Divers Team:

Hernán Nieto Marabini
Chaehee Kim
Ida Schmitt
Isak Björk
Louis Van Nederkassel
Oda Kristine Johansen Fossvoll

2026/02/16 22:34 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

Abstract

Hosted by the Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto (ISEP), the European Project Semester (EPS) program facilitates an interdisciplinary environment for engineering students of diverse nationalities. The projects serve as a multidisciplinary platform for the joint acquisition and application of technical skills, specifically oriented toward the lifecycle of a proof-of-concept prototype, from initial design to rigorous testing.

2026/02/16 22:31 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

THEY ARE ORDERED NOW, MANTAIN IT. Be sure to fully introduce the meaning of each acronym the first time it appears in the document.

Abbreviation	Description
BBNJ	Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction
BFRP	Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
C2C	Consumer-to-Consumer
CAC	Customer Acquisition Cost
CAPEX	Capital Expenditure
CPT	Camptothecin
CTD	Condcuctivity Temperature Depth
DaaS	Data-as-a-Service
DVL	Doppler Velocity Log
EPS	European Project Semester
ESG	Environmental, Social, and Governance
EU	European Union
GEF	Global Environment Facility
GNSS	Global Navigation Satellite System
HSC	High Strength Concrete
I²C	Inter-Integrated Circuit
IMU	Inertial Measuring Unit
IoT	Internet of Things
ISEP	Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto
KPI	Key Performance Indicator
MPA	Marine Protected Areas
NGOs	Non Governmental Organizations
NRL	Nature Restoration Law
OBC	On Board Computer
PDMS	Polydimethylsiloxane
PMS	Power Management System
RTC	Real Time Clock
SAC	Sulfoaluminate Cement
SD	Secure Digital
SDG	Sustainable Development Goals
SLIPS	Slippery Liquid-Infused Porous Surfaces
SMART	Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound
SWOT	Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
UN	United Nations
USB	Universal Serial Bus
WBS	Work Breakdown Structure
WWF	World Wide Fund for Nature

2026/02/16 22:32 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

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.

Table 1: Divers team

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

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

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

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

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

To fulfill the task of monitoring the conditions, it is necessary researching about the sensors that can take that job properly, and an organizational model that allow to get the needed information, without disturbing the environment and complying with all regulations.

Finally, the final target it is to create social awareness, so more people can learn about the current situation going underwater. With all the information it can be recolected, the best chance is not only with the science or research, it is to concern people about the biggest resource on earth, the sea.

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

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

The third big issue going on, concerns the levels of oxygen in the sea. With most of the fauna being altered, the flora is also damaged, the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs responsible of producing between 60 % and 80 % of the oxygen that is breathed, are rapidly dying, already more than 50 % of it has died in the last decades, so a global problem is incoming, and efforts are being made to develop a viable solution..

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

More specifically, the objectives are:

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

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

The system must collect environmental data at predefined time intervals. The measured parameters include water temperature, pressure (depth), pH, and conductivity.

The collected data must be stored locally using a data storage unit such as a Secure Digital (SD) card, allowing continuous operation without relying on external communication infrastructure.

Energy consumption must be minimized to extend operational lifetime. This is achieved through low-power operation, where the system remains active only for short periods during 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 physical structure must include cavities and textured surfaces to support the attachment and growth of marine organisms.

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 and structural design are critical.

To avoid failures observed in previous projects such as Osborne Reef, the structure must be composed of pH-neutral, non-toxic materials that do not release harmful substances into the marine environment [1].

The main structural material is eco-concrete, selected due to its improved compatibility with marine life compared to traditional concrete [2].

Basalt fiber is used as a reinforcement material to improve structural durability and resistance to mechanical stress [3].

The structure must be designed to remain stable under currents and wave conditions without displacement.

All electronic components, including sensors, batteries, and storage units, must be enclosed in a waterproof housing with at least IP68 protection to prevent water ingress and ensure long-term operation underwater [4].

Condensation inside the enclosure must be controlled using moisture-absorbing materials. A pressure relief valve must also be included to regulate internal pressure.

Chapter	Description
1. Introduction	Introduction to the project and the report
2. Background and related work	Previous similar projects with commmon useful knowledge
3. Project management	Distribution and important aspects about the project itself
4. Marketing plan	Analysis of the market and economical feasibility
5. Eco-efficiency Measures for Sustainability	Sustainable responsabilities 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 establishes the technical and scientific foundation for the MARIS HABITATS project by situating it within the broader landscape of underwater monitoring and artificial reef design. While the field of marine biology has long utilized static structures for habitat restoration, the integration of real-time Internet of Things (IoT) capabilities remains a significant hurdle due to high costs and technical complexity.

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

Artificial marine habitats can be designed in several ways to help restore marine ecosystems and support endangered fish species. One approach is the use of 3D-printed reef corals, which can be made from materials such as ceramic, limestone, or eco-concrete. These materials are durable and suitable for marine environments. Examples of projects using this approach include 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 [5], [6].

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 [7], [8].

A different method is the creation of Bio-Rock or electric reefs. These reefs consist of metal structures through which a small electrical current is passed. This current causes minerals from seawater to deposit onto the structure, gradually forming a limestone-like coating. This process helps corals grow much faster than under normal conditions, and fish rapidly colonize these artificial reefs. This technique is known as Bio-Rock technology [9].

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 [10].

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 [11].

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.

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

Table 2: Comparative overview of existing artificial reef solutions and the proposed Maris Habitats system

Criteria	MEITEC	ECOncrete	IntelliReefs	Maris Habitats
Real-time monitoring	No	No	No	Yes
Integrated sensors	Limited	No	No	Yes
Data collection system	Not specified	No	Not specified	Yes
Primary focus	Structural reef	Eco-concrete material	Modular reef design	Integrated habitat and monitoring system
Material type	Conventional concrete	Eco-enhanced concrete	Alternative materials / modular units	Eco-concrete and reinforced structure
Ecological enhancement	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Structural complexity	Moderate	Moderate	High	Moderate
Modularity	Limited	Moderate	High	Moderate
Scalability	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Maintenance approach	Diver-based	Passive structure	Not specified	Diver-based maintenance
Data-driven decision support	No	No	No	Yes

The comparison presented in Table 2 is based on publicly available information from product descriptions and related documentation. In cases where information was not clearly specified, this is indicated accordingly.

As shown in Table 2, existing solutions mainly focus on structural design and ecological enhancement. However, based on the available information, these solutions generally do not include integrated monitoring systems or continuous data collection capabilities. In contrast, the proposed Maris Habitats system combines habitat construction with environmental monitoring, enabling continuous data collection and supporting data-driven decision-making.

This section presents existing solutions related to artificial reef systems and marine infrastructure. The purpose of this analysis is to understand how current solutions are designed and what features they provide. It also helps to identify limitations that can be considered in the development of the proposed system.

MEITEC

MEITEC is a company that develops artificial reef structures for marine environments [12]. These structures are designed to be placed on the seabed and are intended to support marine ecosystems.

The structures are typically made from concrete materials, which provide mechanical strength and allow the system to remain stable under ocean conditions. This type of structure is commonly used in artificial reef applications because it can withstand external forces such as currents and waves.

The design of these structures provides physical spaces where marine organisms can attach, hide, and interact. These features can contribute to the formation of habitats over time.

In some cases, additional devices such as flow meters or temperature sensors may be used (see Figure 2). These devices can provide basic environmental information. However, based on the available information, there is no clear indication that these systems include fully integrated or continuous environmental monitoring capabilities.

This suggests that the main focus of the system is on structural design and habitat creation, while the integration of monitoring functions is limited.

메이텍.jpg — Figure 2: Installation of a flow meter and water temperature sensor in an underwater environment **[13]**

메이텍2.jpg — Figure 2: Installation of a flow meter and water temperature sensor in an underwater environment **[13]**

ECOncrete

ECOncrete develops concrete solutions that are designed to improve the interaction between marine infrastructure and the surrounding ecosystem [14].

The material is modified in terms of surface texture and composition in order to support the attachment of marine organisms. These modifications aim to create conditions that are more suitable for biological growth compared to traditional concrete.

Such solutions are applied in coastal and marine infrastructure, including structures such as seawalls and shoreline protection systems. In these applications, the structures maintain their engineering function while also providing ecological benefits.

Marine organisms can attach and grow on the surface of these structures over time, as shown in Figure 3.

However, these systems mainly act as passive structures. They are designed to support marine life, but they do not actively collect environmental data. Based on the available descriptions, there is no clear indication of integrated sensing or continuous monitoring within the structure.

Figure 3: Eco-concrete coastal structure showing marine organism growth on its surface in a biodiversity enhancement project **[15]**

IntelliReefs

IntelliReefs is a project that focuses on developing artificial reef systems using alternative design approaches [16].

The project explores different structural configurations and materials in order to improve ecological performance and reduce environmental impact compared to traditional reef systems.

The design of the structures aims to provide suitable habitats for marine organisms by creating complex geometries and sheltered spaces, as shown in Figure 4.

These modular structures form interconnected reef systems that can support diverse marine habitats.

However, based on the available information, the system mainly focuses on structural and ecological aspects. There is no clear indication of integrated sensing technologies or continuous environmental monitoring capabilities.

This suggests that, while IntelliReefs contributes to improved reef design, the integration of data collection and monitoring functions remains limited.

Figure 4: Modular artificial reef system with complex geometry designed to create diverse marine habitats **[17]**

For this project involving a marine habitat at a maximum depth of 50 m off the Portuguese coast, the materials must withstand a pressure of approximately 5 bar while fostering biological growth and protecting sensitive sensors. To ensure the highest level of efficiency and environmental compatibility, various materials used in international restoration efforts has 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 exceptional durability and its proven track record in underwater construction. Its capacity to provide structural integrity against significant environmental stressors—such as salinity, strong currents, and wave action—makes it the industry standard for creating resilient marine foundations. While the chemical properties of concrete, particularly its initial pH levels, have historically been a point of debate, recent research has shifted the focus toward a more nuanced understanding of its behavior in open marine environments [18].

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 [19]. 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 [20]. By optimizing the weight-to-complexity ratio and ensuring low water absorption, it can be guaranteed that these structures remain stationary during extreme weather events while providing the necessary niches for biodiversity to thrive [21].

Based on the research and articles reviewed, the following subsection evaluates different material options—ranging from traditional foundations to innovative biocompatible substrates—from which the selection for the most suitable components will be done for this specific implementation.

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 [22].

Pros: Achieves 96 % recovery in water tightness within 56 days of seawater immersion [23]. It maintains structural integrity above 100 MPa, which is more than sufficient for the pressure at 50 m. It significantly reduces rebar corrosion by sealing entry points for chloride ions [24].
Cons: Higher complexity in mixing and requires specific nutrients like calcium lactate and urea [25].
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 [26].

Pros: Naturally non-corrosive and chemically stable in aggressive saline environments [27]. Vacuum infusion manufacturing can produce laminates with flexural strength up to 400 MPa [28]. It provides a more resilient, damage-tolerant failure mode compared to the brittle collapse of traditional reinforced concrete [29].
Cons: Slightly lower peak flexural strength compared to glass fibers, although superior in long-term durability and environmental footprint [30].
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) [31].

Pros: Significantly lower CO₂ footprint than Portland cement [32]. It shows superior resistance to chloride and sulfate attack in “wet-thermal” marine environments [33].
Cons: Higher production costs currently limit wide adoption [34].
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 [35].

Pros: Surface pH of 9–10 (closer to seawater's 8) promotes the settlement of “ecosystem engineers” like oysters, serpulid worms, and coralline algae. These organisms provide bioprotection, adding a calcified layer that strengthens the structure and limits oxygen/chloride penetration [36].
Cons: Requires specialized design to ensure the lower pH doesn't compromise the protection of internal steel if used.
Price: Estimated at 140 €/m³ – 180 €/m³.

E. Recycled Glass (Partial Aggregate Replacement) Crushed waste glass used to replace up to 30 % of fine aggregates in the concrete mix [37].

Pros: Improves chemical resistance and reduces water absorption [38]. It offers an eco-friendly way to utilize waste while maintaining sufficient compressive strength for marine applications [39].
Cons: Replacing more than 30 % of aggregate leads to a significant reduction in compressive strength [40].
Price: Estimated at 90 €/m³ – 140 €/m³.

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

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

2.5.1.1 Summary Table

The previous subsection regarding the materials evaluated for the project, is sumarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary table for materials evaluated

Material	Primary Requisite Met	Pros	Cons	Estimated Price / m³
Bacterial HSC	Longevity/Pressure	Autonomous repair; 96 % watertight	High complexity	180–260 €
Basalt Reinforcement	Corrosion Resistance	Non-corrosive; volcanic origin	Lower flexural peak	160–220 €
ECOncrete®	Sea-life Friendly	Neutral pH; bioprotection	Specific mix needs	140–180 €
Recycled Glass	Sustainability	Increased chemical resistance	Strength loss > 30 %	90–140 €
Biorock	Life Promotion	4:1 growth; self-repairing	Power dependent	120–160 €

2.5.1.2 Materials for Prototype vs. Final

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

TO BE CHECKED WHEN THE PROTOTYPE HAS TO BE DONE

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

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 [41].

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

2.5.2.1 Materials for Housing

The 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 [42]. For more than 200 m depth, Titanium is preferred for long-term corrosion resistance [43].

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.

PDMS (Polydimethylsiloxane): A non-toxic, “fouling-release” coating that reduces the adhesion of algae and barnacles [44].
CPT (Camptothecin)-based Paint: A natural compound that has shown virtually no macrofouling after nine months of immersion [45].
SLIPS (Slippery Liquid-Infused Porous Surfaces): These provide exceptional resistance to organism attachment even in stagnant water [46].

Fish structure

Fish populations are generally associated with habitats that exhibit high structural complexity and spatial heterogeneity [47]. 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 [48]. 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 [49].
Most of the artificial reef projects are placed at the depth of 10-20 meters, but it all depends on which species and what type of marine life are the reefs intended for.

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

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

Due to the unpredictable nature of environmental hardware testing, 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 [50].

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

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

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

The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) presented in the figures illustrates how the MARIS HABITATS system is divided into its main components and subsystems [51]. 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 5 presents the WBS for the product and Figure 6 the 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 [52].

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

Table 4: Milestones for the project

Date	Description
2026-02-28	Choose and share your top-3 preferred project proposals via email to epsatisep@gmail.com
2026-03-11	Upload the “black box” System Diagrams & Structural Drafts to the wiki (Deliverables)
2026-03-18	Upload the List of Components and Materials (what & quantity) to the wiki (Deliverables)
2026-03-21	Define the Project Backlog (what must be done and key deliverables - every member should preferably participate in every task), Global Sprint Plan, Initial Sprint Plan (which tasks should be included, who does what) and Release Gantt Chart of the project and insert them on the wiki (Report)
2026-03-25	Upload the detailed System Schematics & Structural Drawings to the wiki (Deliverables) and do the cardboard scale model of the structure
2026-04-12	Upload the Interim Report and Presentation to the wiki (Deliverables)
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 2552.90 €

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

In addition to the component costs, transportation and shipping costs must also be taken into account. These are presented in Table 6. Including shipping, the total cost of materials increases to 2863.35 €.

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). Look at table 7 table

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.

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

Table 5: Tabel of all components and sensors with price

Item	Type	Price	Quantity	Supplier	Link
Adafruit 254	SD - module	6.45 €	1	Mouser	https://pt.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Adafruit/254?qs=GURawfaeGuAkwqCF4BmPzA%3D%3D
Arduino ABX00080	Microcontroller	16.69 €	1	Mouser	https://pt.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Arduino/ABX00080?qs=sGAEpiMZZMuqBwn8WqcFUipNgoezRlc4hyxN6ztJHTQeBAZUij8gNg%3D%3D
FDMM004GMC-XE00	MicroSD - card	21.88 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/flexxon/fdmm004gmc-xe00/microsd-card-4gb-mlc-cmrcl-grd/dp/4378808
MC3090082	Silica gel (moisture absorber)	42.26 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/multicomp-pro/mc3090082/silica-gel-25g-65-x-95mm-pk100/dp/2424372
LiFePO4 battery	LiFePO4 battery	76.24 €	1	Innpo	https://innpo.pt/baterias-recarregaveis-de-litio/bateria-lifepo4-12v-20ah-innpo-baterias-recarregaveis-de-litio.html
Watertight Box 5L	Underwater electrical box	805.66 €	1	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/watertight-enclosures/watertight-boxes/watertight-box-component/?attribute_internal-size=134mm+x+100mm+x+74mm+%281+liter%29%2C+300m+depth
WetLink Penetrator Blank	Penetrator blank (M10)	70.50 €	15	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/cables-connectors/wlp-blank/?attribute_size=M10+Thread
MCMF0W4BB2500A50	250 ohm resistance	0.55 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/multicomp-pro/mcmf0w4bb2500a50/res-250r-0-10-250mw-axial/dp/2396012
Adafruit 2670	Perfboard / Breadboard	4.26 €	1	Mouser	https://pt.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Adafruit/2670?qs=XAKIUOoRPe7ATe8H6FaFPg%3D%3D
M316 SOA2CSS50-	M3 screws for perfboard	5.55 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/tr-fastenings/m316-soa2css50/screw-socket-cap-s-s-a2-m3x16/dp/1419946
BarXT	Depth / Pressure / Temp	329.19 €	1	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/sensors-cameras/sensors/barxt-extended-submersion-depth-pressure-sensors/
I2C Level Converter	Level converter board	25.65 €	1	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/comm-control-power/tether-interface/level-converter-r1/
Surveyor Analog pH Sensor / Meter	pH surveyor	21.52 €	1	Atlas Scientific	https://atlas-scientific.com/embedded-solutions/surveryor-analog-ph-sensor-meter/
Industrial pH Probe – No Temp	pH test probe	531.45 €	1	Atlas Scientific	https://atlas-scientific.com/probes/industrial-gen3-ph-probe-nt/
Industrial Conductivity Kit K 1.0	Conductivity	595.05 €	1	Atlas Scientific	https://atlas-scientific.com/kits/industrial-conductivity-kit-k-1-0/
Total		2552.90 €

Table 6: Tabel of the transportation

Supplier	Cost (inc VAT)	Shipping cost	Notes
Innpo	76.24 €	5.08 €
Mouser	27.40 €	25.00 €	Free over 75 €
Farnell	70.24 €	11.99 €	Free over 75 €
Bluerobotics	1231.00 €	175.33 €	Prices in dollar
Atlas Scientific	1148.02 €	93.05 €	Prices in dollar
Total (products)	2552.90 €	310.45 €
Grand Total	2863.35 €

Table 7: Tabel of the price for the blocks

Material	Unit price	Quantity per block	Cost per block	Link	Backup
Concrete (C)	89 € / 1000 kg	30 kg	2.67 €	https://www.leroymerlin.es/productos/bigbag-hormigon-h-25-1000-kg-97867789.html	—
Basalt Fiber (BF)	34.16 € / 1.36 kg	70–90 g	1.76 €	https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Refuerzo-hormig%C3%B3n-basalto-picada-libras/dp/B07KPLPHHH	https://www.moertelshop.com/buy-basalt-fibres-for-concrete-cheaply_1
Total per block			4.43 €

Prototype list

The prototype is designed to measure similar parameters to a CTD system, but instead of using a conductivity sensor to estimate salinity, it uses a TDS sensor. This is a significantly cheaper alternative and is sufficient for early-stage testing, where the main goal is to validate the system concept rather than achieve final measurement accuracy.

The selected sensors used in the prototype are presented in Table 8.

The pH sensor is also excluded from the prototype in order to reduce cost, since it is not essential for testing the basic functionality of the system. Apart from the sensor selection and reduced measurement precision, the prototype follows the same general system design as the final product.

The electronic components used in the prototype are listed in Table 9.

The estimated total cost of the prototype is 102 €, including shipping, as summarized in Table 10. This price does not include a professional enclosure.

For prototype testing, a low-cost solution is used both for the enclosure and structural elements. A simple plastic lunchbox can serve as a temporary enclosure, where holes can be drilled for sensor placement, making it suitable for controlled testing before investing in the final underwater housing. In addition, standard cement is used for structural testing, as it provides sufficient strength at a very low cost. These materials are summarized in Table 11.

PLA filament can be used either as an alternative material for the blocks. It can be used to create moulds for casting concrete blocks, or as the structure for the prototype instead of concrete. This allows for greater flexibility and repeatability during the design and testing phase. However, PLA is not suitable for long-term structural use in harsh environments, and is therefore primarily intended for prototyping and tooling purposes.

For the enclosure, a simple airtight plastic container (e.g. from IKEA) is used as a temporary solution. This significantly reduces costs compared to waterproof enclosures and is sufficient for controlled testing environments. To ensure watertight cable penetrations in the prototype, a silicone‑based sealant will be used. The same sealant may also be applied around the enclosure lid if leakage is detected during testing.

If the external hydrostatic pressure exceeds the enclosure’s mechanical limits at greater test depths, an oil‑filled enclosure may be used as a pressure‑compensation solution. Transformer oil would be the preferred choice due to its superior electrical insulation properties, however, it is difficult to obtain for small‑scale prototyping. Therefore, cooking oil is considered as a low‑cost and readily available alternative. Although it doesnt provide the same electrical insulation, it is expected to be sufficient for this low‑voltage prototype and suitable for short‑term experimental testing.

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.

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 8: Table of prototype sensors

Sensor	Type	Power supply	Operating current (A)	Measurement	Price	Quantity	Supplier	Link	Comment
DS18B20	Temperature	3V – 5.5V	0.0015	-55°C to +125°C	6.22 €	1	RS	https://pt.rs-online.com/web/p/kits-de-desarrollo-de-sensores/2049893?gb=a	Requires 4.7 kΩ resistor
SEN0244	TDS (Total dissolved solids)	3.3V – 5.5V	0.006	0–1000 ppm	10.18 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/dfrobot/sen0244/analogue-tds-sensor-meter-kit/dp/3517934
SEN0257	Pressure	5V	0.0028	0–16 bar	15.09 €	1	Farnell		Not suitable for open seawater
Total			0.0103		31.49 €

Table 9: Table of prototype components

Product	Type	Power supply	Operating current (A)	Output	Price	Quantity	Supplier	Link	Comment
Adafruit 254	SD - module	3.3–6 V	0.1		11.60 €	1	RS	https://pt.rs-online.com/web/p/accesorios-para-kits-de-desarrollo/2881813
Arduino ABX00080	Microcontroller	6–24 V	0.038	5 V	17.44 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/arduino/abx00080/development-board-32bit-arm-cortex/dp/4208543
FDMM004GMC-XE00	MicroSD card				21.88 €	1	Farnell
4022211111	9V alkaline battery			9 V 0.64 Ah	5.47 €	1	Farnell
MP007080	Battery holder				3.41 €	1	Farnell		Pack of 5
MCKNP03UJ0251B00	250 ohm resistance				0.56 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/multicomp-pro/mcknp03uj0251b00/res-250r-5-3w-axial-wirewound/dp/1903835
FIT0096	Breadboard				2.50 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/dfrobot/fit0096/solderless-breadboard-3-2-x2-4/dp/3879683
Total			0.138		62.86 €

Table 10: Table of prototype shipping costs

Supplier	Cost (inc VAT)	Shipping cost	Notes
RS	17.82 €	8.00 €	Free over 95 €
Farnell	76.53 €	11.99 €	Free over 75 €
Total (products)	94.35 €	8.00 €
Total with shipping	102.35 €

Table 11: Table of low-cost prototype materials (Portugal)

Product	Type	Price (incl. VAT)	Quantity	Supplier	Link	Comment
Cement (CEM II 25kg)	Concrete material	5.39 €	1	Leroy Merlin	https://www.leroymerlin.pt/produtos/cimento-25kg-secil-13142325.html	Used for structural prototype blocks
Plastic lunchbox (single compartment)	Prototype enclosure	3 €	1	IKEA	https://www.ikea.com/pt/pt/p/ikea-365-recipiente-p-alim-c-tmp-retangular-plastico-s19269079/	Simple enclosure
Smaller plastic lunchbox	Backup enclosure	1.5 €	1	IKEA	https://www.ikea.com/pt/en/p/pruta-food-container-with-lid-blue-10597103/	Backup option
PLA filament 1kg	3D printing material	14.60 €	1	Filament 3D	https://fillment3d.pt/produto/pla-cinzento-winkle-1kg-1-75mm/	Backup option
Ceys Total Tech Universal Glue and Sealant 290 ml Transparent	Silicone sealant	8.99 €	1	Leroy Merlin	https://www.leroymerlin.pt/produtos/cola-e-veda-total-tech-universal-290-ml-transparente-ceys-13132966.html
Continente cooking oil 1L	Oil for enclosure	1.69 €	1	Continente	https://www.continente.pt/produto/oleo-alimentar-continente-continente-5045342.html	Used only if needed
Total		35.17 €

Table 12: Table of prototype cost scenarios

Scenario	Total cost
Prototype (with shipping)	102.35 €
+ Airtight container (IKEA)	105.35 €
+ Silicone sealant	114.34 €
+ Oil	116.03 €
+ Cement	121.68 €
+ PLA (no cement)	130.63 €
+ Cement + PLA	136.02 €

Table 13: Table of shipping cost comparison for prototype materials

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

Quality in this project is ensured by defining clear quality metrics for both the system and the documentation, together with acceptable thresholds and review procedures [53].

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

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

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

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

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

Academic supervisors from ISEP act as a key stakeholder by providing guidance, feedback and evaluation throughout the project. Their role is essential in ensuring that the project meets academic and technical standards [54].
External stakeholders include research institutions, Non Governamental Organizations (NGOs) and governmental organizations governmental organizations interested in marine conservation and environmental monitoring. These stakeholders are potential future users or partners, as they can benefit from the data collected and the ecological impact of the solution.

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

Effective communication was essential to ensure coordination and steady progress throughout the project. Communication within the team was primarily facilitated through daily Scrum meetings, where members discussed completed tasks, ongoing work, and upcoming activities. These meetings helped maintain alignment, identify challenges early, and ensure continuous progress [55].

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

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

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

There is also a risk related to limited resources, including budget constraints and access to specialized equipment or testing environments. This is addressed by prioritizing essential features and selecting cost-effective solutions [56].

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 14).

Table 14: 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 7).

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 [57].

The procurement plan is presented in three tables. Table 15 provides an overview of the components required for the habitat, while Table 16 details the sensors used in the system. Table 17 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 15: Tabel of the different components

Product	Type	Price	Quantity	Supplier	Link	Backup supplier
Adafruit 254	SD - module	6.45 €	1	Mouser	https://pt.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Adafruit/254?qs=GURawfaeGuAkwqCF4BmPzA%3D%3D	Farnell
Arduino ABX00080	Microcontroller	16.69 €	1	Mouser	https://pt.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Arduino/ABX00080?qs=sGAEpiMZZMuqBwn8WqcFUipNgoezRlc4hyxN6ztJHTQeBAZUij8gNg%3D%3D	Digikey
FDMM004GMC-XE00	MicroSD - card	21.88 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/flexxon/fdmm004gmc-xe00/microsd-card-4gb-mlc-cmrcl-grd/dp/4378808	Digikey
MC3090082	Silica gel (moisture absorber)	42.26 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/multicomp-pro/mc3090082/silica-gel-25g-65-x-95mm-pk100/dp/2424372	element14
LiFePO4 battery	LiFePO4 battery	76.24 €	1	Innpo	https://innpo.pt/baterias-recarregaveis-de-litio/bateria-lifepo4-12v-20ah-innpo-baterias-recarregaveis-de-litio.html	Amazon
Watertight Box 5L	Underwater electrical box	805.66 €	1	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/watertight-enclosures/watertight-boxes/watertight-box-component/?attribute_internal-size=134mm+x+100mm+x+74mm+%281+liter%29%2C+300m+depth	RobotShop
WetLink Penetrator Blank	Penetrator blank (M10)	70.50 €	15	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/cables-connectors/wlp-blank/?attribute_size=M10+Thread	Robotshop
MCMF0W4BB2500A50	250 ohm resistance	0.55 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/multicomp-pro/mcmf0w4bb2500a50/res-250r-0-10-250mw-axial/dp/2396012	Digikey
Adafruit 2670	Perfboard / Breadboard	4.26 €	1	Mouser	https://pt.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Adafruit/2670?qs=XAKIUOoRPe7ATe8H6FaFPg%3D%3D	Digikey
M316 SOA2CSS50-	M3 screws for perfboard	5.55 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/tr-fastenings/m316-soa2css50/screw-socket-cap-s-s-a2-m3x16/dp/1419946	element14

Table 16: Tabel of the different sensors

Sensor	Type	Price	Quantity	Supplier	Link	Backup supplier
BarXT	Depth / Pressure / Temp	329.19 €	1	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/sensors-cameras/sensors/barxt-extended-submersion-depth-pressure-sensors/	RobotShop
I2C Level Converter	Level converter board	25.65 €	1	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/comm-control-power/tether-interface/level-converter-r1/	RobotShop
Surveyor Analog pH Sensor / Meter	pH surveyor	21.52 €	1	Atlas Scientific	https://atlas-scientific.com/embedded-solutions/surveryor-analog-ph-sensor-meter/	RobotShop
Industrial pH Probe – No Temp	pH test probe	531.45 €	1	Atlas Scientific	https://atlas-scientific.com/probes/industrial-gen3-ph-probe-nt/	RobotShop
Industrial Conductivity Kit K 1.0	Conductivity	595.05 €	1	Atlas Scientific	https://atlas-scientific.com/kits/industrial-conductivity-kit-k-1-0/	RobotShop

Table 17: Tabel of the concrete blocks

Material	Unit price	Quantity per block	Cost per block	Supplier	Link	Backup
Concrete (C)	89 € / 1000 kg	30 kg	2.67 €	Leroy Merlin	https://www.leroymerlin.es/productos/bigbag-hormigon-h-25-1000-kg-97867789.html	—
Basalt Fiber (BF)	34.16 € / 1.36 kg	70–90 g	1.76 €	Amazon	https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Refuerzo-hormig%C3%B3n-basalto-picada-libras/dp/B07KPLPHHH	https://www.moertelshop.com/buy-basalt-fibres-for-concrete-cheaply_1
Total per block			4.43 €

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

As shown in Figure 8, the project timeline spans from March to June and includes overlapping phases such as research, prototype development, and documentation.

Figure 8: Gantt chart showing the project timeline from March to June.

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 18 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 18: 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	Started
8	23 Apr	30 Apr	5 days	To do
9	30 Apr	7 May	3 days	To do
10	7 May	14 May	3 days	To do
11	14 May	21 May	5 days	To do
12	21 May	28 May	5 days	To do
13	28 May	4 Jun	5 days	To do
14	4 Jun	11 Jun	5 days	To do
15	11 Jun	18 Jun	5 days	To do
16	18 Jun	25 Jun	5 days	To do

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 19 lists the backlog.

Table 19: Table of Backlog.

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

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 20).

Table 20: 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 19 March to 26 March, as the previous weeks were mainly used to become familiar with Jira and project tools.

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

An overview of the outcomes from the initial sprints is presented in Table 21 and Table 22.

Table 21: 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 22: 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 9).

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 Figur 10.

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.

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 11.

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.

Sprint 6

The burndown chart for Sprint 6, shown in Figure 12, indicates limited progress during the initial phase of the sprint, suggesting that relatively little work was carried out at the beginning of the period.

Subsequently, an increase in the remaining workload can be observed. This is explained because the incomplete tasks from Sprint 5 were 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.

Sprint 7

The burndown chart for Sprint 7, shown in Figure 13, indicates that the same issue persists, where tasks are not consistently updated or marked as completed during the sprint. As a result, the remaining work remains relatively constant for most of the period.

Towards the end of the sprint, a sharp decrease in remaining work can be observed, suggesting that tasks were completed or updated late. Consequently, the burndown does not follow a steady downward trend.

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.

3.13 Summary

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

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

The marketing plan for MARIS HABITATS 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 monitoring units, 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 removable smart sensor box 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 [58].

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 [59], [60]. 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 sensor box. The reef blocks provide scalable underwater infrastructure, while the smart box 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, sensor system, and data collection method. Second, customers can purchase reef modules and optional smart boxes 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 part the business model canva is presented, the next image is a initial white board with quick ideas from the brainstorming. Then every section is explained ahead. Same colour post-its refer to the same customer/partner/activity related by colours (see Figure 14).

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

2. Value Proposition An improvement in life quality and marine environments is proposed to provide shelter and increase reproduction rates for sea life. For research institutions, the objective is the provision of high-quality data applicable to various research purposes. This project is of interest to governments as it facilitates the restoration of marine life, which aids in water quality for human use, improves the quality and market price of fish, and enhances the general quality of society.

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 Zero contact will be maintained with underwater life to ensure no disturbance occurs. Regarding research centers, real-time data is provided via automated services, while reports and management data are requested to be shared to foster cooperation across multiple locations. For governments, the focus is on developing long-term environmental partnerships that allow for a solid investment foundation.

5. Revenue Streams Funding is secured through various government programs for sustainable development and from non-profit organizations dedicated to marine restoration. Additionally, private funding is sought from philanthropists and private NGOs to support the project’s goals.

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 fully dedicated to building models, ranging from material modeling to sensor implementation and testing. If mass production of the structures is required, a factory will be necessary to produce them sequentially and at a high rate of speed.

7. Key Activities The scope of activities includes the design and construction of habitats, as well as the installation of sensors. This is followed by the deployment of the habitats on the seabed and their subsequent initialization. The management of the resulting data is delegated to 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 the model construction (material and manufacturing costs), the sensors and necessary electronic materials, and the expenses associated with deployment, including ships, delivery, and divers. Additionally, worker salaries are included in the event of a transition to mass production.

Marine ecosystem degradation is increasingly recognized as both an environmental and economic challenge. The decline of marine habitats has been associated with reduced fish stocks, loss of coastal protection, and greater exposure to climate-related risks such as erosion and storm damage [61], [62].

Artificial reefs have been widely implemented as a restoration strategy across different regions of the world. However, most existing solutions are designed as passive structures, providing physical habitats without the ability to monitor environmental conditions or assess their ecological performance in real time [63], [64].

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

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

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

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

The economic potential of this sector is significant. The global seafood market exceeds 400 billion USD, while there is an estimated annual financing gap of approximately 700 billion USD in nature restoration efforts [65], [66].

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

A PESTEL analysis is a tool used by many businesses to study the general environment in order to decide a business strategy. This general environment is divided into several segments from the industry and competitor environment. This analysis is conducted to identify changes in society to allow for the adaptation and integration of the business within it.

4.4.1.1 Political

Politically, the current situation is highly advantageous. The European Union (EU) has identified the same problem and has addressed it through the publication of The Nature Restoration Law (NRL), which mandates that member states take corrective action. Consequently, in the face of a sudden surge in demand, the market supply position is excellent, making the participation of government agencies in the project even more likely.

4.4.1.2 Legal

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

4.4.1.3 Economic

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

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

On a social level, 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 socially stabilizes the economy of fishing areas and reduces conflicts arising from resource scarcity. Furthermore, these habitats indirectly boost diving tourism by diverting tourist pressure from overexploited natural reefs toward controlled, managed areas, promoting a sustainable blue economy.

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

4.4.1.5 Technological

Technologically, the project is currently at its least robust point. There is an ongoing boom where all activities must be monitored, recorded, and measured to demonstrate efficacy and numerically evaluate utility. Funding bodies, in particular, demand project reliability. Dependence is placed on a simple system that allows for these requirements to be met without overcomplicating the process.

Other projects 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; due to the technological gap, a simpler monitoring system is preferred to provide the necessary security without resorting to excessive, highly invasive, and ultimately 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 require studies proving that the intervention will not negatively alter pre-existing dynamics. To this end, baseline characterization studies are conducted for subsequent comparison after implementation.

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

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

The main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of MARIS HABITATS are summarized in Figure 15.

4.4.2.1 Strengths

One of the main strengths of MARIS HABITATS is the combination of smart reef structures and IoT monitoring. This allows the system to support marine biodiversity while collecting environmental data. The use of sustainable and marine-resistant materials improves durability in underwater environments. In addition, the project contributes to biodiversity restoration, coastal protection, and real-time environmental data collection.

4.4.2.2 Weaknesses

A major weakness is the high deployment cost, since underwater installation and monitoring equipment can be expensive. The system also has technical complexity because it combines habitat structures, sensors, batteries, and data storage components. Maintenance challenges may occur because the battery has a limited lifespan and electronic components require regular monitoring. In addition, certification is required before large-scale deployment.

4.4.2.3 Opportunities

MARIS HABITATS can benefit from opportunities such as the growing blue carbon market and climate adaptation funding. There is also increasing demand for data-driven monitoring systems as governments invest more in marine restoration projects. Government policies and partnerships with research institutions and NGOs may also support future expansion.

4.4.2.4 Threats

Some threats are related to external factors that are difficult to control. Harsh marine conditions may affect the long-term performance of the system, while regulatory barriers can delay deployment. Existing competitors may create market challenges, and slow market adoption may delay large-scale implementation. Funding uncertainty may also affect future growth.

To determine the team's objectives, a SMART framework was set, ensuring the goals are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. A 3 to 5-year horizon was defined to minimize ambiguity and ensure strategic alignment.

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

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

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

Achievability and the “Experimental” Paradigm In alignment with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWFs) classification, this project is categorized under the Experimental Frontier. Unlike “Mature” projects with predictable outcomes, ours operates in a dynamic environment where it is must to push technical boundaries. Recognizing this “experimental” nature allows us to maintain operational flexibility. Marine variables—such as current shifts, temperature fluctuations, and pH levels—require an adaptive management style, allowing us to pivot team's tactics without compromising the core strategic objectives.

Unlike traditional consumer products, this solution is not based on standard demographic or psychographic segmentation. Instead, it focuses on geographical 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 improve marine biodiversity, support fish population growth, and contribute to better water quality. In addition, it can help reduce coastal erosion and protect coastal infrastructure by absorbing wave energy.

Unlike traditional solutions, the system also includes an integrated monitoring component that provides continuous environmental data. 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, as it aligns with the objectives of this project and supports funding opportunities.

The positioning of the proposed Maris Habitats system and existing solutions is shown in Figure 16. The map is based on two main criteria: ecological enhancement (horizontal axis) and technological integration (vertical axis). These criteria help to compare how different solutions focus either on environmental impact or on the use of technology.

On the left side of the map, solutions such as MEITEC can be found. These systems mainly focus on structural support for marine environments using conventional concrete. While they contribute to habitat creation, they do not include advanced monitoring or data collection features, which explains their lower position in terms of technological integration.

On the right side, ECOncrete and Living Seawalls are placed due to their strong focus on ecological improvement. These solutions are designed to support marine life by using eco-friendly materials and surface designs. However, they are positioned lower on the map because they do not include integrated sensors or real-time monitoring systems.

IntelliReefs is located slightly above these solutions. This reflects its more advanced structural design, especially through modular reef systems. Even so, it still does not provide significant technological integration in terms of environmental data collection.

Reef Design Lab is positioned in the central-right area. Their use of innovative design approaches, such as 3D-printed reef structures, increases habitat complexity. However, similar to other solutions, real-time monitoring is not a key feature.

Biorock appears in the upper-right part of the map. This is due to its use of electrical currents to support coral growth, which introduces a higher level of technological involvement while still maintaining strong ecological benefits.

The proposed Maris Habitats system is positioned in the upper-right section of the map. This reflects its combination of ecological design and technological integration. Unlike other solutions, it includes an integrated monitoring system that allows continuous data collection and supports more informed decision-making.

Overall, the positioning map shows that most existing solutions focus mainly on ecological enhancement or structural design, but not both together with technology. This highlights a gap in the current market, which Maris Habitats aims to address.

Figure 16: Positioning map of existing artificial reef solutions and the proposed Maris Habitats system based on ecological enhancement and technological integration

Product (What you sell)

Maris Habitats is not only an artificial reef, but a modular marine restoration and monitoring system. The product consists of a concrete habitat block, a removable smart sensor box, and a data-based monitoring service. The habitat block provides shelter and settlement surfaces for marine life. The smart box collects environmental data such as temperature, pressure, and water quality. This data is used to observe how the reef changes under different marine conditions and how these changes may influence marine organisms over time. In this way, the system supports both habitat restoration and long-term understanding of the interaction between the reef and its surrounding environment.

A key part of the product strategy is modularity. Customers can first install the reef structure alone, and later add the smart sensor box 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. For example, public institutions could use the system in coastal restoration projects, while marine infrastructure companies, such as offshore wind farm operators or harbour authorities, could install Maris Habitats around existing structures to add ecological value and collect local environmental data.

The final product could also include different service levels. A basic version would include the habitat structure only. A standard version would include the habitat and sensor box. A premium version could include yearly maintenance, data collection, and environmental reports. In this way, Maris Habitats becomes more than a physical product; it becomes a platform for marine restoration, monitoring, and environmental decision-making.

Price (How pricing works)

The pricing strategy for Maris Habitats would follow a modular and scalable model. Since the system is made of separate habitat blocks and optional smart sensor boxes, the total price would depend on the number of reef modules, the number of monitoring units, the selected sensor package, and the level of service required by the customer.

The habitat structure could be priced per block. This allows customers to start with a small pilot installation and expand the system later by adding more modules. For larger restoration areas, more habitat blocks would be required, while smaller projects could begin with only a few units. This makes the product more flexible for both public institutions and companies with different budgets.

The smart sensor box 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 boxes placed in selected locations. These boxes 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 module. Instead, a smaller number of monitoring boxes can still help observe how the reef and surrounding marine conditions change over time.

Different sensor packages could also be offered. A basic package could include temperature and pressure sensors, while a standard package could include additional water quality sensors. More advanced options, such as pH, turbidity, salinity, or camera monitoring, could be offered for projects with higher budgets or more specific research needs.

In addition to the physical product, Maris Habitats could offer an annual monitoring service. This service could include data collection, sensor maintenance, battery replacement, sensor cleaning, and an environmental report. Through this model, customers would not only pay for the reef structure itself, but also for long-term monitoring and data-based insights. This creates a more stable business model and turns Maris Habitats into a scalable marine restoration and monitoring service.

Place (Where/How distributed)

Promotion (How you reach customers)

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.

Logo

The Maris logo (see Figure 17) 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.

Figure 17: Maris Habitats Logo

Color System

The Maris color palette (see Figure 18) is inspired by the depth and diversity of the ocean. It balances cool aquatic tones with a vibrant accent, reflecting both calmness and life beneath the surface.

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

Graphic Elements

The graphic language (see Figure 19) 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 19: Maris Habitats Grafic Elements

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

This section considers the environmental impact of the project using principles inspired by the butterfly diagram, a model that represents circular material flows [67]. The model distinguishes between biological processes, where materials safely integrate into natural systems, and technical processes, where products are maintained, reused, and recycled to extend their lifespan (See Figure 20).

The MARIS HABITATS concept reflects these principles by combining long-term environmental integration with efficient use of technical components. From a biological perspective, the habitat is designed to support marine colonization over time. The use of non-toxic and durable materials allows algae, microorganisms, and small marine species to attach and grow on the structure, contributing to biodiversity enhancement [69] .

From a technical perspective, the system is designed with longevity and adaptability in mind. The modular concrete habitat structure is intended to remain underwater for long periods, while the electronic components are housed in a detachable waterproof enclosure attached to the habitat. This enclosure contains the battery, microcontroller, and data storage system. Sensor probes are mounted through the enclosure and remain exposed to seawater to measure environmental conditions such as pH, conductivity, pressure, and temperature. This modular design allows maintenance or replacement of electronic components without removing the entire habitat structure.

Maintenance requirements are reduced through the use of durable materials that can withstand harsh marine conditions. When maintenance is required, divers can retrieve stored data and replace batteries without disturbing the reef structure. This reduces unnecessary material replacement and extends the operational life of the system.

The project also considers the reuse of technical components. If monitoring is no longer required, electronic components such as sensors, batteries, and storage devices can be removed and reused in future installations.

For the prototype, conventional concrete may be used to reduce costs, while the final design uses basalt fiber-reinforced concrete to improve durability and corrosion resistance in marine environments. This approach reduces environmental impact while maintaining long-term functionality.

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

Previous studies have shown that artificial reefs can increase fish biomass and support the development of fisheries, which can lead to economic improvements in coastal areas [70]. In this project, this idea is applied through habitat structures that provide shelter and breeding areas for marine species.

The system is also designed to be integrated with existing marine infrastructure, such as offshore wind farms or coastal protection systems. This approach reduces the need for completely new structures and allows existing installations to gain additional ecological functions, improving resource efficiency.

The integration of sensors adds another layer of economic value. The system collects environmental data that can be used for research, monitoring, and decision-making. In this project, this data supports more efficient marine resource management and may help reduce costs related to ineffective environmental monitoring.

Another important aspect is the modular and scalable design of the system. Habitat units can be deployed gradually and adapted to different marine environments, reducing the need for large initial investments. This allows pilot projects to be tested before full-scale deployment.

The modular monitoring system also helps reduce maintenance costs. Instead of replacing the entire structure in case of failure, only specific electronic components need to be repaired or replaced. This improves operational efficiency and reduces long-term costs.

In addition, the project can benefit from collaboration with public institutions, research organizations, and environmental programs. Marine restoration and biodiversity protection are increasingly supported by sustainability policies and funding initiatives [71]. This creates opportunities for financial support through grants and public-private partnerships.

Although the initial investment may be relatively high, the project can create long-term value through ecosystem restoration, fishery support, and improved coastal protection [72]. For this reason, MARIS HABITATS can be considered both environmentally sustainable and economically viable in the long term.

The integration of environmental sensors also creates social value by generating data that can be used by research institutions and environmental organizations for marine monitoring and scientific research. This can improve understanding of marine ecosystems and support better environmental decision-making.

The project is also aligned with the market strategy by focusing on partnerships with offshore wind farms, coastal authorities, research institutions, and environmental organizations [73]. By integrating artificial habitats into existing marine infrastructure, the project promotes collaboration between technical and environmental stakeholders while reducing the need for additional construction.

In the long term, this approach can support sustainable fisheries, marine conservation efforts, and stronger cooperation between industries involved in ocean management.

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

In this project, the material phase focuses on choosing durable and environmentally responsible materials. The final design uses basalt fiber-reinforced concrete. Basalt fibers are made from natural volcanic rock and are known for their resistance to corrosion and chemical stability in seawater, which makes them suitable for marine environments [74]. Electronic components, including the microcontroller, were also selected based on energy efficiency, reliability, and expected lifespan.

During the manufacturing phase, the reef structure is produced through concrete casting, while the monitoring system is assembled separately as a detachable smart block. This smart block contains the battery, microcontroller, SD card, and sensors. Keeping the electronic components separate helps avoid embedding electronics directly into the permanent structure and reduces unnecessary material waste.

The testing phase focuses on checking both the structural performance of the habitat and the operation of the monitoring system. Special attention is given to battery life, waterproof protection, sensor accuracy, and reliable data collection because these factors affect maintenance needs.

The structure is also designed for long-term use in marine environments. Its geometry includes cavities and irregular surfaces that help algae, microorganisms, and small marine species attach to the structure over time.

To reduce environmental risks, the smart block can be removed for maintenance, battery replacement, data collection, or repairs without disturbing the main reef structure. Separating the electronic components from the permanent habitat also helps reduce the risk of long-term marine pollution.

At the end of its life cycle, the structure is intended to remain in the marine environment and continue functioning as an artificial reef that supports biodiversity [75]. Electronic components can be removed and reused in future systems, which helps reduce waste.

5.6 Summary

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

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

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

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

This chapter outlines the ethical and deontological principles guiding the development of MARIS HABITATS, a smart artificial marine habitat designed to support marine life and collect environmental data. Since the project combines underwater structures, electronic components, and ecological restoration goals, ethical considerations must be included from the early design stage.

Engineering ethics play an important role in the design and development of artificial marine habitats. According to professional engineering ethics, engineers should prioritize safety, public welfare, competence, and truthful communication [76]. In this project, these principles are applied not only to human users and installation personnel, but also to the marine environment affected by the system.

The structure must be designed with sufficient strength, durability, and reliability to withstand marine conditions such as saltwater exposure, currents, wave forces, and long-term material degradation. Concrete and reinforced concrete exposed to marine environments can be affected by chloride ions, sulphate ions, magnesium ions, wave action, and corrosion processes [77]. Therefore, material choice and structural stability are not only technical issues, but also ethical responsibilities.

Engineers also have a responsibility to ensure that the habitat structure and the monitoring system do not create unnecessary risks for marine organisms, installation personnel, or the surrounding environment. The habitat should not damage the seabed or disturb existing ecosystems more than necessary. Instead, it should be designed to provide shelter, attachment surfaces, and spatial complexity that can support local marine life.

Another ethical consideration is the separation between the prototype and the final product. The current prototype is not intended for long-term deployment in deep marine conditions. It is designed to test basic sensing, data logging, and housing concepts. Presenting the prototype as a fully marine-grade final product would be misleading. Therefore, the team must clearly explain the technical limits of the prototype and identify what would need to be improved for real deployment.

Transparency is also part of responsible engineering practice. Environmental data collected by the system should be accurate, calibrated when possible, and reported honestly. Even if the results do not show strong ecological improvement, the data should still be presented clearly because it can support future research and better decision-making in marine restoration.

Sales and marketing ethics are important because MARIS HABITATS is presented as an environmental restoration and monitoring solution. The project should avoid greenwashing, which means making environmental claims that are exaggerated, misleading, or not supported by evidence [78], [79]. The system should not be promoted as a complete solution that can fully restore marine ecosystems without long-term proof.

Instead, marketing communication should clearly explain what the system can realistically provide. MARIS HABITATS can support habitat creation, provide surfaces and cavities for marine organisms, and collect environmental data to observe how the reef and surrounding conditions change over time. These functions should be communicated honestly to public institutions, companies, research organizations, and environmental partners. Marketing communication should also avoid broad environmental claims and instead explain specific and realistic benefits of the system [80].

If monitoring data is offered as part of a service or subscription model, customers should be informed about what data is collected, how often it is collected, how it is stored, and what limitations the data may have. This is important because environmental data may influence restoration decisions, sustainability reports, or public communication. The data should not be used to make stronger claims than the system can support.

The duty of information transparency also means that customers should understand the difference between the basic reef structure, the optional smart sensor box, and additional monitoring services. Since the system is modular, not every reef block needs to include sensors. This should be clearly explained so that customers can make informed decisions based on their budget, monitoring needs, and project goals.

The project aims to support marine ecosystems while minimizing negative environmental impacts. Artificial habitats can help provide shelter and settlement surfaces for marine organisms, but they can also create risks if they are poorly designed, placed in unsuitable locations, or made from inappropriate materials. For this reason, site selection, material safety, structural stability, and long-term monitoring must be considered before deployment [81], [82].

Material selection is a key environmental concern. The habitat should be made from durable, non-toxic, and environmentally compatible materials that do not release harmful substances into the marine environment. Since the structure will remain underwater for a long period, the material must also resist degradation caused by seawater exposure and physical forces.

The surface texture and shape of the habitat should also be considered. Studies on ecologically enhanced marine concrete structures show that changes in surface complexity and material composition can influence species richness, live cover, and the balance between local and invasive species [83]. Therefore, the design should avoid overly smooth and simple surfaces. Instead, it should provide cavities, roughness, and sheltered areas that can support local marine organisms.

The project also considers the risk of biofouling on sensors. While marine growth on the habitat structure is desirable, growth directly on sensor surfaces may reduce data accuracy. For this reason, the sensor system should include protective design features, such as a separable housing, sensor guards, or maintenance access. Anti-fouling solutions should be chosen carefully to avoid harming marine life.

In addition, MARIS HABITATS can contribute to environmental awareness and education by collecting data related to the surrounding marine conditions. This data can help researchers, public institutions, and local communities better understand how artificial reefs interact with their environment over time. However, the data should be interpreted carefully and should not be used to claim ecological success without long-term observation.

Liability relates to the responsibility for possible consequences if the system does not perform as intended. Since MARIS HABITATS includes both a physical habitat and a monitoring system, liability covers structural, environmental, and data-related risks.

To mitigate liability, the project addresses several key operational risks, primarily structural instability and technical failure of the monitoring system. Structural failure or displacement caused by currents and storms poses a significant risk to the surrounding environment; therefore, in accordance with artificial reef guidelines [84], the design incorporates specific weight, anchoring, and mechanical locking solutions to ensure the unit remains at its intended site. Simultaneously, the smart sensor box must be protected against leaks or breakage, as inaccurate data regarding temperature, pressure, or pH could lead to erroneous conclusions about reef performance.

To manage these risks, the system utilizes a modular design that allows the sensor box to be separated from the habitat structure. This enables the electronic components to be inspected, repaired, or replaced without removing the entire reef from the seabed, thereby minimizing disturbance to marine life and ensuring that failed components are not abandoned in the sea. Consequently, rigorous calibration and data validation protocols are integrated into the maintenance cycle to ensure the integrity of all reports and scientific decision-making processes.

Responsibility also extends to the potential for long-term system degradation. Although the structure is designed to integrate seamlessly into the habitat, measures must be implemented to ensure that no harmful elements remain if components fail or deteriorate over time.

Furthermore, liability is supported by clear documentation and transparency, which define the parameters for system usage, monitoring, and maintenance. Maintaining rigorous records reduces the risk of misuse and ensures that responsibility is clearly assigned. Consequently, the project’s marketing and communication strategy places significant emphasis on the necessity of publishing information through open-science channels to benefit the broader scientific community. For ocean data projects, data management planning is recommended to ensure that collected data is properly stored, preserved, and documented [85].

6.6 Summary

This chapter has examined the ethical and deontological considerations associated with the development of MARIS HABITATS. The main concerns include environmental protection, structural safety, data integrity, transparent communication, and responsibility for long-term maintenance.

Based on this ethical and deontological analysis, the team chose a modular habitat design with a separable smart sensor box. This design allows the habitat structure to remain underwater while the electronic components can be removed for inspection, maintenance, or replacement. This reduces disturbance to the marine environment and lowers the risk of leaving failed electronic parts in the sea.

The team also decided to distinguish clearly between the prototype and the final product. The prototype is intended to validate basic sensing and data logging functions in a controlled environment. The final product would require marine-grade sensors, pressure-resistant housing, anti-fouling measures, and long-term field testing. This distinction is important to avoid misleading claims about the current technical readiness of the system.

From an environmental perspective, the solution prioritizes durable and compatible materials, structural stability, and surface features that support marine organisms. From a data ethics perspective, the system should collect and report environmental data honestly, including its limitations. These decisions help ensure that MARIS Habitats is developed as a responsible marine restoration and monitoring solution rather than only as a physical product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The final concept selected for MARIS HABITATS is a modular artificial marine habitat built from one repeated cone-shaped element. These modules can be connected side by side and stacked vertically, allowing the habitat to be expanded according to site conditions and ecological requirements. By using one repeated part, the system remains simple, scalable, and easy to reproduce, while still allowing a wide variety of structural arrangements.

The concept was selected because it provides a strong balance between ecological function and practical feasibility. Different configurations of the same module can create both smaller and larger shelter spaces, making the habitat suitable for a wide range of marine species. This adaptability is one of the main strengths of the concept, since different deployment sites may require different structural densities and sizes.

Another important aspect of the concept is the material choice. The habitat is intended to be made from basalt fabric-reinforced concrete, which combines structural weight and durability with a rough and porous surface suitable for marine colonisation. This surface can support the attachment and growth of algae, corals, and other marine organisms, while the weight of the material helps the structure remain stable under underwater currents.

Compared to other design directions explored during the project, this concept proved to be the most suitable. Earlier ideas such as spherical, hexagonal, and dome-based structures were less effective because they were either not modular enough or too difficult to manufacture and combine efficiently. For this reason, the cone-based modular concept was defined as the final structural direction of the project.

Figure 21: Selected modular unit forming the basis of the final habitat structure.

This section presents how the selected concept was developed into a feasible structural solution for underwater deployment. The design process focused on translating the general concept into a habitat that is modular, manufacturable, stable, and ecologically suitable for marine colonisation. The following subsections explain the main design decisions and the structural directions explored during the development process.

The design phase focused on transforming the selected concept into a structure that could function in an underwater environment while remaining feasible to produce and deploy. From the beginning, the most important design requirement was modularity. The habitat had to be based on one repeatable element that could be combined in multiple ways without becoming too complex to manufacture or assemble. This requirement guided the entire design process and strongly influenced the selection of the final form.

Several structural directions were explored during this phase, including spherical, hexagonal, and dome-like concepts. Although these ideas offered interesting spatial qualities, they were gradually rejected because they did not satisfy the design goals strongly enough. Some concepts were too difficult to produce in a simple and repeatable way, while others did not provide the level of modularity needed to expand the habitat efficiently. In contrast, the cone-based element provided a clearer and more practical solution. Because the same unit can be repeated throughout the structure, the habitat can grow both horizontally and vertically while maintaining a simple and consistent construction logic.

The chosen design also supports ecological performance. By connecting and stacking the modules in different arrangements, the habitat can generate openings and sheltered spaces of different sizes. This is important because smaller and larger marine organisms require different types of refuge. The repeated units also create a more complex three-dimensional environment, which improves habitat quality and increases the suitability of the structure for fish, algae, corals, and other marine species.

Material selection was another important part of the design phase. The final design is based on basalt fabric-reinforced concrete, chosen for its combination of strength, weight, and ecological suitability. The material is heavy enough to improve stability under underwater currents, while its rough and porous surface can encourage biological growth over time. In this way, the design responds not only to structural and manufacturing requirements, but also to the biological purpose of the habitat.

Overall, the design phase transformed the initial concept into a clear and buildable solution. Instead of developing a complex habitat composed of many different parts, the design process focused on a single repeated module capable of generating a wide range of spatial configurations. This decision improved the scalability, manufacturability, and ecological potential of the habitat, and formed the basis for the structural development presented in the following subsection.

The structural development of the habitat began with a series of exploratory concepts. These early ideas were useful for identifying the design characteristics that were most important for the project, such as modularity, ease of production, structural repetition, and the creation of different shelter sizes. The figures below illustrate the main structural directions considered during this process. Figure 22 shows an initial idea.

Figure 22: Early structural concept exploring enclosed shelter geometry.

One of the first directions explored was a more enclosed structure, shown in the early sketch above. This concept helped define the importance of shelter, internal space, and protection for marine species. However, although it offered enclosed refuge areas, it was not considered the most suitable direction because it did not provide the same level of modular flexibility as later concepts. As the design process continued, greater importance was given to repeatability and scalability.

Figure 23 illustrates the proposed habitat modular design.

v1.0.jpeg — Figure 23: Hexagonal modular concept explored during the structural development (AI generated render).

Figure 23: Hexagonal modular concept explored during the structural development (AI generated render).

A second concept was based on a hexagonal module supported by pillars. This idea introduced a stronger modular logic and allowed several units to be connected into a larger structure. The concept was relevant because it explored how repeated modules could create a more adaptable habitat system. It also supported the study of elevated structures and the possibility of generating openings of different sizes. However, this direction was not selected as the final solution because the cone-based concept provided a simpler repeated form and clearer scalability (see Figure 24).

Figure 24: Structural variation exploring different opening sizes and configurations.

Further structural exploration focused on varying the dimensions and arrangement of the elements in order to create openings suitable for different marine species. This stage was important because it highlighted the ecological value of structural diversity. By studying how repeated parts could generate different internal spaces, the development process produced a clearer understanding of how geometry could influence habitat quality. These studies confirmed that the final design should allow variation in shelter size while still remaining based on one simple repeated part (see Figure 21 and Figure 26).

Figure 25: Selected modular unit forming the basis of the final habitat structure (AI generated).

After comparing the different structural directions, a concept based on one repeated cone-shaped module was selected. This solution was considered the most appropriate because it combines modularity, manufacturability, and ecological functionality. The same unit can be repeated many times, allowing the structure to expand horizontally and vertically while maintaining a simple construction logic. In addition, the arrangement of these modules creates a more complex habitat geometry with multiple shelter opportunities for marine organisms.

Figure 26: Example of the habitat formed by combining multiple modular elements (right picture is AI generated).

When several modules are combined, the habitat can cover a larger area of the seabed and create a more complex three-dimensional structure. This makes the system adaptable to different sites and allows the scale of the habitat to be adjusted according to the intended application. For this reason, the final structure is not defined by a single fixed form, but by a repeatable modular logic that can be expanded according to ecological and practical needs.

After defining the final modular structure, a suitable method still had to be developed for inserting the smart box. The development process of this solution is explained below.

Figure 27: First variation of the smartblock

Figure 28: First variation of the smartblock (closeup)

This was the first version of the smart block, in which the smart box was attached to the bottom of the modular structure. However, this solution was not aesthetically pleasing, so a new approach was explored in which the smart box could be integrated into the modular structure itself. It was also important to avoid changing the structure too much, since that would require separate moulds for these specific blocks, even though they would be produced in much smaller quantities than the standard blocks.

Figure 29: Second variation of the smartblock.

Figure 30: Second variation of the smartblock front.

In the second variation of the smart block, the smart box was much more integrated into the structure. However, this version required many modifications to the standard block. Additional openings also had to be added to ensure that the sensors had sufficient exposure to the surrounding water. This made the solution inefficient and impractical. As a result, another approach was explored, with a stronger focus on modularity so that a completely new mould would not be required.

Figure 31: Final variation of the smartblock assembly.

Figure 32: Final variation of the smartblock.

This led to the development of a more modular solution. The structure is made of aluminium and can be installed in any block as needed. It is easy to place and remove, which makes maintenance and replacement more practical. The smart box rests on the two tubes of the structure and is secured with a chain connected to the block in which the structure is installed.

7.5.1.1 Black Box Diagram

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

Version 1 (V1) Buoy-Connected System

Figure 33 presents the smart system black box diagram. The system corresponds to a living laboratory where the:

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

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

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

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

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

Version 1.5 (V1.5) Buoy-Connected System 1.5

Version 2 (V2) Smart Block System

Figure 35 illustrates a simplified, self-contained underwater monitoring system integrated into our modular artificial reef structure.

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

The entire system is powered by a lithium-ion battery. Environmental data is collected via sensors that measure pressure (depth), temperature, pH, and conductivity. All collected data is stored locally on a Secure Digital memory card (SD card); real-time transmission is not possible. Battery replacement and data retrieval are carried out through a scheduled maintenance procedure involving a diver. The estimated battery lifetime of the system is approximately 340 days, which limits the frequency of required maintenance operations to roughly once per 11 months. When battery replacement is necessary, a diver descends to the installation site and retrieves the Smartbox from the seabed. The enclosure must be brought to the surface in order to be opened safely. Battery replacement is performed aboard a boat, where the SD card is also replaced simultaneously to ensure secure and continuous data storage. After completion of the maintenance procedure, the Smartbox is redeployed and repositioned at its original location on the seabed. This integrated maintenance strategy allows both power supply and data storage components to be serviced during a single operation. After retrieval, the data is transferred to a research facility for analysis and evaluation, ultimately contributing to environmental monitoring and reporting.

Microcontroller & Battery

An Arduino Uno R4 Minima was selected as the microcontroller for the system. This version is simpler than the normal Arduino Uno R4 and does not include built‑in Wi‑Fi or Bluetooth however, wireless communication is unnecessary for this application, as radio‑frequency signals are ineffective underwater.

The system is powered by a 12 V 20 Ah LiFePO₄ battery. To prevent excessive battery degradation and to extend its service life, the battery is not discharged fully. A minimum state of charge of 20 % is enforced, meaning that only 80 % of the nominal battery capacity is used. The battery’s nominal voltage is 12,8 V. The total power consumption of the system during active operation is 1,505 W.

To minimize energy usage, measurements are performed once per hour. The system is designed to remain active for only 1 minute per hour, which is sufficient for sensor stabilization and for writing the collected data to the SD card.

Battery capacity: 12,8 V × 20 Ah × 0,8 = 204,8 Wh

Daily energy consumption (1 min/hour operation): 1,505 W/60 × 24 h = 0,602 Wh/day

Number of days: 204,8 Wh / 0,602 Wh/day = 340,199 days

Based on these calculations the system can operate for approximately 340 days on a single battery charge.

Sensors

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

The BarXT sensor measures both pressure and temperature. From the pressure data, the depth can be calculated. An Inter-Integrated Circuit (I²C) level converter is required to convert the 3,3 V logic signal to 5 V so it can be read by the Arduino.

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

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

0.004 A × 250 Ω = 1 V

0.020 A × 250 Ω = 5 V

Enclosure

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

Condensation is expected to form inside the enclosure as the air trapped inside is cooled by the surrounding seawater. This temperature difference can lead to moisture accumulation, increasing the risk of corrosion and electrical failures. To mitigate this risk, silica gel desiccant packets are placed inside the enclosure to absorb excess moisture.

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

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

Table 23 presents a comprehensive overview of all sensors and components included in the system. The electrical schematics are shown in Figure 36.

Table 23: Sensor and Electronic Components

Item	Type	Power supply (V)	Operating current (A)	Output	Price	Quantity	Supplier	Link	Comment
BarXT	Depth / Pressure / Temp	2.5 - 5-5	0.0015		329.19 €	1	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/sensors-cameras/sensors/barxt-extended-submersion-depth-pressure-sensors/
I2C Level Converter	Level converter board	5			25.65 €	1	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/comm-control-power/tether-interface/level-converter-r1/
Surveyor™ Analog pH Sensor / Meter	Ph surveyor	3.3 - 5.5	0.003		21.52 €	1	Atlas Scientific	https://atlas-scientific.com/embedded-solutions/surveryor-analog-ph-sensor-meter/
Industrial pH Probe – No Temp	Ph test probe	3.3 - 5.5			531.45 €	1	Atlas Scientific	https://atlas-scientific.com/probes/industrial-gen3-ph-probe-nt/
Industrial Conductivity Kit K 1.0	Conductivity	9.0 - 36.0	0.045		595.05 €	1	Atlas Scientific	https://atlas-scientific.com/kits/industrial-conductivity-kit-k-1-0/	includes calibration certificate
Adafruit 254	SD - module	3.3 - 6	0.1		6.45 €	1	Mouser	https://pt.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Adafruit/254?qs=GURawfaeGuAkwqCF4BmPzA%3D%3D
Arduino ABX00080	Microcontroller	6 to 24	0.038	5V / 3.3V	16.69 €	1	Mouser	https://pt.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Arduino/ABX00080?qs=sGAEpiMZZMuqBwn8WqcFUipNgoezRlc4hyxN6ztJHTQeBAZUij8gNg%3D%3D
FDMM004GMC-XE00	MicroSD - card				21.88 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/flexxon/fdmm004gmc-xe00/microsd-card-4gb-mlc-cmrcl-grd/dp/4378808
MC3090082	Silica gel (moisture absorber)				42.26 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/multicomp-pro/mc3090082/silica-gel-25g-65-x-95mm-pk100/dp/2424372	Pack of 100
LiFePO4 battery	LiFePO4 battery			20Ah 12V	76.24 €	1	Innpo	https://innpo.pt/baterias-recarregaveis-de-litio/bateria-lifepo4-12v-20ah-innpo-baterias-recarregaveis-de-litio.html
Watertight Box 5L	Underwater electrical box				805.66 €	1	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/watertight-enclosures/watertight-boxes/watertight-box-component/?attribute_internal-size=134mm+x+100mm+x+74mm+%281+liter%29%2C+300m+depth
WetLink Penetrator Blank	Penetrator blank (M10)				70.50 €	15	Bluerobotics	https://bluerobotics.com/store/cables-connectors/wlp-blank/?attribute_size=M10+Thread	4.70€ * 11
MCMF0W4BB2500A50	250 ohm resistance				0.55 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/multicomp-pro/mcmf0w4bb2500a50/res-250r-0-10-250mw-axial/dp/2396012
Adafruit 2670	Perfboard / Breadboard				4.26 €	1	Mouser	https://pt.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Adafruit/2670?qs=XAKIUOoRPe7ATe8H6FaFPg%3D%3D	Pack of 10
M316 SOA2CSS50-	M3 screws for perfboard				5.55 €	1	Farnell	https://pt.farnell.com/en-PT/tr-fastenings/m316-soa2css50/screw-socket-cap-s-s-a2-m3x16/dp/1419946	Pack of 50
Total			0.1875 A		2552.90 €

Figure 36: Electrical schematic overview

The use of an imaging system was initially considered to monitor fish growth. However, this approach has been deprioritized, as the primary focus of the project has shifted toward the analysis of quantitative sensor data.

Sensor-based measurements provide continuous, objective, and scalable insights into environmental conditions, which are more closely aligned with the project’s core objectives.

The inclusion of a camera system is therefore limited to supporting species identification, specifically to document the presence of fish within the reef environment. In addition, visual documentation of the reef structure will be conducted during annual maintenance operations, during which images of the installation will be captured once per year.

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

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

Refer main changes in relation to the designed solution.

The prototype is designed to measure similar parameters to a CTD system, but instead of using a conductivity sensor to estimate salinity, it uses a TDS sensor. This is a significantly cheaper alternative and is sufficient for early-stage testing, where the main goal is to validate the system concept rather than achieve final measurement accuracy. The pH sensor is also excluded from the prototype in order to reduce cost, since it is not essential for testing the basic functionality of the system. Apart from the sensor selection and reduced measurement precision, the prototype follows the same general system design as the final product. For the enclosure, a simple airtight plastic container (e.g. from IKEA) is used as a temporary solution. This significantly reduces costs compared to waterproof enclosures and is sufficient for controlled testing environments. To ensure watertight cable penetrations in the prototype, a silicone‑based sealant will be used. The same sealant may also be applied around the enclosure lid if leakage is detected during testing.

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

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

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

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

Hardware tests

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

Software tests

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

7.7 Summary

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

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

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

Identify here the limitations of the solution and prototype.

Provide here your recommendations for future work.

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

Last thing to do

2026/02/16 22:33 · epsatisep · 0 Comments

Will be added automatically by citing, in the body of the report, entries specified in BibTeX format and stored in the https://www.eps2026-wiki4.dee.isep.ipp.pt/doku.php?id=refnotes:bib file

PS - If you have doubts on how to make citations, create captions, insert formulas, etc. visit this page with examples and select “Show pagesource” to see the source code.

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

[2], [14], [15] ECOncrete.

[3], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] Effect of Manufacturing Processes on Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Composites for Marine Applications. Journal of Composites Science, 9, 2025, pp.233, ISSN 2504-477X.

[4] Polycase, 2020. IP68 Waterproof Rating.

[5] Reef Design Lab

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

[7] Eternal Reef

[8] Reef Innovations

[9] BioRocks, 2026. BioRocks.

[10] rrreefs, 2026. the rrreef system.

[11] Living seawalls

[12], [13] MEITEC.

[16], [17] IntelliReefs.

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

[22], [23], [25] 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.

[24] 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.

[31], [32], [33], [34] 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.

[35], [36], [75], [83] Blue is the new green – Ecological enhancement of concrete based coastal and marine infrastructure. Ecological Engineering, 84, 2015, pp.260-272, ISSN 0925-8574.

[37], [38], [39], [40] 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.

[41], [42], [44], [45], [46] 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.

[47], [48] Nicholas A. J. Graham, Kirsty L. Nash, 2013. The importance of structural complexity in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs, 32, pp.315–326.

[49], [63] PHAROS Project, 2024. Artificial Reefs.

[50] R. W Cockfield, 1987. Scope management.

[51] F. M Webster, 1994. The WBS.

[52] J. R. Beck, 1987. Time management.

[53] W. L. Dixon, 1987. Quality Management.

[54] D. Vogwell, 2003. Stakeholder management.

[56], [57] N Lavanya, Malarvizhi,T, 2008. Risk analysis and management.

[58] World Bank, 2017. What is the Blue Economy?.

[59], [81] 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.

[60] 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.

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

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

[64] Artificial reef preparation

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

[66], [71] Andrew Deutza, Geoffrey M. Healb, Rose Niuc, Eric Swansonc, Terry Townshendc, Zhu Lic, Alejandro Delmard, Alqayam Meghjid, Suresh A. Sethid, John Tobin-de la Puente, 2020. Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap. Paulson Institute, na, na.

[67], [68] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2021. The Circular Economy System Diagram (Butterfly Diagram).

[69] DipNDive, 2023. The Ethical Debate Around Artificial Reefs: Conservation or Tourism Ploy?.

[70] Artificial reef preparation

[72] Robert Costanza, Rudolf de Groot, Paul Sutton, Sander van der Ploeg, Sharolyn J. Anderson, Ida Kubiszewski, Stephen Farber, R. Kerry Turner, 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, pp.152-158.

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

[74] 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.

[76] National Society of Professional Engineers, 2019. NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.

[77] 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.

[78] European Commission, 2026. Green Claims.

[79] OECD, 2011. Environmental Claims: Findings and Conclusions of the OECD Committee on Consumer Policy.

[80] Federal Trade Commission, 2012. Green Guides.

[82], [84] National Oceanic, Atmospheric Administration, 2007. National Artificial Reef Plan (as Amended): Guidelines for Siting, Construction, Development, and Assessment of Artificial Reefs.

[85] Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, 2025. Guidelines for an Ocean Project or Programme Data Management Plan.

**This is an old revision of the document!**

Maris Habitats

Abstract

Glossary

1. Introduction

1.1 Presentation

1.2 Motivation

1.3 Product

1.4 Problem

1.5 Objectives

1.6 Requirements

1.6.1 Functional Requirements

1.6.2 Non-Functional Requirements

Tests

Report Structure

2. Background and Related Work

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Concepts

2.3 Comparative Analysis

2.4 Companies

2.5 Materials

2.5.1. Structural Materials

2.5.1.1 Summary Table

2.5.1.2 Materials for Prototype vs. Final

2.5.2 Sensor placements

2.5.2.1 Materials for Housing

2.5.2.2 Antifouling Coatings

2.5.3 Biologic and geographical analysis

3. Project Management

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Scope

3.3 Time

3.4 Cost

3.5 Quality

3.6 People & Stakeholder Management

3.7 Communications

3.8 Risk

3.9 Procurement

3.10 Project Plan

Gantt Chart

Global Sprint

Backlog

Initial Sprint Plan

3.11 Sprint Outcomes

3.12 Sprint Evaluations

3.13 Summary

4. Marketing Plan

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Business Idea Formulation

4.3 Business Model Canvas

4.4 Market Analysis

4.4.1 PESTEL ANALYSIS

4.4.1.1 Political

4.4.1.2 Legal

4.4.1.3 Economic

4.4.1.4 Social

4.4.1.5 Technological

4.4.1.6 Environmental

4.4.2 SWOT Analysis

4.4.2.1 Strengths

4.4.2.2 Weaknesses

4.4.2.3 Opportunities

4.4.2.4 Threats

4.5 Strategy

4.5.1 Strategic Objectives

4.5.2 Segmentation and Targeting

4.5.3 Positioning

4.5.4 Marketing-Mix

4.5.5 Brand

Logo

Color System

Graphic Elements

4.6 Marketing Programmmes

4.6.1 Programmes

4.6.2 Budget

4.6.3 Control

Summary

5. Eco-efficiency Measures for Sustainability

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Environmental

This is an old revision of the document!