Co-designing a resilient coastal future in Barcelona: Supporting small-scale fisheries through local knowledge and scenario tools

This report outlines a stakeholder-driven process to support small-scale fisheries in the Barcelona coastal region. Through two workshops, conceptual maps were created to identify key themes and connections. These maps were merged and analyzed to identify leverage points and stress-tested with AI-powered scenarios. The findings emphasize adaptive governance, fair markets, and community resilience.

Coastal fisheries are part of the region’s identity and economy, but they face pressure from many sides: warming seas, crowded coastlines, uneven markets, and rules that are hard to apply fairly. Our case study for the coast of the larger Barcelona area brings these pressures into one picture and asks a simple question: what practical steps will help small‑scale fishers, communities, and ecosystems thrive together by 2040? The analysis based on our stakeholder work shows this is an all‑of‑the‑above governance challenge: we need adaptive rules, fair markets, cleaner waters, and strong local knowledge networks.

We hosted two independent workshops – one with academic/technical experts (18 March 2025) and one with professional fishers, cooperative leaders, and government employees (21 May 2025). In both, our aim was simple: let people speak in their own words about what matters and how things connect, then turn that into a shared picture.

• What happened in the room: we collected themes (“nodes”) people cared about and, through open discussion, drew connections (“arrows”) between them. The conversations were broad and only guided when they drifted too far, an exploration of expert minds so to speak. We did not try to label “systems” or “loops” on the spot, and we didn’t force agreement. Each workshop produced a stakeholder conceptual map, a network of nodes and links reflecting mindsets and lived experience, not a polished model.
• Mindset snapshots:
  • Workshop 1 (academics & experts): evidence‑driven; focused on matching rules to local reality and sharing knowledge openly. Common themes included water quality, regulation/enforcement, markets/competitiveness, and communication.
  • Workshop 2 (fishers, co‑ops & policy): rooted in daily livelihoods and community continuity, fair prices, cooperative strength, even‑handed enforcement, clean water, and shared‑space management.
• What came later (back at the desk): only after the workshops, we analyze the maps to spot patterns, organize themes, and discuss feedback structures. That post‑work led to the combined map used in the next steps (vicious/virtuous perspectives and “what‑if” use cases).

Workshop 1: Participatory & adaptive governance

A clear thread from the first workshop was a simple learning cycle: people who use the coast, e.g., fishers, tourism operators, residents, share what they see → this feeds an effective dialogue → the dialogue shapes adaptive governance (rules that can adjust) → new knowledge (scientific and local) feeds the next round. In short: listen → adjust → learn → repeat. This was not “process for process’ sake.” Participants tied it to governance that works in practice: rules that feel credible, are enforced fairly, and help fisheries. They also warned that implementation must be sensible, fair, and adaptive. If enforcement feels uneven or decisions are made far from reality, trust drops and even good rules can backfire.

Workshop 2: The price-co‑op income stabilizer

From the second workshop came a practical loop: fair market prices → local fishing cooperatives → fisher livelihood security → (back to) cooperatives. In other words, better price formation motivates and sustains co-ops, and strong co-ops improve logistics and bargaining, which stabilizes incomes, reinforcing co-op viability over time.

What this looks like on the ground: invest in market infrastructure (cold-chain, storage, digital marketplaces) so local catch reliably reaches good buyers; empower cooperatives with training and peer exchanges (negotiation, logistics, internal governance); and build gastronomic partnerships (chefs, culinary schools, events) to lift demand for local species. These actions support transparent price-setting and sustained market access, directly improving income stability.

Because the workshops were separate, we first combined t where people clearly meant the same thing, and then we drew careful “bridges” where related ideas met across the two maps.

• Example merge (same idea, different words): we rolled four near‑identical items into a single theme, “Awareness & Stakeholder Communication.”
  • (academics) Awareness campaigns + Effective dialogue
  • (fishers) Communication & stakeholder dialogue + Fishing community outreach & image

Both groups pointed to the same lever: when people understand what’s happening and can talk openly about it, rules make more sense, behavior shifts, and trust grows.

• Example blind link (a bridge we added): Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) (raised mainly by academics; also endorsed by fishers through lived examples) ↔ Shared marine‑space rules (emphasized by fishers; acknowledged by academics). On their own, MPAs can increase tensions at first because they reduce available space. But when co‑designed with clear access rules (rotations, buoy zones, fair enforcement) and coordinated with other measures, they can clarify who uses what, where, and when, which helps prevent displacement and conflict over time.

Why we added the bridge: the logic linking these themes was present in both discussions, but because the groups didn’t meet together, they didn’t draw that line themselves. We added it to make the cross‑workshop reasoning visible, so practical ideas from one room can meet ecological tools from the other.

Two perspectives on one map: where to watch vs. where to push

After combining the maps into a single picture, we looked at it from two complementary angles—without changing the nodes or links.

• “Vicious” perspective (watchpoints): we highlight links that act like self-reinforcing problems around the same focal point like Water Quality/Pollution for instance. For example: consumption & tourism ↑ → pollution ↑ → water quality ↓ → habitats & catches ↓ → income stress → shortcuts → even more pollution. Reading the map this way helps us spot where pressures stack up. It’s a warning view for future policy: if new rules ignore this focal point, they risk falling into traps.
• “Virtuous” perspective (leverage): are informed by the same focal points and we highlight links that reinforce good outcomes: vessel & coastal-infrastructure upgrades + better pollution management → less pollution ↓ → better water quality ↑ → stocks recover → livelihoods stabilize → reinvestment in clean practices. This is the aiming view: where to push so positive loops support each other.

Bottom line: it’s one map, read two ways. First to spot pitfalls at the Water Quality/Pollution focal point. Then to activate leverage at that same spot. We keep the watchpoints view in sight to check new ideas against known traps, then we use the leverage view to build joined-up actions that move us toward a sustainable small-scale fishery.

To make the results practical, we stress‑tested the combined map with ten stakeholder‑style “what‑if” questions – from port‑level vessel caps to invasives‑to‑plate, trawling bans, and guild (confraria) viability thresholds. The same map was used for each prompt to the AI, and every result was reviewed and edited by us. The method is clear about its limits, human checks, equal inputs across questions, and no use of external datasets. This process is a decision support, not a forecast.

• First example: Cap vessels per port
  Reducing the number of boats in crowded harbors can lower conflict and enforcement burden, slow pressure for new infrastructure, and cut pollution/sediment stress. That improves water quality and – downstream – stocks and livelihoods. Risks (e.g., “clear‑water tourism” rebound, displacement, policy capture) are real but manageable with transparent and fair allocation, zoning/MPAs, and region‑wide coordination.
• Second example: Eat the invader
  Targeted communication plus chef/community‑supported‑fishery channels can build demand for edible invasive species, turning a threat into diversification while guided by science and monitoring. This needs guardrails to avoid perverse incentives and social friction, but the path to ecological and income benefits is clear in the map.

• Equal inputs: each question used the same conceptual map (both perspectives).
• Human in the loop: all outputs were carefully checked and edited by people.
• Transparent limits: results are traceable chains, not predictions; no external datasets were pulled in.

1. Validate with stakeholders in another workshop.
2. Explore model‑based “cousins” of the map, such as Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) and Bayesian Networks.
3. Keep the center of gravity local. Across all steps, we read the map the same way stakeholders do: cleaner water, fairer markets, credible rules, knowledge in practice, and co‑ops that keep value close to home – so small‑scale fishing stays economically viable and culturally alive in a crowded sea.

Author: Maik Neukirch (ICM-CSIC)