Demonstrates stakeholder perceptions influence management outcomes in Pinctada radiata, suggesting a need for collaborative approaches.
Understanding how governance systems respond to ecological complexity requires analytical approaches that capture both biophysical interactions and stakeholders’ interpretations of causal relationships within socio-ecological systems. In the Eastern Mediterranean, the Indo-Pacific pearl oyster, Pinctada radiata, poses a governance challenge because it is simultaneously perceived as a non-indigenous species, an ecosystem engineer, and a livelihood resource. This study develops the Causal Cognitive–Institutional Architecture (CICA) for marine governance. Using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM), it formalises stakeholder reasoning and socio-economic interactions. Stakeholder-specific causal maps were constructed for fishers, scientists, and government officials. The resulting models reveal distinct but complementary causal logics: fishers emphasise stewardship, collaboration, and livelihood security; scientists prioritise ecological stability, environmental change sensitivity, and habitat impacts; and government officials primarily emphasise regulatory coherence and enforcement. These stakeholder-specific maps were then integrated into a unified governance model using a weighted linear fusion procedure. The unified FCM identifies collaboration, community education, and environmental change sensitivity as highly influential cross-domain concepts, while institutional trust emerges as a fragile but consequential governance variable. Scenario simulations indicate that interventions targeting collaborative and learning-oriented mechanisms generate broader stabilising responses across the system than enforcement-centred interventions alone. The CICA–FCM framework provides a transparent diagnostic approach for identifying governance bottlenecks, integrating heterogeneous stakeholder reasoning, and supporting adaptive management of P. radiata under ecological uncertainty.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dimitris et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: