand the system later by adding more Reef Blocks. For larger restoration or monitoring areas, more Reef Blocks would be required, while smaller projects could begin with only a limited number of units. This makes the product more flexible for public institutions, research organizations, NGOs, and companies with different budgets.

The Smart Module would be offered as an optional add-on rather than being included in every Reef Block. For example, if a project installs 50 Reef Blocks, it may only need 5 Smart Modules placed in selected locations. These Smartloggers can collect representative environmental data from the site while reducing the total cost of the system. This is important because large installations do not need sensors in every single Reef Block.

A tiered pricing strategy could also be used for the Smart Module. Tiered pricing allows a product or service to be divided into different levels based on features, service scope, or usage, so customers can choose the option that best fits their needs and budget [114]. A basic package could include essential sensors such as temperature and pressure/depth sensors. A standard package could include additional water quality indicators such as conductivity or total dissolved solids. An advanced package could include more specialized sensors or customized monitoring options for projects with higher budgets or specific research needs.

In addition to the physical product, Maris Habitats could offer an annual monitoring service. This service could include data retrieval, battery replacement, sensor cleaning, sensor inspection, and an environmental report. The service could also be divided into different levels. For example, a basic service could include only data retrieval and inspection, while a premium service could include regular maintenance and a detailed environmental report.

Through this pricing model, customers can choose the level of product and service that fits their budget and project scale. At the same time, Maris Habitats can create a more stable business model by combining one-time product sales with recurring monitoring and maintenance services. This turns Maris Habitats from a simple artificial reef product into a scalable marine restoration and monitoring service.

Place

Because Maris Habitats is not a consumer product, it would not be distributed through normal retail channels. The product is intended for institutional and project-based customers, such as public authorities, coastal municipalities, port authorities, research institutions, environmental NGOs, aquaculture operators, and marine infrastructure companies.

The distribution strategy should therefore be based on direct sales, partnerships, and pilot projects. Instead of selling the product through shops, the team would approach potential customers directly and offer project-specific solutions depending on the site, budget, monitoring needs, and environmental goals.

At the first stage, the main geographical focus would be the Atlantic coast of Portugal and Northern Spain. These regions are suitable as an initial market because they are close to the project location and have comparable marine conditions. Starting in nearby regions also makes communication, testing, transport, installation, and maintenance easier.

After validation through pilot projects, Maris Habitats could be expanded to other coastal regions with similar marine environments. Possible future markets include other European coastal areas and international regions where artificial reef structures or environmental monitoring systems are needed. However, expansion to different climates or ecosystems would require additional testing and local adaptation.

The installation and maintenance process would likely require cooperation with local partners. These may include diving teams, marine contractors, port operators, research institutions, or environmental agencies. This partnership-based distribution model is important because underwater installation, annual data retrieval, and sensor maintenance require site access and technical support.

Promotion

The promotion strategy should focus on clear, realistic, and evidence-based communication. Since Maris Habitats is presented as an environmental solution, promotion must avoid exaggerated claims or greenwashing. The system should not be promoted as a complete solution that can fully restore marine ecosystems by itself. Instead, communication should explain what the system can realistically provide: modular reef infrastructure, optional environmental monitoring, and long-term local data collection.

The main promotional message should emphasize the difference between Maris Habitats and existing artificial reef solutions. Many existing systems focus mainly on reef structure or ecological design. Maris Habitats adds value by combining modular Reef Blocks with a removable Smart Module. The Smartlogger stores environmental data locally for later analysis.

Promotion should be targeted at professional and institutional audiences rather than the general consumer market. Suitable channels include direct presentations to public authorities, research institutions, port authorities, environmental NGOs, and marine infrastructure companies. Promotion could also include project reports, technical brochures, and presentations at conferences or events related to marine restoration, environmental monitoring, coastal infrastructure, and sustainability.

Digital communication can also support promotion. A website or project page can explain the system, show the modular structure, describe the Smartlogger, and present pilot project results when available. Social media can be used for awareness, but the content should remain informative and technical rather than overly promotional.

For early-stage promotion, pilot projects are especially important. Demonstrating the system in a controlled or small-scale marine environment would help build credibility. Data collected from pilot deployments could later be used in reports, presentations, and case studies to show how the system works and what kind of environmental information it can provide.

Overall, the promotion strategy should present Maris Habitats as a realistic and modular solution for marine infrastructure and environmental monitoring. The focus should be on transparency, technical feasibility, long-term observation, and collaboration with institutions that are already involved in marine restoration, research, or coastal management.

4.5.5 Brand

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

The Maris logo (see Figure 31) 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

The Maris color palette (see Figure 32) 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
Figure 32: Maris Habitats Brand Colors
Graphic Elements

The graphic language (see Figure 33) 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.

Figure 33: Maris Habitats Graphic Elements

4.6.1 Programs

To support the visibility and future development of Maris Habitats, the marketing programs are based on four main activities. These activities combine digital communication, institutional cooperation, public awareness, and prototype demonstration.

  • Social Media & Digital Promotion: Digital communication will be used to present the project and explain its main purpose. Instagram can be used to share visual updates and short videos for students and the general public, while LinkedIn can be used for technical updates, project milestones, and professional networking. A project page on the university website can also include the project description, research goals, prototype progress, and basic data examples. The content should clearly show the Reef Block design, the Smartlogger, and the environmental monitoring concept.
  • Collaboration with Universities and Marine Organizations: Collaboration with universities and marine organizations is important for feedback, technical support, and future validation. The main academic collaboration will be connected to the Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto (ISEP), where the team can receive multidisciplinary support. In the future, the project could also cooperate with marine research centers and local environmental organizations to improve the design and make it more suitable for real marine conditions.
  • Educational & Awareness Activities: Educational activities can help explain the value of artificial reefs and environmental monitoring. The team can organize technical presentations or small workshops for engineering and environmental science students. Awareness activities can also be used to inform the local community about marine habitat restoration, biodiversity protection, and the role of artificial reefs in supporting marine ecosystems.
  • Prototype Demonstration: The prototype demonstration will show the physical concept of Maris Habitats in a controlled environment. It can present the scaled Reef Block and the basic operation of the Smartlogger prototype. This allows stakeholders to see how the structure, sensor system, and data collection process work before any future marine deployment.

4.6.2 Budget

To keep the marketing activities realistic during the prototype and early dissemination stages, a small and practical budget is planned. The costs are kept low by using free digital platforms, university resources, and simple printed materials.

  • Social media promotion: € 0–50. Mainly organic posts, with small targeted ads if needed.
  • Posters & printing: € 30. Technical posters for presentations and institutional display.
  • Presentation materials: € 50. Handouts, visual materials, and support media for workshops or meetings.
  • Prototype exhibition: € 200. Transport, exhibition materials, small fixtures, and demonstration consumables.
  • Website / digital tools: € 0–30. Use of university subdomains, free website tools, or open-source content management tools.

4.6.3 Control

To check whether the marketing programs are effective, simple control and feedback methods will be used. These methods will help the team understand which activities work well and what should be improved in future promotion and dissemination.

  • Social Media Engagement Metrics: Digital communication results will be checked using the analytics tools available on each platform. The main metrics include likes, shares, comments, and overall reach. These results can be reviewed regularly to understand which content is more effective and how future posts can be improved.
  • Feedback from Professors & Students: After workshops, presentations, or project demonstrations, feedback can be collected from professors, students, and other participants. Simple surveys or feedback forms can be used to evaluate whether the project explanation is clear, useful, and relevant. This feedback can help improve future presentations and educational activities.
  • Prototype Evaluation: The prototype can be evaluated during exhibitions and demonstrations through observations and discussions with visitors, professors, and technical stakeholders. Feedback about the Reef Block design, Smartlogger system, waterproofing, sensor accuracy, and maintenance process can be used to improve the final product concept.

This chapter presented the marketing strategy for Maris Habitats. The analysis showed that the project should target institutional and project-based customers, such as public authorities, coastal municipalities, research institutions, environmental NGOs, port authorities, aquaculture operators, and marine infrastructure companies.

Based on this market analysis, the team decided to position Maris Habitats as a modular reef infrastructure and environmental monitoring solution. The product is intended for customers that need scalable reef structures, long-term environmental observation, and data-based support for restoration, research, or coastal management.

For this reason, the solution was designed with modular Reef Blocks, an optional removable Smart Module, local data logging, and service-based monitoring options. These features allow customers to start with a small pilot installation and expand the system according to their budget, site conditions, and monitoring needs.

The next chapter examines the sustainability of this solution by considering its environmental, economic, and social impacts, as well as its life cycle.

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

[1], [5] V. Fiore, T. Scalici, G. Di Bella, A. Valenza, 2015. A review on basalt fibre and its composites. Composites Part B: Engineering, 74, pp.74-94, ISSN 1359-8368.
[2], [59], [66] Fulin Qu, Wengui Li, Wenkui Dong, Vivian W.Y. Tam, Tao Yu, 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.
[3], [74], [75] Nicholas A. J. Graham, Kirsty L. Nash, 2013. The importance of structural complexity in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs, 32, pp.315–326.
[4] Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2024. Osborne Reef Waste Tire Removal Project.
[7] Polycase, 2020. IP68 Waterproof Rating.
[11] Eternal Reef
[12] Reef Innovations
[14], [57] Munandar, Mahendra, Muhammad Rizal, Chair Rani, Ahmad Faizal, 2018. The escalation of coral growth by biorock technology applied in Sabang marine ecotourism. AACL Bioflux, 11, pp.1633–1647.
[15] U.S. Fish, Wildlife Service Headquarters, 2008. Biorock Reef Indonesia.jpg.
[18] Living seawalls
[19] Living Seawalls, n.d.. Design and Manufacturing.
[34], [35], [37] E. G. Knoester, A. Vos1, C. Saru, A. J. Murk1, R. Osinga, 2024. Concrete evidence: Outplanted corals for reef restoration do not need extended curing of ordinary Portland cement. Royal Society Open Science, 11, pp.1-7.
[36] New Heaven Reef Conservation, 2018. Artificial Reefs: What Works and What Doesn't?.
[38], [39], [41] Mohammed Al-Yaari, Muhd Afiq Hizami Abdullah, Mugahed Amran, Nurul Ain Harmiza Abdullah, Ibrahim Dubdub, Ammar Fayez Al-Shayeb, 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.
[40] M.P Prajeesha, S. Packialakshmi, 2026. Study of Bacterial Concrete Corrosion Resistance in Marine Environment. SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering, 13, pp.149-165, ISSN 2348-8352.
[42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [58], [65] Jalal El Bahaoui, Issam Hanafi, Mohamed Chairi, Federica Favaloro, Chiara Borsellino, Guido Di Bella, 2025. Effect of Manufacturing Processes on Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Composites for Marine Applications. Journal of Composites Science, 9, pp.233.
[47], [48], [49], [50] Canhua Lai, Peng Zhang, Xiaobing Dai, Yuanxun Zheng, 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.
[53], [54], [55], [56] Michelle Daarol, Cyril Jane Fullido, Earl Jhon Lazaga, Kyla Marie Ayodoc, 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.
[62] Hao-Tian Li, Ya-Jun Wang, Jian-Bao Zhang, Peng Yu, Yi-Tong Wang, Jun-Guo Li, Shu-Hao Zhang, Zi-Han Tang, Jie Yang, 2026. Research Progress and the Prospect of Artificial Reef Preparation and Its Impact on the Marine Ecological Environment. Materials, 19, pp.447.
[63], [67] Prusa Research, n.d.. PLA.
[64] UltiMaker, n.d.. PLA 3D Printing Material.
[68], [69], [71], [72], [73] Bichitra Nanda Sahoo, Peter James Thomas, Paul Thomas, Martin Møller Greve, 2025. Antibiofouling Coatings For Marine Sensors: Progress and Perspectives on Materials, Methods, Impacts, and Field Trial Studies. ACS Sensors, 10, pp.1600-1619.
[76] PHAROS Project, 2024. Artificial Reefs.
[77] R. W Cockfield, 1987. Scope management.
[78] F. M Webster, 1994. The WBS.
[79] J. R. Beck, 1987. Time management.
[80] W. L. Dixon, 1987. Quality Management.
[81] D. Vogwell, 2003. Stakeholder management.
[83], [84] N Lavanya, Malarvizhi,T, 2008. Risk analysis and management.
[85] World Bank, 2017. What is the Blue Economy?.
[86], [90] Gianna Fabi, Giuseppe Scarcella, Alessandra Spagnolo, Stephen A. Bortone, Eric Charbonnel, Juan J. Goutayer, Naoufel Haddad, Altan Lok, Michel Trommelen, 2015. Studies and reviews, practical guidelines for the use of artificial reefs in the mediterranean and the black sea. , 96, pp.74-94, ISSN 1020-9549.
[87], [89], [91] Carolina Bracho-Villavicencio, Helena Matthews-Cascon, Sergio Rossi, 2023. Artificial Reefs around the World: A Review of the State of the Art and a Meta-Analysis of Its Effectiveness for the Restoration of Marine Ecosystems. Environments, 10, pp.121.
[88] 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.
[94] Infrastructure European Climate, Environment Executive Agency, n.d.. LIFE Environment Sub-programme.
[96] Global Environment Facility, 2022. GEF-8 Replenishment.
[97] Fundación Biodiversidad, 2025. Call for Grants from the Pleamar 2025 Programme.
[98] Fundación Biodiversidad, n.d.. Empleaverde Programme.
[104] European Commission, n.d.. Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.
[112] Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, 2025. Guidelines for an Ocean Project or Programme Data Management Plan.