Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping of Stakeholder Governance Perceptions: A Causal Architecture for Managing Pinctada radiata in the Eastern Mediterranean

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Adaptive management / Institutional analysis / Marine governance / Socio-ecological systems / Stakeholder cognition

Statement of the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process

AI-assisted tools were used only to support language editing and editorial clarity. The authors reviewed, verified, and approved all AI-assisted changes and remained fully responsible for the scientific content, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participating fishers, scientists, and government officials from Evia Island for their valuable insights, collaboration, and contribution to this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.P. and D.K.; Methodology, D.P.; Software, D.P.; Validation, D.P. and D.K.; Formal analysis, D.P.; Investigation, D.P. and D.K.; Resources, D.K.; Data curation, D.P.; Writing original draft preparation, D.P.; Writing review and editing, D.K.; Visualization, D.P.; Supervision, D.K.; Project administration, D.P.; Funding acquisition, not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because it involved anonymous, non-sensitive, non-interventional, questionnaire-based stakeholder elicitation. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Hellenic National Commission for Bioethics and Technoethics and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, Regulation (EU) 2016/679). No sensitive personal data, health-related information, biological samples, vulnerable participants, or personally identifiable questionnaire responses were collected. Participation was voluntary and based on informed consent. All responses were anonymised before analysis and reported only at the stakeholder-group level; therefore, no individual participant can be identified in the dataset, results, tables, or figures.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants before questionnaire completion. Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the anonymous treatment of their responses, and their right not to answer any question. No personally identifiable questionnaire responses were collected, and all data were analysed and reported only in aggregated form.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available because they contain stakeholder questionnaire responses that, although anonymised, relate to specific professional stakeholder groups and governance perceptions. Access may be provided for legitimate research purposes subject to reasonable request and appropriate confidentiality considerations.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Cooley SR, Schoeman DS, Bopp L, Boyd PW, Donner SD, Ghebrehiwet DY, et al. Chapter 3: Oceans and coastal ecosystems and their services. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, et al, Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022.

[2] Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 2011, 81, 169-193. DOI: 10.1890/10—1510.1

[3] Pahl—Wostl C. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi—level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Change 2009, 19, 354-365. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

[4] Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, et al. Sustainability science. Science 2001, 292, 641-642. DOI: 10.1126/science.1059386

[5] Sivapalan M, Savenije HHG, Blöschl G. Socio—hydrology: A new science of people and water. Hydrol. Process. 2012, 26, 1270-1276. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.8426

[6] Akamani K. Adaptive water governance: Integrating the human dimensions into water resources governance. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 2016, 158, 2-18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1936—704X.2016.03215.x

[7] Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 2003, 302, 1907-1912. DOI: 10.1126/science.1091015

[8] Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W, Moellenkamp S, Pahl—Wostl C, Yalcin R. Adaptive water governance: Assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co—)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 26. DOI: 10.5751/ES—02827—140126

[9] MedECC. Climate and Environmental Change in the Mediterranean Basin—Current Situation and Risks for the Future: First Mediterranean Assessment Report ; Union for the Mediterranean, Plan Bleu, UNEP/MAP: Marseille, France, 2020.

[10] Simon A, Pires C, Frölicher TL, Russo A . Long—term warming and interannual variability contributions’ to marine heatwaves in the Mediterranean. Weather. Clim. Extrem. 2023, 42, 100619. DOI: 10.1016/j.wace.2023.100619

[11] Katsanevakis S, Coll M, Piroddi C, Steenbeek J, Ben Rais Lasram F, Zenetos A, et al. Invading the Mediterranean Sea: Biodiversity patterns shaped by human activities. Front. Mar. Sci. 2014, 1, 32. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2014.00032

[12] Moutopoulos DK, Ramfos A, Theodorou JA, Katselis G. Biological aspects, population and fishery dynamics of the non—indigenous pearl oyster Pinctada imbricata radiata (Leach, 1814) in the Eastern Mediterranean . Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2021, 45, 101821. DOI: 10.1016/j.rsma.2021.101821

[13] Theodorou JA, Minasidis V, Ziou A, Douligeri AS, Gkikas M, Koutante E, et al. Value chain for non—indigenous bivalves in Greece: A preliminary survey for the pearl oyster Pinctada imbricata radiata . J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 95. DOI: 10.3390/jmse11010095

[14] Moon K, Guerrero AM, Adams VM, Biggs D, Blackman DA, Craven L, et al. Mental models for conservation research and practice. Conserv. Lett. 2019, 12, e12642. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12642

[15] Jones NA, Ross H, Lynam T, Perez P, Leitch A. Mental models: An interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 46. DOI: 10.5751/ES—03802—160146

[16] van den Broek KL, Luomba J, van den Broek J, Fischer H. Content and complexity of stakeholders’ mental models of socio—ecological systems. J. Environ. Psychol. 2023, 85, 101906. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101906

[17] Steger C, Gebrehiwot K, Chengere SA, Marinkovich J, Dullo BW, Zewde SW, et al. Mental models of a social—ecological system facilitate social learning among a diverse management team. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 122, 127-138. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.04.006

[18] Pafras D, Conides A, Theocharis A, Vafidis D, Klaoudatos D. Stakeholder mental models for sustainable management of the invasive pearl oyster Pinctada radiata in the Eastern Mediterranean . Hydroecol. Eng. 2025, 2, 10016. DOI: 10.70322/hee.2025.10016

[19] Kosko B. Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int. J. Man—Mach. Stud. 1986, 24, 65-75. DOI: 10.1016/S0020—7373(86)80040—2

[20] Özesmi U, Özesmi SL. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: A multi—step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecol. Model. 2004, 176, 43-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027

[21] Gray SA, Gray S, De Kok JL, Helfgott AER, O'Dwyer B, Jordan R, et al. Using fuzzy cognitive mapping as a participatory approach to analyze change, preferred states, and perceived resilience of social—ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 11. DOI: 10.5751/ES—07396—200211

[22] Jetter AJ, Kok K. Fuzzy cognitive maps for futures studies—A methodological assessment of concepts and methods. Futures 2014, 61, 45-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.05.002

[23] Papageorgiou EI, Kontogianni AD. Using fuzzy cognitive mapping in environmental decision making and management: A methodological primer and an application. In International Perspectives on Global Environmental Change; Young SS, Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012. DOI: 10.5772/29375

[24] Dickerson JA, Kosko B. Virtual worlds as fuzzy cognitive maps. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1994, 3, 173-189. DOI: 10.1162/pres.1994.3.2.173

[25] Stylios CD, Groumpos PP. Modeling complex systems using fuzzy cognitive maps. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 2004, 34, 155-162. DOI: 10.1109/TSMCA.2003.818878

[26] Papageorgiou EI, Salmeron JL. A Review of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps Research During the Last Decade. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2013, 21, 66-79. DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2201727

[27] Papageorgiou EI, Stylios CD, Groumpos PP. Active Hebbian learning algorithm to train fuzzy cognitive maps. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2004, 37, 219-249. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2004.01.001

[28] Python Software Foundation. Python Language Reference, Version 3.12. Python Software Foundation. 2024. Available online: https://www.python.org (15 January 2026).

[29] Harris CR, Millman KJ, van der Walt SJ, Gommers R, Virtanen P, Cournapeau D, et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 2020, 585, 357-362. DOI: 10.1038/s41586—020—2649—2

[30] McKinney W. Data structures for statistical computing in Python. In Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 28 June—3 July 2010; pp. 56-61. DOI: 10.25080/Majora—92bf1922—00a

[31] Hagberg AA, Schult DA, Swart PJ. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. In Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference; Varoquaux G, Vaught T, Millman J, Eds.; SciPy: Pasadena, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 11-15.

[32] Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. Adaptive governance of social—ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441-473. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

[33] Ostrom E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social—ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419-422. DOI: 10.1126/science.1172133

[34] Berkes F, Ross H. Community resilience: Toward an integrated approach. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2013, 26, 5-20. DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2012.736605

[35] Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086-8091. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1231332100

[36] Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2008, 18, 543-571. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mum032

[37] Turner RA, Addison J, Arias A, Bergseth BJ, Marshall NA, Morrison TH, et al. Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 18. DOI: 10.5751/ES—08542—210318

[38] Sutinen JG, Kuperan K. A socio—economic theory of regulatory compliance. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 1999, 26, 174-193. DOI: 10.1108/03068299910229569

[39] Murphy K, Tyler TR, Curtis A. Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law? Regul. Gov. 2009, 3, 1-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748—5991.2009.01043.x

[40] Hauck M. Rethinking small—scale fisheries compliance. Mar. Policy 2008, 32, 635-642. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2007.11.004

[41] Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson—Hunt IJ, et al. Adaptive co—management for social—ecological complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 95-102. DOI: 10.1890/070089

[42] Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey IRA, Glass J, Laing A, et al. What is social learning? Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15. DOI: 10.5751/ES—03564—1504r01

[43] Plummer R, Armitage DR, de Loë RC. Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 21. DOI: 10.5751/ES—05383—180121

[44] Borrini—Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Farvar MT, Kothari A, Renard Y. Sharing Power: Learning—by—Doing in Co—Management of Natural Resources Throughout the World ; IIED and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG: London, UK, 2004.

[45] Plummer R, Crona B, Armitage DR, Olsson P, Tengö M, Yudina O. Adaptive comanagement: A systematic review and analysis. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 11. DOI: 10.5751/ES—04952—170311

[46] Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A . Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social—ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 5. DOI: 10.5751/ES—00650—090205

[47] Karpouzoglou T, Dewulf A, Clark J. Advancing adaptive governance of social—ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 57, 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.011

[48] Schultz L, Folke C, Österblom H, Olsson P. Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7369-7374. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1406493112

[49] House J, Kleiber D, Steenbergen DJ, Stacey N. Participatory monitoring in community—based fisheries management through a gender lens. Ambio 2023, 52, 300-318. DOI: 10.1007/s13280—022—01783—3

[50] Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Chapman JM, Reid AJ, Landsman SJ, Young N, et al. Knowledge co—production: A pathway to effective fisheries management, conservation, and governance. Fisheries 2021, 46, 89-97. DOI: 10.1002/fsh.10512

[51] Alexander KA, Hobday AJ, Cvitanovic C, Ogier E, Nash KL, Cottrell RS, et al. Progress in integrating natural and social science in marine ecosystem—based management research. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2018, 70, 71-83. DOI: 10.1071/MF17248

[52] d’Armengol L, Prieto Castillo M, Ruiz—Mallén I, Corbera E. A systematic review of co—managed small—scale fisheries: Social diversity and adaptive management improve outcomes. Glob. Environ. Change 2018, 52, 212-225. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.009

[53] Pollard S, Du Toit D, Biggs H, Cousins T, Jewitt G. Toward adaptive water governance: The role of systemic feedback for learning and adaptation. Ecol. Soc. 2023, 28, 47. DOI: 10.5751/ES—13820—280147

[54] Gjerde KM, Yadav SS. Polycentricity and regional ocean governance. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 704748. DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2021.704748

[55] Faber M, Peeters W. (Eds.). Transformation, Governance, Ethics, and Law ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/978—3—031—62711—8