tourist food production

• Frontiers in Nutrition
• Nutrition and Sustainable Diets
• Research Topics

Food Tourism: Culture, Technology, and Sustainability

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Food and eco-tourism: Culture, Technology, and Sustainability Food is important in people’s daily lives and touristic experiences while traveling to different destinations, and tourism is a key sector for generating revenue and employment. With the development of new technologies and advances in food ...

Keywords : Food technology, Food tourism, Heritage, local food, Sustainability food, Plant-based food, alternative Food, Food waste, Algorithmic management, circular economy

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

Sustainable Tourism & Food: A tasty intersection

Elisa Spampinato

• Sustainable Travel

Food is a relevant aspect of our lives and a central feature of our travel experience. The good news is that through tourism, we can work towards sustainable development just by focusing on food. Let’s take a look at how food intersects with the economic, social, cultural, and environmental objectives of sustainable development. Let’s also consider the supply chain of food, from local production to travelers’ consumption, and finish by discussing whose ‘responsibility’ it is to ensure that sustainable food and authentic eating experiences are incorporated into tourism and our everyday lives.

Food and the Sustainable Development Goals

There are 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) laid out by the United Nations, covering important topics from gender equality to life on land and below sea.

As a first step in looking at how food plays into the SDGs and sustainable travel, we suggest reflecting on how food connects with all the dimensions of sustainability and how it can drive local development through tourism.

Although we are fully aware that all the dimensions of sustainability overlap most of the time in reality, let’s look at how they exist in separate silos to focus on the theory of the category.

The Economic Dimension

Tourism can always choose to prioritize local producers and farmers in its supply chain. By doing so, it will create new economic opportunities while enriching the restaurants’ menus with fresh seasonal fruits and vegetables, and free-range meat options. Leveraging seasonal, local, and responsibly grown food also comes with the rewarding aspect of lowering or reducing the restaurant’s – and thereby the traveler’s – carbon footprint.

The Social Dimension

Tourism has the power to create more space for groups of citizens that are usually socially marginalized due to a lack of access and connections. 

Food-related activities are a tangible way through which women, for example, can use their skills and traditional knowledge to reach new standards of living. This can include having better access to financing, starting new entrepreneurial careers, bettering their living conditions, and building the foundation of their personal independence.

The Cultural Dimension

Food lies at the center of community life and traditional celebrations usually rotate around specific meals. In this way, we can see how each destination is, in one way or another, a cultural item.

By emphasizing and valuing local gastronomy, tourism is actively supporting the preservation of cultural knowledge and culinary skills that could otherwise go lost. Resisting the pressure of modern times, maintaining an active food culture helps preserve the past and share it with future generations.

The Environmental Dimension

Last but not least, tourism can use food as a tool to preserve biodiversity by concentrating on local and organic production. Tourism can also collaborate with science to nourish the rediscovery of indigenous crops. Moreover, food can positively contribute to climate change issues through a conscious way of producing, packaging, and distributing it in a meaningful way. The hospitality sector can use resources in an intentional way, and be aware of their direct and indirect impacts on the surrounding flora and fauna.

Local Sustainable Production, Global Impact

Food plays a critical role in the health of our planet.

According to  Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health , agriculture is the largest cause of environmental change. Tourism can contribute to it either with a heavily loaded weight or, on the contrary, taking off unnecessary burdens from the environment.

It is valuable to remember that what happens on a local scale usually has immense repercussions at the global level.

By supporting the responsible local producers, in fact, tourism operators are doing the following:

• Strengthening the economies at the destination level
• Reducing the infamous tourism leakage
• Encouraging and protecting the regional biodiversity

‘Sustainable farming’ is the term used to refer to those practices adopted with the ultimate goal to conserve the environment while reducing its negative impacts on it. This not only includes organic production, free from pesticide and chemical additives, but also crop rotation, low-carbon ways of producing the distributing the food, and responsible usage of water resources, among others.

Tourism can contribute greatly to a positive global impact – by simply focusing on food.

‘Food’ is a very general term, and we should also remember that it also includes other local productions besides the crops, which are most immediately associated with it. 

Beyond the animal-based products, like, eggs and dairy, there are other plant-based products that sit on our tables, accompany delicious dishes, and are embedded in recipes.

Olive oil, for example, is one of the most basic ingredients of any gastronomy. However, it is not produced everywhere. Spain holds the  world production record , uncontested, followed by Italy and Morocco.

You could support local producers and learn directly from them about olive oil production and regional wine while traveling through Spain from the Iberic peninsula to Catalan’s capital, Barcelona on this sustainable tour of Spain's Highlights .

Related Trips

Highlights of Spain: Sustainable Tour

• Privately Guided

Barcelona & its Surrounding Areas

From $4,500 pp

Food: A Cultural Portal

What better way of learning the culture of the place we are visiting than listening to its food stories?

Through traveling, learning about a culture becomes a fun and engaging exercise that can happen through a variety of sensory experiences.

Discovering the local plates and where the tradition of cooking that dish comes from can take us far away in time.

In Kenya, for example, you can taste the rich history of the land through the varied cuisine. Kenya’s food culture is the resulting fusion of African, Indian, and Arab influences, especially in the coastal region. This tour of  Mombasa and Watamu  takes travelers beyond the renowned marine national park and reserve and the pristine beaches and introduces visitors to the flavors of fresh seafood accompanied by exotic spicy plates and tropical fruits.

Kenyan Coast for Ocean Lovers

From $800 pp

• Self-Guided

Kenyan Coast & 6-day Safari

The time of the meal is a special moment in many cultures. The act of sitting at the same table and eating together with the host community members, including your tour guide, creates strong bonds and perfectly embodies the meaning of traveling: sharing and learning different cultures.

Hands-on experiences have become very popular ways of exploring a new culture. Getting lost in the smells of the local street markets before entering the kitchen allows visitors to get incredibly close to the place. In addition, when designed and managed well, the pleasant experience can be seen as a sign of respect and appreciation for visitors’ own way of life. This can help guests have transformational experiences that relate what they experience abroad to their lives back home.

Culture can be unveiled in a variety of ways in tourism, but undoubtedly the  slow travel  approach is the one that can leave the deepest marks under the skin of the travelers. 

There are different ways to create meaningful connections, but time is always a critical factor. Without the time to observe, feel, taste, and assimilate a place, the travel experience risks being reduced to a fast-moving sightseeing image.

Moving at the destination’s pace means adapting to its natural rhythms and flowing with its waves. Only at this pace can you start noticing the small corners and the little hidden gems, of which food is one of the most immediate ways to tune in to a culture and its ancient treasures.

During the Mediterranean  Slow Travel Food & Wine tour in Western Türkiye, for example, you will have the time to experience both street food and fine dining, enjoy cooking classes, and visit farmer’s markets. Exploring the culture of this Turkish region through gastronomy and the ancient wine tradition will be accomplished through traveling slowly – never exceeding 45 miles per day – and by encountering the cultural heritage and the living history while strolling in less visited towns.

Slow Travel Food & Wine Tour in Western Türkiye

From $2,995 pp

Gourmet Walking Holiday in the French Alps

From 1,650 € pp

• Small Group

What Happens After Production & Distribution

The contribution of food to a sustainable tourism model includes – but doesn’t end with – conscious production and low-impact distribution. The way the food is packaged, consumed, and disposed of also factors into the equation.

According to sadly familiar figures from the  UN Food Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) 2011 report , roughly a third of total food production, i.e. 1.3 billion tons, goes to waste every year. This frightening picture is getting worse since the amount of food loss and waste is expected to rise by a third by 2030 when, according to other studies,  the equivalent of 66 tons per second will be lost or thrown away .

It is evident that the tourism industry is responsible for the creation of a big portion of the problem and conscious reflections on the sector’s responsibilities have luckily started to produce changes in the way the industry operates in recent years.

In any case, the responsibility doesn’t fall exclusively on the tourism industry. From a consumer perspective, tourists still have an important role to play.

We should ask ourselves:

• How much of the food waste we produce when traveling is because restaurants and hotels don’t have effective measures in place to prevent and reduce food waste? For example, does a hotel or restaurant buffet show a sign encouraging guests to take only what they can eat, or not?
• How much of the food waste we produce when traveling is the result of us, as travelers, not making conscious choices? For example, when we see a hotel or restaurant buffet, do we proactively think about not taking more than we can eat? a matter of the limited options we found available,
• If we are responsible consumers at home, are we also practicing good habits when on vacation? If not, why?

Should we blame only an unresponsible and unresponsive industry, or should we also reflect on the way we treat food consumption, including when we’re on holiday? To drive real change, we need the tourism industry and travelers to do better with their food choices and efforts of waste reduction.

It is not only a matter of what kind of food we consume – indigenous  versus  exotic, for example – but also how we look at something like a hotel or restaurant buffet. Is it an infinite source of satisfaction to be used without consciousness, or a beautiful canvas of possibilities with a name and provenance, a story, and a future?

When no sustainable options have been openly given by the tourism industry itself, we can always enquire and investigate the matter further. Questioning the status quo can contribute to important pressure that can only benefit the sector and prompt it to better itself and find new solutions. 

A Shared Responsibility for Sustainable Tourism & Food

We strongly believe that responsible consumption should be integral to the way we travel. It shouldn’t be considered an add-on exercise reserved for a particular moment of the trip.

We reckon that a sustainable way of thinking should be incorporated into all elements of the journey, from the design stage through beyond the end of the trip. We want to allow the sharing of good practices at the destination level to inspire new considerations in travelers’ minds as well.

One of the best examples of seeing sustainability up close in a laid-back setting is this  eco-retreat . You can relax with a glass of wine in rural Portugal while learning about regional wine production and sustainability measures at the retreat center. In addition to unwinding, visitors can also push themselves to try something new or improve skills in hobbies like surfing, yoga, photography, or stone sculpting.

Guests can be connected to our local, responsible partners so they can learn and see firsthand the challenges of being sustainable.  They can expand their minds about their own impact as a traveler, see how they help locals – especially in rural tourism – and still have an uncompromisingly wonderful vacation. 

We want to conclude by highlighting that when it comes to food, the power of a sustainable, conscious choice is, almost always, available during your tourism experience. Where there are no sustainable options available, a new story can start, recognizing that the sustainability challenge is a constructive collective journey.

South African Gastronomy Tour

From $3,350 pp

Unique Photography & Yoga Retreat

From 1,450 € pp

Elisa Spampinato is a travel writer and a Community Storyteller who has lived and worked in Italy, Brazil, and the UK, where she is currently located. Practitioner, researcher, speaker, and consultant for sustainable tourism with years of experience in local development and social projects, and a passionate advocate for ethical and responsible tourism. As a writer, she has collaborated with Tourism Concern, Equality in Tourism, Gender Responsible Tourism – GRT, Travindy and Tourism Watch. She has published a book on Slum Tourism in Rio de Janeiro and she continues telling the stories of tourism encounters in local communities, especially the traditional, rural and indigenous ones. Among other things, she is the Community-Based Tourism specialist and Ambassador for the Transformational Travel Council (TTC). Elisa can be followed on her Blog , Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

Related Posts

Private Tours: What are they? Why book one?

Voluntourism: Contributing Beyond Community Washing

All categories.

• Experiences
• Tips & Trends
• Destinations

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Re-thinking sustainability and food in tourism

• • The sustainability of food tourism is limited and new ways of thinking are needed.
• • Considerations about food tourism in relation to animal ethics and sustainability are interconnected.
• • An extensive use of animal-derived food in tourism is in conflict with SDG3 and SDG13.

Now is a good time to reflect on the way food tourism could contribute to a better future. A number of scholars comment on the COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity to re-think tourism in terms of sustainability, social and ecological justice (e.g. Gössling, Scott, & Hall, 2020 ; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020 ). Most considerations tend to focus on recovery strategies, challenges of over-tourism and high-carbon travels and the necessity of a global shift. Reflections on the origin of the COVID-19 crisis seem to be lacking. As in other recent epidemic outbreaks, e.g. the swine flu in 2009, the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic stems from animal sources, more precisely from the use of animals for food ( Wu, Chen, & Chan, 2020 ). This research note argues that reflections on animal-derived food are relevant to a re-consideration of food tourism.

This note starts by describing the link between animal-derived food and the sustainable development goals (SDGs) concerning health (SDG3) and climate action (SDG13), and reflecting on the ethical dimension of sustainability. It continues by commenting on the possibility to study food in tourism adopting an ecofeminist perspective. It concludes with the identification of three research areas for future studies.

Animal-derived food and sustainability

The use of animals for food has important implications for the health and climate action SDGs. The case of the COVID-19 pandemic offers a good example of the challenges relative to potential diseases. Zoonoses, like the one derived by COVID-19, can have severe effects on the sector, for example in terms of travel restrictions, and jeopardise tourists' health ( Jamal & Budke, 2020 ). Although not always foodborne, zoonoses as well as other diseases from animal ingredients, for example Escherichia coli infections, can emerge due to low hygienic standards and raw/undercooked meals, and be transmitted to tourists ( Shahidi, 2020 ; Sofos & Geornaras, 2010 ).

Still with regard to health, the consumption of some animal-derived food can be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer ( Abid, Cross, & Sinha, 2014 ). Obviously, all tourists eat, and some foods can have a central role in the tourism experience. For example, broadly used in the tourism marketing of the region of origin, the Parma ham belongs to the World Health Organisation Group 1 of carcinogenicity (i.e. extensive and reliable epidemiological studies have concluded that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans from eating processed meat) ( WHO, 2020 ). Thus, consuming some animal-derived foods while travelling can be qualified as an unhealthy tourism practice.

More challenges relative to the use of animal-derived food concerns the extensive use of resources that this food usually requires, and the destructive effects of modern animal farming on the environment ( Westhoek et al., 2014 ). Considering various elements, such as raw materials and transport, Gössling, Garrod, Aall, Hille, and Peeters (2011) indicate some management practices to reduce the environmental impact of the food service in hospitality. Such practices include sometimes limiting (‘Buy less beef’) and sometimes encouraging (‘Buy more pork’) the use of animal-derived food. These recommendations are partly in line with two recent studies according to which some animal-derived foods, first of all beef, are among the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions ( Ritchie & Roser, 2020 ), and the environmental sustainable diet is constituted mainly by whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes ( Willett et al., 2019 ).

One might argue that some of these challenges concern mainly the use by the tourism sector of food from industrial systems. With regard to this, it might be important to note that the tourism sector is growing at a considerable speed ( UNWTO, 2020 ). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that most destinations rely on the industrial food system to feed tourists, and some also on imports. If the growth of the tourism sector will continue, the idea of tourism destinations depending only on local nonindustrial food systems is unrealistic.

Another objection to the considerations about the environmental unsustainability of diets relying considerably on animal-derived food might concern the possible compensation in terms of socio-cultural benefits and regional development (e.g. Higgins-Desbiolles & Wijesinghe, 2019 ; Sims, 2009 ). This objection can be related to the dominant way of framing food in tourism derived from an understanding of sustainability heavily influenced by the Our Common Future report ( WCED, 1987 ). Some scholars argue that this work presents a limitation: the lack of recognition about the difference between natural resources and other assets ( Morandín-Ahuerma, Contreras-Hernández, Ayala-Ortiz, & Pérez-Maqueo, 2019 ). What this criticism highlights is the necessity to view the economy, the tourism sector included, as a social subsystem of the biosphere on which all communities depend. In other words, environmental sustainability is the foundation of any type of sustainability.

The latter consideration leads to some reflections about the underlying anthropocentric worldview of sustainability and its ethical dimension. According to the dominant understanding of sustainability, everything that is not human, including nature and animals, is a resource that can be managed, strategically and responsibly, in order to guarantee a good standard of living for future (human) generations. It is only recently that some tourism scholars have critically discussed the use of animals in food tourism from an ethical perspective (e.g. Bertella, 2018 ; Kline, 2018 ; Yudina & Fennell, 2013 ). This can be viewed as a starting point to broaden the meaning of sustainability, and in particular to include considerations about the moral obligations and duties between human and nonhuman sentient beings.

So, where do we go from here?

This research note proposes a way to frame the study of food in tourism inspired by ecofeminism, a philosophical perspective that critically analyses our position in the world in relation to other humans, animals, and nature ( Adams & Gruen, 2014 ). According to ecofeminist Greta Gaard, food and climate change challenges can't be solved adopting the masculinist worldview of dominance of (some) humans on the nature ( Gaard, 2015 ). This implies the necessity of radical changes in the way we think about ourselves, as individuals and world citizens and in relation to nonhuman entities, and in the way we act. This research note challenges scholars to explore food in tourism in such terms, more specifically focusing on the transformative potential of food experiences and investigating sustainable food systems that acknowledge the relevance of human and non-human stakeholders.

Tourism experiences can be transformative and encourage tourists to change their habits and, eventually, promote societal changes ( Lean, 2009 ; Smith & Reisinger, 2013 ). Thus, it can be advanced that tourists choosing to eat healthily and sustainably during their holidays might find the inspiration to do so also when returned home. This inspiration can come from a conscious choice by the tourism practitioners who design and promote ‘green’ food offerings and engage in other sustainable actions (e.g. Miller, Merrilees, & Coghlan, 2015 ). More studies are needed to explore the design of this type of food tourism experiences and their possible contribution to societal changes.

Food production has received scant attention by tourism scholars and the existent studies tend to adopt an anthropocentric view. Bertella and Vidmar (2019) describe a futuristic scenario where tourism entrepreneurs producing vegetables in innovative labs become the new role models for travellers. The authors discuss the implications of such scenario for indigenous communities and wildlife, suggesting that the foodservice of future tourism should develop not only innovatively but also responsibly in relation to the environment, the involved human communities and the animals. A similar responsible innovation perspective is desirable for future studies about food tourism.

It seems that few tourism scholars recognise that the access to a nutritious sustainable diet is one of the greatest challenges for a better future, and even fewer relate such reflections to a renewed understanding of sustainability and to the link between food consumption and production ( Ellis, Park, Kim, & Yeoman, 2018 ). Yeoman and McMahon-Beatte (2016) propose a utopian vision about food tourism as a project shared among communities, producers, tourists and politicians. In the same line, this research note concludes by advancing a view about a scholarship that re-thinks the use of animal-derived food in tourism in the name of values related to global human health, environmental protection and animal wellbeing. Important research areas that have emerged in the discussion presented in this note and could contribute to explore strategies towards the SDG3 and SDG13 are:

• • less/non-anthropocentric and more inclusive understandings of sustainability;
• • transformative food experiences that can enhance healthy and ethical eating practices;
• • approaches to food tourism that include innovative, ‘green’ and safe food production both at the macro and micro level.

Associate editor: Caroline Winter

• Abid Z., Cross A.J., Sinha R. Meat, dairy, and cancer. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014; 100 (suppl_1):386S–393S. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adams C., Gruen L. Bloomsbury; New York: 2014. Ecofeminism. Feminist intersections with other animals and the earth. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertella G. Problematizing the ethical “taste” of authenticity. Journal of Gastronomy and Tourism. 2018; 3 (2):81–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertella G., Vidmar B. Learning to face global food challenges through tourism experiences. Journal of Tourism Futures. 2019 doi: 10.1108/JTF-01-2019-0004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis A., Park E., Kim S., Yeoman I. What is food tourism? Tourism Management. 2018; 68 :250–263. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaard G. Ecofeminism and climate change. Women’s Studies International Forum. 2015; 49 :20–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gössling S., Garrod B., Aall C., Hille J., Peeters P. Food management in tourism: Reducing tourism’s carbon “foodprint” Tourism Management. 2011; 32 (3):534–543. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gössling S., Scott D., Hall M.C. Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2020 doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins-Desbiolles F. Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after COVID-19. Tourism Geographies. 2020 doi: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1757748. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins-Desbiolles F., Wijesinghe G. The critical capacities of restaurants as facilitators for transformations to sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2019; 27 (7):1080–1105. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamal T., Budke C. Tourism in a world with pandemics: Local−global responsibility and action. Journal of Tourism Futures. 2020 doi: 10.11006/JTF-02-2020-0014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline C. Routledge; London: 2018. Tourism experiences and animal consumption: Contested values, morality and ethics. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lean G. Transforming travel: Inspiring sustainability. In: Bushell R., Sheldon P., editors. Wellness and tourism: Mind, body, spirit, place. Cognizant; New York: 2009. pp. 191–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller D., Merrilees B., Coghlan A. Sustainable urban tourism: Understanding and developing visitor pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2015; 23 (1):26–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morandín-Ahuerma I., Contreras-Hernández A., Ayala-Ortiz D.A., Pérez-Maqueo O. Socio-ecosystemic sustainability. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (12):3354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie H., Roser M. Our world in data. 2020. Environmental impacts of food production. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food Retrieved from. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahidi F. Does COVID-19 affect food safety and security? Journal of Food Bioactives. 2020; 9 doi: 10.31665/JFB.2020.9212. Retrieved from. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sims R. Food, place and authenticity: Local food and the sustainable tourism experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 2009; 17 (3):321–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith M., Reisinger Y. Transforming quality of life through wellness tourism. Transformational Tourism: Tourist Perspectives. 2013; 55 :67. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sofos J.N., Geornaras I. Overview of current meat hygiene and safety risks and summary of recent studies on biofilms, and control of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in nonintact, and Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat, meat products. Meat Science. 2010; 86 (1):2–14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNWTO International tourism growth continues to outpace the economy. 2020. https://www.unwto.org/international-tourism-growth-continues-to-outpace-the-economy Retrieved from.
• Westhoek H., Lesschen J.P., Rood T., Wagner S., De Marco A., Murphy-Bokern D.…Oenema O. Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change. 2014; 26 :196–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• WHO Questions and answers on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed-meat. 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-on-the-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat Retrieved from.
• Willett W., Rockström J., Loken B., Springmann M., Lang T., Vermeulen S.…Jonell M. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet. 2019; 393 (10170):447–492. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Commission on Environmental Development (WCED) Oxford University Press; Oxford: 1987. Our common future. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu Y.C., Chen C.S., Chan Y.J. The outbreak of COVID-19: An overview. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association. 2020; 83 (3):217. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeoman I., McMahon-Beatte U. The future of food tourism. Journal of Tourism Futures. 2016; 2 (1):95–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yudina O., Fennell D. Eco-feminism in the tourism context: A discussion of the use of other-than-human animals as food in tourism. Tourism Recreation Research. 2013; 38 (1):55–69. [ Google Scholar ]

MIT Science Policy Review

Coral reefs are critical for our food supply, tourism, and ocean health. We can protect them from climate change

Hanny E. Rivera * , Andrea N. Chan, and Victoria Luu

Edited by Alexandra Churikova and Anthony Tabet

Full Report | Aug. 20, 2020

* Email: [email protected]

DOI: 10.38105/spr.7vn798jnsk

• Coral reefs provide ecosystem services worth $11 trillion dollars annually by protecting coasts, sustaining fisheries, generating tourism, and creating jobs across the tropics.
• Ocean warming is the most widespread and immediate threat to coral reefs globally, followed by disease, and local stressors.
• Management efforts help address local stressors, however, the root cause of global coral decline – increasing temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions – must be addressed to ensure the survival of the ocean’s most diverse habitats through the 21st century.
• International climate agreements that aim to continually reduce emissions are our best hope for the survival of reefs.

Article Summary

As many as 1 billion people across the planet depend on coral reefs for food, coastal protection, cultural practices,and income [1, 2]. Corals, the animals that create these immensely biodiverse habitats, are particularly vulnerable to climate change and inadequately protected. Increasing ocean temperatures leave corals starved as they lose their primary source of food: the photosynthetic algae that live within their tissue. Ocean warming has been impacting coral reefs around the globe for decades, with the latest 2014-2016 heat stress event affecting more than 75% of the world’s corals [3, 4]. Here, we discuss the benefits humans derive from healthy reefs, the threats corals face,and review current policies and management efforts. We also identify management and policy gaps in preserving coral habitats. The gain and urgency of protecting coral reefs is evident from their vast economic and ecological value. Management and restoration efforts are growing across the globe, and many of these have been influential in mitigating local stressors to reefs such as overfishing, nutrient inputs,and water quality. However, the current trajectory of ocean temperatures requires sweeping global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to effectively safeguard the future of coral reefs. The U.S. should stand as a world leader in addressing climate change and in preserving one of the planet’s most valuable ecosystems.

Coral reefs are one of our planet’s most biodiverse and economically valuable ecosystems [5], yet they have been declining worldwide due to warming ocean temperatures and other stressors [6]. Many major tropical cities are adjacent to coral reef environments (Figure 1A), with nearly 1 billion people worldwide residing in areas influenced or sustained by coral reefs [1, 2]. Coral reefs provide a myriad of ecosystem services that benefit our economies, our shorelines, as well as our plates and medicine cabinets (Figure 2). Throughout, we discuss the valuable benefits provided by corals, explain the stressors harming coral reef ecosystems across global and local scales, review management and conservation efforts, and identify gaps in current policies.

Why corals matter: A wealth of ecosystem services

Coral reefs are dynamic, vibrant ecosystems, formed by over 800 different species of corals. Corals are animals, closely related to anemones and jellyfish, although considering them rocks or plants would not be entirely off base. Their tripartite nature stems from their ability to create the limestone skeleton in which they live, and from the single-celled algae (marine plants) that live inside their tissues in a mutualistic symbiosis (Figure 3A). These algae provide corals with the vast majority of their energetic needs, by providing sugars they produce via photosynthesis to their coral hosts. In addition, corals also harbor a diverse bacterial flora that contributes to their overall health [7], much like the gut microbiome does in humans [8]. These associations allow corals to thrive and build reefs large enough to be seen from space, such as the Great Barrier Reef or the Florida Reef Tract (Figure 1B, 1C).

Coastal Protection: These massive reefs structures can function as seawalls against storms, hurricanes, and sea level rise by protecting coasts from waves and surge [9]. In fact, coral reefs provide the equivalent of $\$$94 million in coastal protection to the U.S. each year [10]. During severe storms, like category 5 hurricanes, that value increases to $\$$272 billion [10]. Worldwide, the total value of coastal protection provided by reefs is estimated at over $\$$4 billion in averted damages during usual storms [10]. For more extreme events such as one-in-25-year or one-in-a-100-year level storms, corals can prevent $\$$36 billion to $\$$130 billion dollars’ worth of damages, respectively [10]. For comparison, the Port of Miami and Port Everglades (Ft. Lauderdale, FL) collectively represent over 3% of all U.S. seaport trade and are worth over $\$$50 billion dollars each year; while the Miami International Airport comprises over 5% of U.S. airport trade, worth nearly $\$$60 billion per year [11]. Corals can provide equivalent amounts of value during mild storms and much more value during severe storms. Coastal protection by coral reefs not only benefits immediately adjacent cities and residents, but can also prevent downstream economic impacts to trade and commerce. In addition, the presence of coral reefs is often used to define maritime boundaries and jurisdictions (see section on UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), such that deterioration and loss of coral reef habitat can lead to loss of jurisdiction over marine territories. 

Biodiversity and Natural Products: The reef structures created by corals provide habitat for thousands of marine species, in a manner that is highly disproportionate to their total area. While comprising only a small fraction of seafloor (0.2%) [12], coral reefs are home to an estimated 830,000 species of organisms [13]. The number of species living per unit area on coral reefs is one of the highest on the planet, with biodiversity that rivals rainforests. 

This biodiversity is crucial for the health our oceans, and it can also be harnessed for natural product and drug development. For instance, the antiviral drug Vira-A, which is used to treat herpes simplex infections, as well as AZT, which is used to treat HIV, were derived from a compound (Ara-A) isolated from a Caribbean sponge that lives on coral reefs [14]. Another compound (Ara-C) was isolated from the same sponge and developed into the anti-cancer medication Cytarabine [14]. The drug Ziconotide for the treatment of chronic pain was isolated from cone snails found on coral reefs [15]. In addition, several new antibiotic compounds effective against antibiotic-resistance bacteria have been isolated from soft corals that live in coral reefs [16]. The skeletons of hard corals can even be used as bone regeneration materials for humans [17] Overall, the oceans represent a highly unexplored source of products for human medicine. The drug discovery potential in marine environments, and coral reefs in particular, should be considered an invaluable resource [18, 19]. 

Fisheries and Tourism: The biodiversity of corals reefs also includes fish and seafood species that form part of a 143 billion dollar global fisheries trade industry, such as groupers, lobsters, and snappers [20]. In the U.S., recreational fisheries on coral reefs are worth over $\$$100 million each year. In addition, nearly half of all U.S. fisheries depend on healthy coral reefs ecosystems for sustainable stocks [21]. Excessive fishing on reefs can cause considerable damage and threaten the stability of the ecosystem (see fishing pressure section below). As such, coral reef fisheries benefit from strong management plans that limit the risk of overfishing important species. 

Coral reefs also form the foundation of many tourism industries in coastal areas across the globe. In Australia, the Great Barrier Reef received over 26 million visitors in 2016, and tourism to the Queensaland area generates around $\$$6.4 billion (AUD) annually [22]. In the U.S., reef-based tourism in the states of Hawai’i and Florida alone are estimated at over $\$$2 billion dollars annually [23]; and at nearly $\$$240 million in Puerto Rico [21]. ¹

¹Values adjusted for 2020 dollars from the 2007 values reported in [21]

Figure 2: Coral reef ecosystem services (blue) and threats (red). Reefs offer valuable services to humans. Unfortunately, corals are impacted by multiple threats, many of which act to compound each other. Image was created on biorender.com. Icon credits to Lluisa Iborra (skyline), Ifki Rianto (small fishing boat and fisherman), Ruliani (wave), Nikita Kozin (diver), and Luis Prado (large fishing boats), all available from The Noun Project. Reef and associated fish are original artwork by author H.E.R.

What’s killing all the corals: Global and local threats to reefs  

Despite their vast ecological, economical, and pharmaceutical importance, coral reefs are one of the planet’s most rapidly degrading ecosystems [6]. On a global scale, corals are most severely impacted by increasing temperatures, coral diseases, and declining pH levels. At regional and local scales, stressors such as overfishing, run-off from land, and coastal development lead to coral mortality and reef degradation [24]. We discuss the causes, effects, and prevalence of different stressors below. While we have organized this section into global and local stressors, reefs are complex ecosystems and are often subjected to multiple stressors simultaneously. It should also be noted that this is not a comprehensive list. For instance, we do not discuss light and noise pollution, ship groundings, invasive species, or tourism pressure. We have focused on the stressors that we consider the most pressing to address given the magnitude of their impact.

Global Stressors

Temperature: Corals can suffer severe stress if water temperatures rise by just 1◦C above their usual summer maximum [25]. While this change in temperature may seem trivial at first, consider the impacts of a fever on human health, where only a 1-2◦C increase can quickly become life threatening. At higher temperatures, corals lose the symbiotic algae that live inside their tissues, and which provide the coral with the majority of their daily food requirements [25, 26] (Figure 3A). This process is called ‘bleaching,’ as the symbionts are also the main source of color in coral tissue (Figure 3B). Bleaching is often fatal to the coral animal, as they can starve to death without their symbionts. If temperatures return to normal within a few days or weeks, the coral can re-establish their community of symbionts and may survive; but this time window is becoming more elusive as heat stress events are becoming both more prolonged and more severe [27].

Since the 1980s, episodes of bleaching have reached reefs around the world, and even iconic and well-protected areas, like the Great Barrier Reef have lost up to 50% of their live coral [6]. Such bleaching events have increased in both frequency and intensity over the last two decades, and it is projected that by 2050 almost all reefs will experience bleaching level temperatures on an annual basis [27, 28]. The most recent global bleaching event (between 2014-2016) caused devastation across the globe [3]. For instance, this event caused 100% bleaching and nearly 95% coral mortality on Jarvis Island, a U.S. territory in the central Pacific [29]. This island had previously been rated as the healthiest and most robust coral ecosystem on the planet [30], and lacks any other sources of coral stress, underscoring the pervasive impact climate change can have on even the most remote and pristine ecosystems. The Great Barrier Reef in particular, has continued to experience bleaching events every year since 2014, and is seeing its most widespread bleaching event this year [31]. On a smaller scale, other stressors can also prompt a bleaching response in corals, including cold temperature, pollution, high UV, and pathogens [16]. However, heat-induced mass bleaching remains the primary cause of coral decline on a global scale [4, 28, 32, 33]. These declines emphasize the desperate need to curtail the carbon emissions that are responsible for increasing ocean temperatures. 

Disease: Corals have also been affected by disease outbreaks, especially in the Atlantic/Caribbean, where they have been one of the main sources of decline from the mid 1970’s to today [34]. In the late 1970’s, an outbreak of white band disease decimated the three major Caribbean coral species (Acropora cervicornis, palmata, and prolifera) that were the dominant reef builders in the region [35]. In 2014, a new disease, now called Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease (SCTLD), began in Miami-Dade County, and has since spread throughout the Caribbean [36]. The disease impacts more species than any other known coral diseases, and also kills corals more quickly [36]. In Florida alone, more than 30% of corals have died from the disease over the last few years [36]. Despite much investigation, scientists have yet to isolate the pathogen that causes the disease. 

Disease prevalence in corals has also been increasing over time and is sometimes exacerbated by increased temperatures [37]. Combined, disease and bleaching are major causes of coral mortality, and both are predicted to worsen as climate change progresses [33, 37]. Diseases can also be triggered by local stressors such as coastal human inputs. For instance, in Guam, prevalence of white syndrome was linked to increased nitrogen from sewage outfalls [38]. In Florida, the outbreak of SCTLD also coincided with the dredging of Port Miami, which led to substantial sedimentation and coral mortality [39] [40]. An overall increase in nutrients has also been linked to higher disease prevalence in the both field and experimental studies [41]. Given these synergies, outbreaks of coral diseases are expected to increase [42]. Management efforts that aim to limit sources of coral disease should be high priority especially in the Atlantic/Caribbean, where they have already caused substantial decline. 

Ocean acidification (declining ocean pH): In addition to warming our planet, carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere dissolves into our oceans, triggering chemical reactions that increase the acidity of the water (lower the pH level) [43]. Some studies indicate that pH levels in reef water are declining more rapidly than in the open ocean [44]. At lower pH, the process that corals use to build their skeletons (calcification) and which creates the reef structure requires more energy, meaning coral growth slows and they build less reef [45]. The chemical dissolution of older reef structures, as well as erosion of live corals by live organisms, like encrusting mussels or worms, is also easier at lower pH [46, 47]. 

Ocean acidification also negatively impacts the many shell-building organisms that reside on reefs, such as mussels, clams, urchins, and other calcifying organisms [48]. Even fish growth and metabolism can be impacted under low pH, especially during larval stages [49] In addition, pH often interacts negatively with warmer temperatures, hindering growth and survival of corals [50]. As with mitigating the effects of warming, addressing the root cause – rising CO2 levels – is the best course of action to prevent further damage.

Local Stressors

Coastal Development and Nutrient Enrichment: Coastal development can generate sedimentation from poor-land use practices and new development, or nutrient run-off from agriculture and wastewater discharge. The construction of new resorts may involve overwater bungalows, built directly on reef structures, or the creation of artificial beaches that change coastline dynamics and increase sedimentation to nearby reefs. The expansion of ports to accommodate cruise liners or large container ships, often requires dredging of the surrounding reef flats in smaller tropical islands [51, 52], or even larger cities like Miami [40]. On a more dramatic scale, territorial conflicts in Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, have led to land reclamation techniques by China in which reefs are filled to create land that can be claimed [53]. Such efforts destroyed an estimated 6 square miles (3,000 football fields) of coral reef habitat in 2015 [54]. Coastal development represents a severe a direct physical risk to coral reef survival. The environmental impacts of development projects should be thoroughly assessed by independent parties prior to permitting to help alleviate such pressures. 

Nutrient influx to reefs is primarily driven by human activity. Coastal development, sewage and water treatment effluents, agricultural runoff, and discharges from shipping can all increase nutrient levels on reefs. Macroalgae (different from the microalgae that live inside coral tissues) compete with corals for space on reef environments [55]. Normally, macroalgal growth is limited by nutrient availability, but with an influx of nutrients algae can grow more quickly and begin to grow over the coral [55]. This often results in a shift from a coral-dominated reef to an algal-dominated ecosystem [56] (Figure 3B). These patterns can also be exacerbated if there is overfishing of herbivorous fish, which help keep macroalgal populations in check (see Fishing Pressure).

Algal-dominated habitats quickly begin to lose fish species that relied on corals for shelter [56]. Algae can also trap sediments, leading to negative feedback loops that further stress the remaining corals [57]. Algal-dominated reefs lose their value as protective barriers to shorelines, as dead corals can no longer create additional reef structure. In addition, nitrogen and carbon inputs from land can alter the pH of coastal waters, exacerbating ocean acidification in those areas [58]. Policies that limit the environmental impact of coastal development projects and ensure that coastal infrastructure (e.g. sewage pipes and water treatment plants) is well-maintained can significantly limit continued damage to coral reefs locally.

Fishing Pressure: Corals rely on healthy populations of herbivorous fish and invertebrates to keep macroalgal populations from outcompeting them [59]. Overfishing of herbivores like parrotfish and rabbitfish can result in algal population spikes [60, 61]. In 1990, Bermuda banned pot fishing, a practice that mainly impacted herbivorous fish species. As a result, populations of herbivores rebounded [62]. Other fishing practices like dynamite (also called blast fishing) or cyanide fishing can directly destroy reef habitats and kill coral reef organisms. While these methods are not practiced in the U.S., they still represent a significant threat to reefs in the Indo-Pacific, where many U.S. and international non-profits dedicate efforts to reef conservation. Dynamite and cyanide fishing are often practiced by smaller-scale fishermen, harvesting coral reef fish for the aquarium trade (most of which is sent to U.S.) or direct consumption. In Tanzania, for example, dynamite fishing was outlawed in the 1970s, but has continued essentially unchecked [63]. Cyanide fishing allows for the live capture of fish by temporarily anesthetizing them [64]. The concentrations of cyanide used to target the desired fish, however, can be quickly detrimental to coral reef organisms, such as smaller fish and invertebrates [64]. Efficient enforcement against both these practices in the Indo-Pacific would be a substantial relief to local coral reefs; as would limiting overfishing of herbivorous species across coral habitats.

Figure 3: Overview of coral biology. (A) Coral symbiosis. Corals form massive reef structures made of calcium carbonate (limestone) as their skeleton. The live coral tissue is at the surface of this rock, where colonies of polyps (middle inset) cover the skeleton. Inside the polyps, single-celled algal symbionts (left inset) live in specialized tissues. In addition, a diverse microbial community (right inset) lives on and within corals. (B) Coral bleaching and algal overgrowth. A healthy reef (left) undergoes bleaching due to high temperatures (middle). The coral is unable to recover and dark brown macroalgae now grows over the dead coral skeleton (right) causing a shift from a coral-dominated ecosystem to an algae-dominated one. (C) Coral life cycle. Corals can reproduce sexually to create larvae that then float and swim until finding a new home, where they settle down and attach to the seafloor. Corals can also reproduce asexually via fragmentation, whereby a piece of an adult colony breaks but then reattaches elsewhere on the seafloor and continues growing to form another colony. Photo credits: Coral images in A and B are from the Coral Image Bank (Ocean Agency/Caitlin XL Survey: CC license). Symbiont image in panel A was taken by T. LaJeunesse and is reproduced with permission. Polyp image was taken by author H.E.R. Diagram in panel C is original artwork by Nicola G. Kriefall and is reproduced with permission.

What’s protected: U.S. policies addressing coral reefs  

Reducing human access to reefs can mitigate the impact of local stressors on corals – buying them time to become more tolerant of global stressors [65]. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are defined as: “[an] area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein” (Executive Order 13158, 2000). MPAs may differ in their level of restrictions depending on the conservation goals surrounding their designation. Two specific classes of MPAs are sanctuaries and monuments. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Congress may both designate sanctuaries under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq., 1972), while the President can establish marine national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. §§ 320301-320303, 1906). A number of MPAs include coral reef habitats within U.S. jurisdiction:

• Papahānaumokuākea National Marine Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands was established in 2006 and is the largest contiguous marine conservation area under U.S. jurisdiction (Proclamation 8031, 2006). A proclamation by President Obama expanded the monument to cover the entire U.S. exclusive economic zone west of 163 West Longitude, providing greater protection for the region’s coral reefs (Proclamation 9478, 2016). • Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument includes Wake, Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands, Johnston and Palmyra Atolls, and Kingman Reef. Protecting the high coral diversity and endemic coral species in these areas was a major justification for its establishment (Proclamation 8336, 2009). • Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary protects the largest coral barrier reef in the United States (15 C.F.R. part 922, subpart P; Pub. L. 101–605, 1990). • Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary was established to protect the northernmost living coral reefs on the U.S. continental shelf (56 F.R. 63634, 1991). • Marianas Trench Marine National Monument protects one of the most diverse coral ecosystems in the Western Pacific and the deepest part of our world’s ocean (Proclamation 8335, 2009). • National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa (formerly Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary) was designated in response to a proposal from the government of American Samoa, in part to preserve a pristine coral reef terrace ecosystem (51 F.R. 15878, 1986). • Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument protects coral reefs as essential habitat for sustaining the fragile biological communities in this region (Proclamation 7399, 2001). • Red Hind Spawning Aggregation Areas west of Puerto Rico are federally managed. All three areas prohibit fishing during the spawning season by implementing area closures from December to February (50 C.F.R. § 622, 1996). A later amendment to this rule established a marine conservation district east of Puerto Rico, in which fishing activity and anchoring by fishing vessels are banned to protect its coral reef habitat (50 C.F.R. § 622, 1999)

Which groups manage and enforce MPAs?  

Through related domestic legislation and international trade law (Table 1), several U.S. federal agencies play important roles in the protection of coral reef environments, among their other duties. In 1998, Presidential Executive Order 13089 (Coral Reef Protection) established the United States Coral Reef Task Force (U.S.CRTF), which includes representatives from the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Executive Order 13089, 1998). The U.S.CRTF is charged with leading U.S. stewardship of coral reef ecosystems by supporting scientific research, mapping, monitoring, restoration, international cooperation, and the reduction of threats to reefs in coordination with other stakeholder groups. 

The groundbreaking Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 authorized major contributions to the research, mapping, monitoring, conservation, and management of coral reefs, in large part through the development of a National Action Strategy in consultation with USCRFT and the establishment of NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) (Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, 2000). The CRCP is one of few federal programs whose direct mission is to address coral reef conservation efforts and the only one with a legislative mandate. In addition to supporting the USCRTF, the CRCP’s multifaceted work involves funding coral research, delivering sound scientific information and tools for management, establishing core partnerships with various stakeholders, and capacity building to help local staff members implement projects that address threats and restore habitats, among other functions. The monumental work of this program relies on federal funds appropriated by Congress. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 10 coral reef National Wildlife Refuges in the Pacific and enforces international trade laws, which regulate the import and export of corals for jewelry or the aquarium trade. The Environmental Protection Agency protects coral reefs by implementing Clean Water Act programs that maintain water quality in watersheds and coastal zones of coral reef areas. While these functions are important, their pertinence to coral reefs is not congressionally mandated. 

A summary of other key domestic policies and the primary agencies responsible for them is shown in Table 1. There are also several international policies that impact coral reefs, though the U.S. is notably absent from several (see gaps section below). The U.S. is contracting party of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973), which serves to regulate international trade of animal and plant samples in order to promote conservation and reduce the risk of overexploitation and extinction. All hard coral species (Scleractinia spp.) are listed in the CITES Appendix II, and transport of live specimens or products of these species requires a CITES permit (Resolution Conf. 9.24 Rev. CoP17, 1994).

What’s missing: Management and policy gaps in coral reef conservation

  The U.S. stance on ocean policy has varied across administrations. Mostly recently it has shifted from an emphasis on conservation and climate to a focus on economic and security concerns (Executive Order No. 13840, 2018). While the stringency of coral reef conservation has fluctuated, it remains indisputable, as described above, that coral reefs provide substantial economic benefits to many U.S. sectors, in addition to their contributions to biological diversity and ecosystem health. Executive Order 13840, Regarding the Ocean Policy to Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States, calls to “facilitate the economic growth of coastal communities and promote ocean industries”, among other priorities (Executive Order 13840, 2018). It is clear from the lengthy list of ecosystem services that preservation of coral reefs is necessary for economic growth and security of many coastal communities.

While there are legal mechanisms (e.g., MPAs) to protect coral reefs under U.S. jurisdiction, gaps often remain in implementation and enforcement. For instance, many MPAs are in remote places where enforcement is difficult, even for countries with substantial resources [66, 67]. When properly enforced, protection can help alleviate some, though not all, stressors. An evaluation of the ecological performance of MPAs in the U.S. Virgin Islands revealed that coral reefs outside MPAs showed larger declines in ecosystem performance, such as lower density of fish including adult snappers [68]. Notably, the amount of live coral cover decreased both inside and outside MPAs during the study period due to bleaching events and hurricane damage, pointing to the importance of global stressors in driving community structure [68]. Table 2 details additional policy tools to tackle local stressors and provides some examples of gaps in implementation at the municipal, state, and national level. 

Key coral reef legislation also requires immediate attention. The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 expired 15 years ago. Reauthorization attempts thus far have either failed or remained stagnant in Congress. Most recently, the Restoring Resilient Reefs Act of 2019 was introduced in both the House of Representatives (H.R. 4160) and the Senate (S. 2429) is a bipartisan and bicameral bill to reauthorize and modernize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. This bill, however, has not yet proceed past the introduction stage. This legislation would a provide a strong base for coordinated national efforts as well as provides $\$$160 million of federal funding for the next five years for domestic reef management, conservation, and restoration. Such increases in funding are desperately needed. For instance, the budget for CRCP has held steady around $\$$27 million per year over the past ten years [69]. This stagnant budget supports work that is becoming increasingly demanding and urgent. Given the vast monetary value that coral reefs represent to the U.S., increasing this and other program budgets would expand their capacity and impact. 

On a global geopolitical level, the U.S. has the potential to influence coral reef management in other regions, as well. The USCRTF has active working groups that address specific issues and produce incredibly detailed global, regional, and local recommendations based on science that need to be considered in national policy. For example, 60% of the aquarium fish trade is imported into the U.S., with almost 90% originating from Pacific regions [70, 71]. While the U.S.AID’s program in the Philippines and Indonesia are working to improve problems around both overfishing and destructive fishing (e.g. cyanide or dynamite fishing), the program’s limited geographic scope and jurisdiction makes it difficult to coordinate and enforce the larger-scale regional efforts that are needed. To address this, the USCRTF has recommended leveraging work with the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and building a strategic partnership with the South Pacific Region Environmental Program [72]. 

More broadly, however, the U.S. is not party to some major international conventions that would benefit coral reef ecosystems:

• The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) defines the rights and responsibilities of countries with respect to ocean use in order to maintain peaceful relations between governments (U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982). Currently, the U.S. has signed but not ratified the agreement, a move that may jeopardize future claims to ocean resources [73]. Within the agreement, the extent of coral reefs is used to help define the limits of territorial seas, and thus the continued loss of reefs has strong implications for future designations of maritime boundaries.

• The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) is a comprehensive agreement between 196 parties dedicated to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Although President Clinton signed the agreement in 1993 and had support from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a Senate vote to ratify it was never held (U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Activities & Reports). The U.S. is party to smaller scale agreements, like the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles and the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife Protocol.

Saving corals: Restoration, conservation, and research efforts

Despite legislative protections against local impacts, coral reefs have continued to deteriorate mainly due to increasing global temperatures and disease [6, 74]–[76]. This widespread loss has prompted large-scale restoration efforts, involving government programs (e.g. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program), non-governmental organizations (e.g. The Nature Conservancy, SECORE International, etc.), academic institutions, and community groups. The Coral Restoration Consortium, which includes international leaders of multiple coral stakeholder groups, provides a collaborative framework that is crucial for successful coral reef restoration on a global scale (crc.reefresilience.org). 

Coral restoration aims to increase the number of healthy adult corals on reefs. However, as corals may reproduce asexually (usually via fragmentation) or sexually, restoration also involves promoting asexual and sexual reproductive processes on reefs to increase coral abundance (Figure 3C) [77, 78]. In the U.S., the largest restoration efforts are in Florida, for the fast-growing staghorn and elkhorn Acropora coral species (the same ones that nearly died out across the Caribbean in 1970s). The Coral Restoration Foundation has led this effort since 2007. To date, the foundation has transplanted over 100,000 coral fragments onto the Florida Reef Tract (www.coralrestoration.org). Coral nurseries in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have also successfully transplanted tens of thousands of coral fragments [79]. Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium (www.mote.org), in addition to managing their own underwater coral nursery, has built upon this effort in recent years by developing a method to micro-fragment and fuse typically slower growing corals, thereby speeding up the cultivation process for other species [80].

While increasing asexual reproduction on reefs can help maintain coral populations, only sexual reproduction can generate new genetic diversity. SECORE International (www.secore.org) is leading global coral restoration efforts by regularly producing millions of coral offspring from naturally released eggs and sperm. Once these newborn corals attach to tiles, they are transplanted onto a natural reef, where in time they can mature and contribute to the next generation [81, 82]. However, restoration success (having transplanted colonies grow and sexually reproduce) is contingent upon the environmental conditions being suitable for corals, since stressors such as poor water quality can significantly reduce fertilization [83, 84] and subsequent bleaching can kill transplanted colonies. Increasing the efficiency of coral restoration, e.g. by transplanting coral colonies that are mostly likely to survive and reproduce, in conjunction with improving local environmental conditions will help managers meet the challenges of continued coral population declines [85].

Despite the benefits restoration can offer at a local scale, the pace of climate change is beyond what most corals can handle. Novel research initiatives exploring the possibilities of assisted evolution in corals and their algal symbionts (Figure 3A), such as selective breeding for heat tolerance, continue to gain traction within science and management communities [2, 95]. Other efforts to save coral diversity include genetic repositories (where live corals are maintained in aquaria or nurseries) and coral sperm banks through cryopreservation [96].

Recent initiatives have shifted focus from individual species to restoring and protecting entire reef ecosystems. NOAA recently launched Mission: Iconic Reefs, which targets seven reefs in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary for multi-phased, active restoration. This will involve removing invasive species and algae, transplanting both fast and slow-growing coral species, and increasing the population of other beneficial species like sea urchins and Caribbean king crabs. Another unprecedented coral conservation project is the 50 Reefs Initiative (led by The Ocean Agency), which identified reefs likely to survive climate change and repopulate nearby reefs once the climate stabilizes [97]. The approach developed by the 50 Reefs Initiative will allow managers to maximize long term conservation benefits while reducing the risks of devoting limited resources to reefs that are unlikely to withstand projected warming and wave damage  from increasingly intense cyclones [97].

Saving corals for the long term: Addressing climate change is our largest policy gap

Even with these monumental restoration and conservation efforts, the predictions for climate change-driven coral reef loss are grim. The 2018 IPCC report warned that 1.5◦C increase in global temperatures would correspond to 70-90% coral reef decline, and a 2◦C rise could result in the loss of greater than 99% of reefs [98]. Aggressive international and domestic commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are necessary if coral reefs are to remain functional ecosystems for the benefit of future generations. We, therefore, find it critical to highlight major policies and agreements surrounding greenhouse gas emissions.

The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401, 1963) and the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency

• 2007 – Massachusetts vs. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants under The Clean Air Act, and should be regulated as such. • 2010 – Tailoring Rule by EPA establishes emission thresholds and a process for permitting carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for large, stationary emitters like power plants (75 F.R. 31513, 2010). • 2014 – Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the jurisdiction of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. • 2015 – Clean Power Plan by EPA established final emission guidelines for states to use in limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power generators (80 F.R. 64661, 2015). • 2017 – Executive Order 13783 by President Trump prompts the EPA to review the Clean Power Plan as a potential burden to the development of domestic energy resources. The formal process to repeal the plan was initiated that year (Executive Order 13783, 2017). • 2019 – Affordable Clean Energy Rule by the EPA replaces the Clean Power Plan, stating that the Clean Power Plan overstepped the authority attributed to the EPA under the Clean Air Act (84 F.R. 32520, 2019). Instead, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule places the responsibility of developing standards for CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired power plants on the states. The rule also points to heat rate improvement measures as the best strategy for reducing emissions, rather than shifting some power generation to renewable energy sources.

The move from the Clean Power Plan (CPP) to the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) demonstrated a clear shift away from federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and federal promotion of renewable energy use. The CPP was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power generation by 32% compared from 2005 levels by 2030 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015). In contrast, the ACE does not set limits on carbon emissions, and instead relies on individual states to take the initiative to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The emission reductions projected under the CPP totaled around 870 million tons, compared to 11 million tons under the ACE (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015, 2019). Given the sensitivity of corals to bleaching under increasing global temperatures caused by elevated greenhouse gas emissions [98] this change in legislation undermines efforts to protect and restore coral reefs.

The lack U.S. leadership in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is further demonstrated by its absence from several international agreements:

• 2012 – Kyoto Protocol operationalizes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by holding industrialized countries to their committed target reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. signed but never ratified the agreement. The Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol includes assigned percentage reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 for individual countries (not including the U.S.), but has not yet entered into force due to the lack of ratification (United Nations, 2012).

• 2015 – The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement strives to limit average global warming to well below 2◦C relative to preindustrial measurements, with an overall goal to keep the temperature increase to a maximum of 1.5◦C (United Nations, 2015). The U.S. president announced the U.S. withdrawal from this agreement in 2017, due to the negative impact it would have on the U.S. economy (Trump, 2017). However, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement takes four years given the start date of November 4, 2016 (United Nations, 2015), so the earliest possible official withdrawal date is not until November 4, 2020.

Progress towards the global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions continues with the carbon market systems established by other parties to the Paris Agreement. The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading System was the first, and continues to be the largest. The EU system functions by setting a cap on the total amount of specific greenhouse gases emitted, which is lowered over time. Individual companies are then assigned emission allowances for free or purchase allowances via auctions, which they can trade amongst each other [99]. The EU is actively supporting China – the country with the highest annual emissions [100] – in the development of a nationwide carbon emissions trading system [101]. Similar carbon markets already exist in the U.S., but only a small minority of states participate [102, 103], limiting realized emission reductions due to the transfer of electricity generation to unregulated sectors [104].

Despite these federal decisions to abstain from strong action against the root cause of climate change, many states have made their own commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the Paris Agreement. The United States Climate Alliance was formed in response to the impending U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, and includes 24 states and Puerto Rico. The U.S. governors in the alliance have promised to enact policies that reduce emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, track and report progress to the international community, and promote clean energy within their states.

Coral reefs are one of our planet’s most valuable ecosystems [5]. The coastal protection, tourism revenue, biodiversity services, and drug discovery potential of coral reefs are worth trillions of dollars annually [105]. The continued loss of coral reef habitat will represent a significant economic cost to many countries around the world, including the U.S.. The recent actions taken by the U.S. government in national and international policy arenas fall short of an effective strategy to address the greatest global threat to reefs: climate change resulting from increased greenhouse gas emissions. As a country with the second highest annual emissions and the highest cumulative emissions since 1751 [100], the U.S. should take a leading role in the battle against climate change, thereby helping preserve coral reefs for current and future generations. Local management efforts should prioritize the protection of coral reef habitats and strive to mitigate local stressors as much as possible. However, a national and international effort to limit the main source of coral death – increasing global temperatures – is imperative for the future survival of these vibrant marine ecosystems.

Rivera H. E., Chan A. N. & Luu V. Coral reefs are critical for our food supply, tourism, and ocean health. We can protect them from climate change. MIT Science Policy Review 1 , 18-33 (2020).

Open Access

This MIT Science Policy Review article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ic

Legislation Cited (in order of appearance in text, then tables)

• Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas, 65 F.R. 34909 (May 26, 2000). https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2000/05/ 31/00-13830/marine-protected-areas

• National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq. (1972).

• Antiquities Act, 54 U.S.C. §§ 320301-320303 (1906).

• Proclamation 8031, Establishment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, 71 F.R. 36441 (June 15, 2006). https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2006/ 06/26/06-5725/establishment-of-thenorthwestern-hawaiian-islands-marinenational-monument

• Proclamation 9478, Papahanaumoku ¯ akea Marine ¯ National Monument Expansion 81 FR 60225 (August 31, 2016). https://www.federalregister. gov/documents/2016/08/31/2016-21138/ papahamacrnaumokuamacrkea-marinenational-monument-expansion

• Proclamation 8336, Establishment of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, 74 F.R. 1565 (January 6, 2009). https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2009/01/ 12/E9-500/establishment-of-the-pacificremote-islands-marine-national-monument

• Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 15 C.F.R. part 922, subpart P; Pub. L. 101–605, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3089, as amended by Pub. L. 102–587, title II, §§2206, 2209, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5053 , 5054.

• Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 56 F.R. 63634, Dec. 5, 1991; 60 F.R. 10312, Feb. 24, 1995; 15 C.F.R. part 922, subpart L; Pub. L. 100–627, title II, §205(a)(2), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3217 ; Pub. L. 102–251, title I, §101, Mar. 9, 1992, 106 Stat. 60 ; Pub. L. 104–283, §8, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3366 .

• Proclamation 8335, Establishment of the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, 74 F.R. 1555 (January 6, 2009). https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2009/01/ 12/E9-496/establishment-of-the-marianastrench-marine-national-monument

• National Marine Sanctuary of American Samoa (former Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary), 51 F.R. 15878, Apr. 29, 1986; 15 C.F.R. part 922, subpart J; 77 F.R. 43942, July 26, 2012, effective Oct. 15, 2012 (see 77 F.R. 65815).

• Proclamation 7399, Establishment of the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument, 3 C.F.R. 7399 (January 17, 2001). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/WCPD-2001-01-22/pdf/WCPD-2001-01-22- Pg156.pdf

• Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Red Hind Spawning Aggregations, 50 C.F.R. § 622 (1996).

• Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coral Reef Resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Amendment 1, 50 C.F.R. § 622 (1999).

• Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection, 63 F.R. 32701 (June 11, 1998). https://www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-06-16/pdf/98- 16161.pdf

• Coral Reef Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 6401 et seq. (2000).

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, March 3rd, 1973, 993 U.N.T.S. 243 [hereinafter CITES].

• Criteria for Amendment of Appendices I and II, Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17), Fort Lauderdale (1994). https://cites.org/sites/default/files/ document/E-Res-09-24-R17.pdf

• Executive Order 13840, Ocean Policy To Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental Interests of the United States, 83 FR 29431 (June 22, 2018). https: //www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/ 06/22/2018-13640/ocean-policy-to-advancethe-economic-security-and-environmentalinterests-of-the-united-states

• Restoring Resilient Reefs Act of 2019. 116 U.S.C. §§ H.R. 4160 et seq. (2019).

• Restoring Resilient Reefs Act of 2019. 116 U.S.C. §§ S.2429 et seq. (2019).

• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397.

• United Nations Convention on on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 69.

• The Clean Air Act of 1963, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 (1963).

• Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

• Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, 40 C.F.R. §§ 51-52 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 70-71, 75 F.R. 31513 (August 2, 2010). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 2010/06/03/2010-11974/prevention-ofsignificant-deterioration-and-title-vgreenhouse-gas-tailoring-rule

• Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 573 U.S. 302 (2014).

• Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (Clean Power Plan), 40 C.F.R. § 60, 80 F.R. 64661 (December 22, 2015). https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/23/ 2015-22842/carbon-pollution-emissionguidelines-for-existing-stationarysources-electric-utility-generating

• Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, 82 F.R. 16093 (March 28, 2017). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 2017/03/31/2017-06576/promoting-energyindependence-and-economic-growth

• Repeal of the Clean Power Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations (Affordable Clean Energy Rule), 40 C.F.R. § 60, 84 F.R. 32520 (September 6, 2019). https://www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2019/07/08/2019-13507/repealof-the-clean-power-plan-emissionguidelines-for-greenhouse-gas-emissionsfrom-existing

• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2015, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule https://epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/ ria/utilities_ria_final-clean-power-planexisting-units_2015-08.pdf

• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2019, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and the Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-06/documents/utilities_ria_ final_cpp_repeal_and_ace_2019-06.pdf

• United Nations, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, C.N.718.2012.TREATIES-XXVII.7.c (December 8, 2012).

• United Nations, Paris Agreement, December 12th, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.

• Trump, D.J. (2017). Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord. https://www.whitehouse. gov/briefings-statements/statementpresident-trump-paris-climate-accord/

• Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1313 et seq. (2000).

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (1972).

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq. (1972).

• The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. (1973).

• Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the Dusky Sea Snake and Three Foreign Corals Under the Endangered Species Act, 50 C.F.R. §§ 223-224, 80 F.R. 60560 (November 6, 2015). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 2015/10/07/2015-25484/endangered-andthreatened-wildlife-and-plants-finalrule-to-list-the-dusky-sea-snake-andthree

• Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Listing Determinations on Proposal to List 66 Reef-Building Coral Species and to Reclassify Elkhorn and Staghorn Corals, 50 C.F.R. § 223, 79 F.R. 53851 (October 10, 2014). https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2014/09/10/ 2014-20814/endangered-and-threatenedwildlife-and-plants-final-listingdeterminations-on-proposal-to-list-66

• Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral, 50 C.F.R. § 223, 71 F.R. 26852 (June 8, 2006). https: //www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/ 05/09/06-4321/endangered-and-threatenedspecies-final-listing-determinations-forelkhorn-coral-and-staghorn-coral

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq. (1976).

• Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (Marine Debris Act), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1951-1958 (2006).

• The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq. and 33 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq. (1988).

• The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (1969).

• Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Restoration Blueprint; Announcement of Public Meetings, 84 F.R. 45728 (August 30, 2019). https://www.federalregister.gov/ documents/2019/08/30/2019-18783/noticeof-availability-of-a-draft-environmentalimpact-statement-for-the-florida-keysnational

• Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq. (1899).

• The Shore Protection Act, 100 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2609 (1988).

• RPPL No. 10-02. House Bill No. 10-22-1, HD1, SD2, PD1. Tenth Olbill Era Kelulau First Regular Session. §2706 (January 2017).

• The Virgin Islands Revenue Enhancement and Economic Recovery Act of 2017. 2 Bill No. 32-0005. §1. (2017).

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Asset Management for Sewer Collection Systems Fact Sheet. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ assetmanagement.pdf

• White House (2018). Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America. https: //www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/02/INFRASTRUCTURE-211.pdf

• The White House (2020). Historic Investment in America’s Infrastructure: A Budget for America’s Future. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/02/FY21-Fact-SheetInfrastructure.pdf

• Water Infrastructure and Improvement Act. 115 U.S.C. H.R.7279 (2019)

• Chapter 403.077. (Florida Statutes 2019)

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection Consent Order OGC No. 16-1487 (2017).http: //www.trbas.com/media/media/acrobat/2017- 09/69895557084220-05111531.pdf

• Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.530 et seq.

[1] Cinner, J. Coral reef livelihoods. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7, 65–71 (2014). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.025.

[2] Anthony, K. et al. New interventions are needed to save coral reefs. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1, 1420–1422 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0313-5.

[3] Normille, D. El Niño’s warmth devastating reefs worldwide. Science 352, 15–16 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.352.6281.15.

[4] Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018). https://doi. org/10.1038/s41586-018-0041-2.

[5] de Groot, R. et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services 1, 50–61 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser. 2012.07.005.

[6] Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377 (2017). https: //doi.org/10.1038/nature21707.

[7] Thompson, J. R., Rivera, H. E., Closek, C. J. & Medina, M. Microbes in the coral holobiont: Partners through evolution, development , and ecological interactions. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 4, 1–20 (2014). https://doi. org/10.3389/fcimb.2014.00176.

[8] Schmidt, T. S., Raes, J. & Bork, P. The Human Gut Microbiome: From Association to Modulation. Cell 172, 1198–1215 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.044.

[9] Woodhead, A. J., Hicks, C. C., Norström, A. V., Williams, G. J. & Graham, N. A. Coral reef ecosystem services in the Anthropocene. Functional Ecology 33, 1023–1034 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13331.

[10] Beck, M. W. et al. The global flood protection savings provided by coral reefs. Nature Communications 9 (2018). https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04568-z.

[11] Inc., W. C. U.S. airports, seaports, & border crossings (2020).

[12] Smith, S. V. Coral-reef area and the contributions of reefs to processes and resources of the world’s oceans. Nature 273, 225–226 (1978).

[13] Fisher, R. et al. Species richness on coral reefs and the pursuit of convergent global estimates. Current Biology 25, 500–505 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub. 2014.12.022.

[14] Bruckner, A. Life-saving products from coral reefs. Issues in Science and Technology 18 (Spring 2002).

[15] Schmidtko, A., Lötsch, J., Freynhagen, R. & Geisslinger, G. Ziconotide for treatment of severe chronic pain. New Drug Class 375, 1569–1577 (2010). https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0140-6736(10)60354-6.

[16] Lopez, Y., Cepas, V. & Soto, S. M. The marine ecosystem as a source of antibiotics. In Rampelotto, P. H. & Trincone, A. (eds.) Grand Challenges in Marine Biotechnology, chap. 1, 3–48 (Springer International Publishing, 2018). https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69075-9_9.

[17] Green, D. W., Ben-Nissan, B., Yoon, K. S., Milthorpe, B. & Jung, H. S. Natural and Synthetic Coral Biomineralization for Human Bone Revitalization. Trends in Biotechnology 35, 43–54 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2016.10.003.

[18] Altmann, K. H. Drugs from the oceans: Marine natural products as leads for drug discovery. Chimia 71, 646–651 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2533/chimia.2017.646.

[19] Jiménez, C. Marine Natural Products in Medicinal Chemistry. ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters 9, 959–961 (2018). https: //doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.8b00368.

[20] FAO. The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture 2018 – Meeting the sustainable development goals. Tech. Rep., United Nations, Rome, Italy (2018).

[21] Brander, L. & Van Beukering, P. The Total Economic Value of U.S. Coral Reefs: A Review of the Literature. Tech. Rep., NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, Silver Spring, MD (2013). URL https://www.ncei.noaa. gov/data/oceans/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/other/ other_crcp_publications/TEV_US_Coral_Reefs_ Literature_Review_2013.pdf.

[22] Authority, G. B. R. M. P. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2019. Tech. Rep., Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia (2019). URL http://elibrary.gbrmpa.gov.au/jspui/bitstream/ 11017/3474/10/Outlook-Report-2019-FINAL.pdf.

[23] Spalding, M. et al. Mapping the global value and distribution of coral reef tourism. Marine Policy 82, 104–113 (2017). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.014.

[24] Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Pendleton, L. & Kaup, A. People and the changing nature of coral reefs. Regional Studies in Marine Science 30, 100699 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rsma.2019.100699.

[25] Glynn, P. W. Coral reef bleaching: Ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs 12, 1–17 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00303779.

[26] Davy, S. K., Allemand, D. & Weis, V. M. Cell Biology of Cnidarian-Dinoflagellate Symbiosis. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 76, 229–261 (2012). https:// doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.05014-11.

[27] Heron, S. F., Maynard, J. A., van Hooidonk, R. & Eakin, C. M. Warming trends and bleaching stress of the world’s coral reefs 1985–2012. Scientific Reports 6, 38402 (2016). https:// doi.org/10.1038/srep38402.

[28] Sully, S., Burkepile, D. E., Donovan, M. K., Hodgson, G. & van Woesik, R. A global analysis of coral bleaching over the past two decades. Nature Communications 10, 1264 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09238-2.

[29] Barkley, H. C. et al. Repeat bleaching of a central Pacific coral reef over the past six decades (1960-2016). Nature Biology Communications 1, 177 (2018). https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s42003-018-0183-7.

[30] Halpern, B. S. et al. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488, 615–620 (2012). https: //doi.org/10.1038/nature11397.

[31] Bikes, S. N. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef suffers most extensive coral bleaching (2020). URL https://news. trust.org/item/20200604055724-nbjg4/.

[32] Hughes, T. P. et al. Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301, 929–33 (2003). URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12920289. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1085046.

[33] Hughes, T. P. et al. Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene. Science 359, 80–83 (2018). URL www.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/ 80/suppl/DC1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aan8048.

[34] Green, E. P. & Bruckner, A. W. The significance of coral disease epizootiology for coral reef conservation. Biological Conservation 96, 347–361. https://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/S0006-3207(00)00073-2.

[35] Gladfelter, W. B. White-band disease in Acropora palmata: Implications for the sturucture and growth of shallow reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 32, 639–643 (1982).

[36] Walton, C. J., Hayes, N. K. & Gilliam, D. S. Impacts of a regional, multi-year, multi-species coral disease outbreak in Southeast Florida. Frontiers in Marine Science 5, 1–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00323.

[37] Leggat, W. P. et al. Rapid Coral Decay Is Associated with Marine Heatwave Mortality Events on Reefs. Current Biology 29, 2723–2730.e4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cub.2019.06.077.

[38] Redding, J. E. et al. Link between sewage-derived nitrogen pollution and coral disease severity in Guam. Marine Pollution Bulletin 73, 57–63 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2013.06.002.

[39] Miller, M. W. et al. Detecting sedimentation impacts to coral reefs resulting from dredging the Port of Miami, Florida USA. PeerJ 2016, 1–19 (2016). https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.2711.

[40] Cunning, R., Silverstein, R. N., Barnes, B. B. & Baker, A. C. Extensive coral mortality and critical habitat loss following dredging and their association with remotely-sensed sediment plumes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 145, 185–199 (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.027.

[41] Vega Thurber, R. L. et al. Chronic nutrient enrichment increases prevalence and severity of coral disease and bleaching. Global change biology 20, 544–54 (2014). https://doi.org/10. 1111/gcb.12450.

[42] Maynard, J. et al. Projections of climate conditions that increase coral disease susceptibility and pathogen abundance and virulence. Nature Climate Change 5, 688–694 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2625.

[43] Doney, S. C., Fabry, V. J., Feely, R. A. & Kleypas, J. A. Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem. Annual Review of Marine Science 1, 169–192 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.marine.010908.163834.

[44] Cyronak, T., Schulz, K. G., Santos, I. R. & Eyre, B. D. Enhanced acidification of global coral reefs driven by regional biogeochemical feedbacks. Geophysical Prospecting 41, 6413–6419 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/ 2014GL061184.Received.

[45] Pandolfi, J. M., Connolly, S. R., Marshall, D. J. & Cohen, A. L. Projecting coral reef futures under global warming and ocean acidification. Science 333, 418–22 (2011). https://doi. org/10.1126/science.1204794.

[46] Feely, R. A. et al. Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science 305, 362–366 (2004). https: //doi.org/10.1126/science.1097329.

[47] DeCarlo, T. M. et al. Coral macrobioerosion is accelerated by ocean acidification and nutrients. Geology 43, 7–10 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1130/G36147.1.

[48] Kurihara, H. Effects of CO2-driven ocean acidification on the early developmental stages of invertebrates. Marine Ecology Progress Series 373, 275–284 (2008). https://doi.org/ 10.3354/meps07802.

[49] Schunter, C. et al. An interplay between plasticity and parental phenotype determines impacts of ocean acidification on a reef fish. Nature Ecology and Evolution 2, 334–342 (2018). https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0428-8.

[50] Davies, S. W., Marchetti, A., Ries, J. B. & Castillo, K. D. Thermal and pCO2 stress elicit divergent transcriptomic responses in a resilient coral. Frontiers in Marine Science 3, 112 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00112.

[51] Foster, T. et al. Dredging and port construction around coral reefs. Tech. Rep., United Nations Environmental Program – PIANC (2010). URL https://www.unepwcmc.org/system/dataset_file_fields/files/000/ 000/099/original/2010_PIANC_Dredging_and_port_ construction_around_coral_reefs_Report_108- 2010_FINAL_VERSION_LowRes.pdf?1398441422.

[52] Valadez-Rocha, V. & Ortiz-Lozano, L. Spatial and temporal effects of port facilities expansion on the surface area of shallow coral reefs. Environmental Management 52, 250–260 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0098-5.

[53] Mora, C., Graham, N. A. & Nyström, M. Ecological limitations to the resilience of coral reefs. Coral Reefs 35, 1271–1280 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-016-1479-z.

[54] Madin, E. M. P. Land reclamation: Halt reef destruction in South China Sea. Nature 524, 291 (2015). https://doi.org/10. 1038/524291a.

[55] McCook, L. J. Macroalgae, nutrients and phase shifts on coral reefs: scientific issues and management consequences for the Great Barrier Reef. Coral Reefs 18, 357–367 (1999). https: //doi.org/10.1007/s003380050213.

[56] Hughes, T. P. et al. Phase shifts, herbivory, and the resilience of coral reefs to climate change. Current Biology 17, 360–365 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub. 2006.12.049.

[57] Stamski, R. E. & Field, M. E. Characterization of sediment trapped by macroalgae on a Hawaiian reef flat. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 66, 211–216 (2006). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2005.08.010.

[58] Yang, X. et al. Treated Wastewater Changes the Export of Dissolved Inorganic Carbon and Its Isotopic Composition and Leads to Acidification in Coastal Oceans. Environmental Science and Technology 52, 5590–5599 (2018). https:// doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00273.

[59] Burkepile, D. E. & Hay, M. E. Impact of Herbivore Identity on Algal Succession and Coral Growth on a Caribbean Reef. Plos One 5, e8963 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0008963.

[60] Burkepile, D. E. & Hay, M. E. Nutrient versus herbivore control of macroalgal community development and coral growth on a Caribbean reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 389, 71–84 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08142.

[61] Mumby, P. J. Stratifying herbivore fisheries by habitat to avoid ecosystem overfishing of coral reefs. Journal of Time Series Analysis 35, 266–278 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/ faf.12078.

[62] Luckhurst, B. E. & Farrell, S. O. Rapid Recovery of Parrotfish (Scaridae) and Surgeonfish (Acanthuridae) Populations Following the Fish Pot Ban in Bermuda. Proceedings of 66th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 301–306 (2013).

[63] Katikiro, R. E. & Mahenge, J. J. Fishers’ Perceptions of the Recurrence of Dynamite-Fishing Practices on the Coast of Tanzania. Frontiers in Marine Science 3, 233 (2016). https: //doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00233.

[64] Pet-Soede, L. & Erdmann, M. An overview and comparison of destructive fishing practices in Indonesia. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 28–36 (1998). URL http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/ InfoBull/LRF/4/LRF4{_}28{_}Pet-Soede.pdf.

[65] Selig, E. R. & Bruno, J. F. A global analysis of the effectiveness of marine protected areas in preventing coral loss. PLoS ONE 5, e9278 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0009278.

[66] Richardson, M. Protecting America’s Pacific Marine Monuments: A Review of Threats and Law Enforcement Issues. Tech. Rep., Marine Conservation Institute (2012).

[67] Edgar, G. J. et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506, 216–220 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature13022.

[68] Pittman, S. J. et al. Marine Protected Areas of the US Virgin Islands: Ecological Performance Report. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 187 (2014). URL https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/coris/ library/NOAA/CRCP/project/538/MPAs_Working_ Final_tagged_LQ.pdf.

[69] NOAA. FY10-FY20 Budget Blue Book Summary – NOAA. Tech. Rep., NOAA, Washinton DC, USA.

[70] Rhyne, A. L. et al. Revealing the Appetite of the Marine Aquarium Fish Trade: The Volume and Biodiversity of Fish Imported into the United States. PLoS ONE 7, e35808 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035808.

[71] Rhyne, A. L., Tlusty, M. F., Szczebak, J. T. & Holmberg, R. J. Expanding our understanding of the trade in marine aquarium animals. PeerJ 2017, e2949 (2017). https://doi.org/10. 7717/peerj.2949.

[72] NOAA. South East Asia Subgroup Report to the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. Tech. Rep. URL https://www. coralreef.gov/international/mainb.html.

[73] Gavrilov, V., Dremliuga, R. & Nurimbetov, R. Article 234 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the law of the sea and reduction of ice cover in the Arctic Ocean. Marine Policy 106, 103518 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol. 2019.103518.

[74] Precht, W. F., Gintert, B. E., Robbart, M. L., Fura, R. & Van Woesik, R. Unprecedented disease-related coral mortality in southeastern Florida. Scientific Reports 6, 31374 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31374.

[75] Van Woesik, R. & Randall, C. J. Coral disease hotspots in the Caribbean. Ecosphere 8, e01814 (2017). https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ecs2.1814.

[76] Muller, E. M., Bartels, E. & Baums, I. B. Bleaching causes loss of disease resistance within the threatened coral species Acropora cervicornis. eLife 7, e35066 (2018). URL https: //doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35066.001. https://doi. org/10.7554/eLife.35066.001.

[77] Highsmith, R. C. Reproduction by fragmentation in corals. Marine Ecology Progress Series 7, 207–226 (1982).

[78] Richmond, R. H. & Hunter, C. L. Reproduction and recruitment of corals: comparisons among the Caribbean, the Tropical Pacific, and the Red Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 60, 185–203 (1990).

[79] Moulding, A. L., Griffin, S. P., Nemeth, M. I. & Ray, E. C. Caribbean Acropora Outplanting in U.S. Jurisdiction: 1993-2017. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SER-10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.25923/n4tx-1a30.

[80] Forsman, Z. H., Page, C. A., Toonen, R. J. & Vaughan, D. Growing coral larger and faster: micro-colony-fusion as a strategy for accelerating coral cover. PeerJ 3, e1313 (2015). https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1313.

[81] Chamberland, V. F. et al. Restoration of critically endangered elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata) populations using larvae reared from wild-caught gametes. Global Ecology and Conservation 4, 526–537 (2015). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.gecco.2015.10.005.

[82] Chamberland, V. F. et al. Four-year-old Caribbean Acropora colonies reared from field-collected gametes are sexually mature. Bulletin of Marine Science 92, 263–264 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5343/bms.2015.1074.

[83] Harrison, P. L. & Ward, S. Elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus reduce fertilisation success of gametes from scleractinian reef corals. Marine Biology 139, 1057–1068 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270100668.

[84] Hédouin, L. & Gates, R. D. Assessing fertilization success of the coral Montipora capitata under copper exposure: Does the night of spawning matter? Marine Pollution Bulletin 66, 221–224 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.marpolbul.2012.11.020.

[85] Baums, I. B. et al. Considerations for maximizing the adaptive potential of restored coral populations in the western Atlantic. Ecological Applications 29, 1–23 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1002/eap.1978.

[86] D’Angelo, C. & Wiedenmann, J. Impacts of nutrient enrichment on coral reefs: New perspectives and implications for coastal management and reef survival. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 7, 82–93 (2014). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.029.

[87] Singh, G. G. et al. Scientific shortcomings in environmental impact statements internationally. People and Nature 2, 369–379 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3. 10081.

[88] Hollick, M. Environmental Impact Assessment: An International Evaluation. Environmental Management 10, 157–178 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867355.

[89] Edwards, P. E. Sustainable financing for ocean and coastal management in Jamaica: The potential for revenues from tourist user fees. Marine Policy 33, 376–385 (2009). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.08.005.

[90] Lapointe, B. E. et al. Macroalgal blooms on southeast Florida coral reefs: I. Nutrient stoichiometry of the invasive green alga Codium isthmocladum in the wider Caribbean indicates nutrient enrichment. Harmful Algae 4, 1092–1105 (2005). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2005.06.004.

[91] Wear, S. L. & Thurber, R. V. Sewage pollution: Mitigation is key for coral reef stewardship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1355, 15–30 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/ nyas.12785.

[92] Naylor, B. Trump and democrats agree to $2 trillion infrastructure package (2019). https://www.npr.org/ 2019/04/30/718677236/trump-and-democratsagree-on-2-trillion-for-infrastructure-butnot-on-how-to-pay.

[93] Helland, E. The enforcement of pollution control laws: Inspections, violations, and self-reporting. Review of Economics and Statistics 80, 1410153 (1998). https://doi. org/10.1162/003465398557249.

[94] Schwarz, W. Implementing a successful I&I removal program in fort lauderdale, FL. In Pipelines 2009: Infrastructure’s Hidden Assets – Proceedings of the Pipelines 2009 Conference, vol. 360, 731–740 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1061/ 41069(360)68.

[95] van Oppen, M. J. H., Oliver, J. K., Putnam, H. M. & Gates, R. D. Building coral reef resilience through assisted evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 2307–2313 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1422301112.

[96] Hagedorn, M. et al. Producing Coral Offspring with Cryopreserved Sperm: A Tool for Coral Reef Restoration. Scientific Reports 7, 1–9 (2017). https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41598-017-14644-x.

[97] Beyer, H. L. et al. Risk-sensitive planning for conserving coral reefs under rapid climate change. Conservation Letters 11, 1–10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12587.

[98] Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Impacts of 1.5C of Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems (2018).

[99] EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) | Climate Action. URL https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets{_}en.

[100] Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. Co and greenhouse gas emissions. Our World in Data (2017). URL https://ourworldindata. org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

[101] EUCHINA-ETS: EU-China Emission Trading System.

[102] The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: an initiative of the New England and Mid-Atlantic States of the U.S. URL https:// www.rggi.org/.

[103] California Air Resources Board: California Cap-and-Trade Program. URL https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/ programs/cap-and-trade-program.

[104] Fell, H. & Maniloff, P. Leakage in regional environmental policy: The case of the regional greenhouse gas initiative. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 87, 1–23 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.10.007.

[105] Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change 26, 152–158 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2014.04.002.

Hanny E. Rivera

Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA

Andrea N. Chan

Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Victoria Luu

Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes

5 In-Flight Movies and Series for Food-Focused Travelers

Get amped up for your next delicious destination with food-focused film in-flight.

atosan / Getty Images

Everyone loves a good plane flick. And it’s even better when it’s a movie or show that whets your appetite for a delicious meal or showcases good old-fashioned competition. Besides making the journey go by faster, the best onboard entertainment can serve as a recipe to eat, drink, and travel better. Here are five programs that do exactly that at 35,000 feet.

Hot tip: With high-speed Wi-Fi in the sky, you can even make that last minute restaurant reservation before landing. 

Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations

James Keivom / NY Daily News Archive / Getty Images

The late Bourdain is a legend in food and travel television. Watching No Reservations on a flight is one of the premier ways to get your fix of, well, food and travel — all before even getting to your destination. From Botswana to Bolivia (and dozens of places in between), it all comes with Bourdain’s no holds barred style and his ability to connect with the local flavor of a place. By the end of an episode, viewers are forced to stop, think, and reflect about the intricate socioeconomic balance of food, travel, and yes, politics. About to land in a place that’s featured in an episode onboard? Even better. 

Beat Bobby Flay

Food Network/ Warner Bros.

By all measures, Bobby Flay is a Food Network celebrity. From Iron Chef America to Worst Cooks in America (and many programs in between), Flay has had a stranglehold on food program aficionados. With Beat Bobby Flay, the premise is a rather simple one: two chefs, often up-and-coming ones from across the U.S., compete for the chance to cook against Flay. The show not only spotlights the cuisine and signature dishes from cities around the world, but also the individual restaurants and people who make it happen. It’s cooking entertainment that will have you on the edge of your (airplane) seat, if you’re into that sort of thing. 

Food Network / Warner Bros.

Enjoy traveling spontaneously? Then Chopped may be your ideal onboard culinary entertainment. Host Ted Allen guides four chefs across several rounds of cooking — from appetizer to dessert — to see what they can make all on the fly. Each course comes with a mystery basket, often containing a potpourri of (sometimes outlandish) ingredients that must be featured in the dish. With a clock ticking, the competition can get ferocious. For viewers, it’s a glimpse into the frantic nature of chefs in the kitchen and a way to witness their creativity on full display. 

Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images

Gordon Ramsey is to restaurants as Jon Taffer is to bars. This reality series showcases venues from across the U.S. that are on the brink of collapse; that is, until Taffer and his team come in to save the day (and the business). From celebrity chefs to expert mixologists, there’s a lot that goes on to help upright a sinking ship. 

Jaap Buittendijk / Warner Bros. Pictures

There’s an element of fantasy in Wonka that feels ethereal. It’s kind of like how you may feel when looking out of an airplane window, dreaming as the world shapeshifts below. The film is obviously a classic, but this time it’s remade into a whimsical musical about a young Wonka — played by Timothée Chalamet — trying to succeed as a chocolatier. For travelers looking to escape, this is the movie to watch.

Related Articles

site categories

Bob iger says netflix-like password sharing plan on disney+ will start in june – update.

• ‘Destination X’ Greenlit At NBC; U.S. Version Of Travel Adventure Competition To Be Produced By Twofour For 2025 Launch

By Peter White

Peter White

Executive Editor, Television

More Stories By Peter

• ‘Avatar: The Last Airbender’: Exec Producers Christine Boylan & Jabbar Raisani To Lead Show As Albert Kim Moves On
• Universal Studio Group Taps Former eOne Exec Blossom Lefcourt As Global Head of Business Affairs

Adventure travel series Destination X has been officially picked up to series by NBC .

The show is expected to air on the network in 2025 and the U.S. version of the Belgian format will be produced by production company Twofour , which is also making a separate British version for the BBC.

Related Stories

'Reluctant Traveler' Producer Twofour Staffs Up; Cineflix Readies Kurt Cobain Doc; APC Studios Names Sales Chief; ITV '99 To Beat' -- Global Briefs

'Chicago Fire' Adds Michael Bradway To Season 12

The BBC greenlit its own version last year with Twofour producing.

It is a similar model employed on breakout mystery format The Traitors.

Destination X sees a group of contestants go on the road trip of a lifetime but they have no idea of their location. In order to win, they must figure out their mystery locations. Once they’re on the blacked-out Destination X bus, the journey turns into a real-life game board, with challenges designed to offer clues as to their location, along with a few misdirects to keep them guessing.  

At the end of each episode, the contestant who places an X on a map furthest from the actual location packs their bags. The first participant to reach Destination X will be crowned the winner.

Twofour, which is owned by British broadcaster ITV, is behind series such as Apple TV+’s The Reluctant Traveller . It will co-produce the NBC version with Universal Television Alternative Studio. Production will begin later this year.

Caroline Davies, Andy Cadman, Dan Adamson and David Clews will exec produce the NBC version.

“ Destination X is one of the most unique and innovative formats we’ve seen in a long time, and it’s so big we partnered with the BBC again to shoot two shows at once,” said Corie Henson, EVP, Unscripted Programming, NBCUniversal Television and Streaming. “This show is an epic international travel adventure combined with the ultimate guessing game. Even if you’ve never been on a plane, you can play along.”

“The entire Twofour team couldn’t be more proud to have won the tender to produce this incredible adventure format, particularly given the pedigree of the other companies in the process,” said Dan Adamson, Twofour MD. “Our editorial ambition for this project is fortunately matched by our best-in-class production team, who constantly make the impossible possible. We are excited to be on this journey with our talented producing partners at UTAS and grateful to the brilliant commissioning teams at both NBCU and the BBC for the hard work and creativity they have already put into the process.”

Must Read Stories

‘quiet on set’ filmmakers on docuseries response, episode 5 & toxic kids tv.

‘Monkey Man’ Nets $1.4M In Thursday Previews; ‘First Omen’ $725K

‘game of thrones’ spinoff ‘hedge knight’ finds its dunk and egg, electionline / pod guest karine jean-pierre on potus, mcconaughey, more.

Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy.

Read More About:

No comments.

Deadline is a part of Penske Media Corporation. © 2024 Deadline Hollywood, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

• Programmes Consumer Information for SCP Sustainable Buildings and Construction Sustainable Food Systems Sustainable Lifestyles & Education Sustainable Public Procurement Sustainable Tourism
• Network Members Directory Organisations

Food waste reduction

Online training series on sustainable food in tourism.

• About Members Annual reports Logo use Contact us
• Knowledge Centre
• News & events
• GLOBAL ROADMAP
• TOOLS AND RESOURCES
• AWARENESS RAISING TOOLKIT
• NEWS AND EVENTS
• TOURISM AND FOOD

Sustainable food production and consumption is one of the most important levers to protect planet and people. One reason for this is the constantly and rapidly growing demand for food in a world whose population is expected to grow to over 9 billion people by 2050. At the same time, food producers around the world often do not receive a fair share of the global food trade and in many cases work under poor conditions. Additional pressure comes from greenhouse gas emissions caused by food production, which play a crucial role in climate change. Furthermore, the health aspect of food is a major concern, especially in modern societies, and rapid socio-cultural change raises the issue of protecting food cultures and traditions. While food consumption is considered by most tourists to be an important part of their trip, unsustainable food consumption can cause harm to tourists, locals, and destinations in general. Overuse of scarce resources, excessive food waste, and poor working conditions are some examples of areas where tourist food consumption has negative consequences for a destination. This online training series promotes the understanding and management of food in a holistic, sustainable way to ensure the future success of tourism businesses around the world.

Online Training Series on Sustainable Food in Tourism: The Fundamentals

Sustainable tourism.

Online Training Series on Sustainable Food in Tourism: Procurement

Online Training Series on Sustainable Food in Tourism: Service and Guest Communication

Online Training Series on Sustainable Food in Tourism: Waste Management

Online Training Series on Alimentación sostenible en el turismo (in Spanish)

Select a language.

The largest fresh egg producer in the US has found bird flu in chickens at a Texas plant

The largest fresh egg producer in the U.S. says it has stopped production at a plant in the Texas Panhandle after bird flu was found in the flock

The largest producer of fresh eggs in the U.S. said Tuesday it had temporarily halted production at a Texas plant after bird flu was found in chickens, and officials said the virus had also been detected at a poultry facility in Michigan.

Ridgeland, Mississippi-based Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in a statement that approximately 1.6 million laying hens and 337,000 pullets, about 3.6% of its total flock, were destroyed after the infection, avian influenza, was found at a facility in Parmer County, Texas.

The plant is on the Texas-New Mexico border in the Texas Panhandle about 85 miles (137 kilometers) southwest of Amarillo and about 370 miles (595 kilometers) northwest of Dallas. Cal-Maine said it sells most of its eggs in the Southwestern, Southeastern, Midwestern and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States.

“The Company continues to work closely with federal, state and local government officials and focused industry groups to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks and effectively manage the response,” the statement said.

"Cal-Maine Foods is working to secure production from other facilities to minimize disruption to its customers," the statement said.

The company said there is no known bird flu risk associated with eggs that are currently in the market and no eggs have been recalled.

Eggs that are properly handled and cooked are safe to eat, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The announcement by Cal-Maine comes a day after state health officials said a person had been diagnosed with bird flu after being in contact with cows presumed to be infected, and that the risk to the public remains low. The human case in Texas marks the first known instance globally of a person catching this version of bird flu from a mammal, federal health officials said.

In Michigan, Michigan State University’s Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory has detected bird flu in a commercial poultry facility in Ionia County, according to the Michigan’s Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

The county is about 100 miles (161 kilometers) northwest of Detroit.

The department said it received confirmation of the disease Monday from the lab and that it is the fourth time since 2022 that the disease was detected at a commercial facility in Michigan.

Department spokesperson Jennifer Holton said Tuesday that state law prohibits the department from disclosing the type of poultry at the facility. The facility has been placed under quarantine and the department does not anticipate any disruptions to supply chains across the state, Holton said.

Dairy cows in Texas and Kansas were reported to be infected with bird flu last week — and federal agriculture officials later confirmed infections in a Michigan dairy herd that had recently received cows from Texas. A dairy herd in Idaho has been added to the list after federal agriculture officials confirmed the detection of bird flu in them, according to a Tuesday press release from the USDA.

_____ Associated Press writer Corey Williams in Detroit contributed to this report.

Top Stories

East Coast rocked by one of its largest earthquakes in the last century

• 2 hours ago

How a social media feud led to a couple's murder

• Apr 5, 12:09 PM

Millions of Tide Pods, Gain Flings and more laundry detergent packets recalled

• 4 hours ago

How to photograph April 8's solar eclipse whether with a camera or a smartphone

• Apr 5, 5:06 AM

Judge in Trump hush money case quashes last-minute defense subpoena

Abc news live.

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

Cal-Maine Foods, largest producer of eggs in US, finds bird flu in chickens at Texas plant

Chickens at a plant in texas' panhandle have tested positive bird flu resulting in the slaughter of 1.6 million hens and 337,000 pullets (young hens)..

The largest supplier of eggs in the United States halted production after chickens at a Texas plant tested positive for the highly contagious bird flu - the latest in a spike of cases across the nation.

Cal-Maine Foods on Tuesday announced chickens at its facility in Parmer County, in the state's southwestern panhandle, tested positive for pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) resulting in slaughter of nearly 2 million chickens − 1.6 million hens and 337,000 pullets (young hens).

The announcement less than 24 hours after   the Centers for Disease Control reported a person in Texas had been infected with the virus after coming into close contact with dairy cattle and just over a week after  sick dairy cattle in Texas and Kansas tested positive for the virus .

The culled Texas chickens represent about 3.6% of the company’s total flock as of Tuesday, the supplier wrote in a news release.

Production at the Texas facility temporarily ceased while the company follows the protocols prescribed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the company said.

Bird flu is spreading in a few states: Keeping your bird feeders clean can help

Cal-Maine Foods is largest producer of eggs in the nation

Headquartered in Ridgeland, Mississippi, Cal-Maine Foods is the largest producer and distributor of fresh shell eggs in the nation and said it sells most of its eggs in states across the Southwest, Southeast, Midwest and MidAtlantic.

The company said it "remains dedicated to robust biosecurity programs across its locations; however, no farm is immune from HPAI. HPAI is still present in the wild bird population and the extent of possible future outbreaks, with heightened risk during the migration seasons, cannot be predicted."

Cal-Maine Foods said it was working "to secure production from other facilities" to minimize disruption to its customers.

Human case of bird flu found in Texas: Case comes on heels of outbreak of virus among cattle

Person infected with bird flu in Texas

In a separate news alert this week, the  Texas Department of State Health Services reported the patient became "ill following contact with cows presumed to be infected with avian influenza" and that their primary symptom was conjunctivitis, also known as pink eye.

The person who tested positive for bird flu in Texas is only the second known human case in the United States, state and federal officials said this week.

Bird flu in dairy cattle in Kansas, Texas

Last week the USDA announced last week HPAI had been found in unpasteurized clinical samples of milk from ill cows at two dairy farms in Kansas and one in Texas, plus a swab from a dairy cow in Texas.

Wild migratory birds are believed to be the source of the infection, the USDA said, and viral testing and epidemiologic efforts remained underway.

What is bird flu? 

Bird flu is a disease caused by a family of flu viruses primarily transmitted among birds.

Avian influenza viruses, according to the CDC and USDA, are classified into two groups: low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) ( often seen in wild birds)  and HPAI, found mostly in domestic poultry. According to the CDC, LPAI viruses cause mild or no disease, and HPAI cause severe disease and high mortality rates in infected birds.

Bird flu has  cost the government roughly $660 million  and in recent times raised the price of eggs and poultry.  At least 58 million birds were slaughtered  last year to limit the spread of the virus.

Bird flu spread to humans is low risk, USDA says

The  first case of avian influenza in a person i n the United States was reported in Colorado in April 2022.

Federal and state health authorities are investigating the outbreaks, and the USDA said the risk to the general public contracting is low as the viruses have only rarely been transmitted from person to person.

"However, people with close contact with affected animals suspected of having avian influenza A have a higher risk of infection," Texas health officials wrote in a news alert earlier this week.

Bird flu symptoms in humans

Human infection with the bird flu can happen during close contact with infected birds or when people touch sick birds or their saliva, mucus and feces, the CDC said. People contract the virus when it gets into a their eyes, nose or mouth, or when it is inhaled.

Those who contract the virus often experience mild illnesses including an eye infection and upper respiratory symptoms or no symptoms at all, while others can develop a severe sometimes fatal disease like pneumonia.

Escape on horseback goes south: Video shows suspect trying to outrun police on horseback before being caught

What are signs of bird flu?

Indications  a bird may be infected  with avian influenza include:

• Loss of appetite, lethargy
• Sudden death without prior symptoms
• Eyelid swelling
• Twisting of the head and neck
• Purple discoloration to body parts including waddle and legs

Natalie Neysa Alund is a senior reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at [email protected] and follow her on X @nataliealund.

FIRST ON WTOP: Popular Mister Days sports bar set to return to Clarendon 5 years after closing

ESPN executive Norby Williamson leaving network after nearly 40 years

The Associated Press

April 5, 2024, 4:12 PM

• Share This:
• share on facebook
• share on threads
• share on linkedin
• share on email

BRISTOL, Conn. (AP) — Norby Williamson, ESPN’s head of event and studio production, is leaving the network after nearly 40 years.

The move was announced in a memo on Friday by Burke Magnus, the network’s president for content. The move was first reported by the New York Post.

Williamson had overseen ESPN’s studio content — including “SportsCenter” — as well as NFL and college football.

Williamson was also involved in the controversy in early January between Pat McAfee, Aaron Rodgers and Jimmy Kimmel.

Rodgers implied during a Jan. 2 appearance on McAfee’s show that comic Jimmy Kimmel’s name might appear on a list of associates of Jeffrey Epstein , a millionaire accused of sex trafficking involving underage victims before he died by suicide.

The war of words between Kimmel and Rodgers resulted in some tension between McAfee and ESPN. McAfee accused Williamson of trying to “sabotage” his program and claimed Williamson had no respect for him.

AP sports: https://apnews.com/sports

Copyright © 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

Related News

Clemson Spring: Tigers seeking players to make big-time plays on revived offense

Tyler Van Dyke savors fresh start as he competes for Wisconsin QB job after transferring from Miami

Texas Tech ends spring early for QB Behren Morton as 2024 starter recovers from shoulder issue

Recommended.

Biden tours collapsed Baltimore bridge as clearing proceeds and declares 'your nation has your back'

Woman found dead in Prince George's Co. was stabbed to death, handcuffed. Her son is charged in the disturbing slaying

This popular Arlington sports bar is coming back 5 years after closing

Related categories:.