About This Network

This interactive visualization maps the governance network for shellfish aquaculture in South Carolina. It is a component of an MPA/EVSS dual-degree thesis examining why South Carolina — a state with significant biophysical capacity for shellfish mariculture — has substantially less acreage in active production than its ecological potential would support.

The analysis applies two complementary theoretical frameworks:

  • Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) — to identify actor coalitions organized around shared policy beliefs about mariculture expansion
  • Herd & Moynihan’s administrative burden framework — to identify which governance relationships generate learning, compliance, and psychological costs for shellfish operators

Node size reflects betweenness centrality — actors who sit between otherwise disconnected parts of the network and therefore hold disproportionate influence over information and resource flows. Red-orange edges indicate burden-generating relationships. Use the dropdown menus to filter by actor type or search for a specific node.


Full Governance Network

🌐 Interactive Network — opens in new tab

The full governance network (49 connected nodes, 158 edges) is hosted interactively at the link below. Use the dropdown to filter by actor type, search for a specific node, or hover for centrality details.

Open Full Governance Network ↗

This subgraph isolates the 109 burden-generating edges in the network — relationships where one actor’s regulatory authority, compliance requirement, or administrative process imposes learning, compliance, or psychological costs on the receiving actor (Herd & Moynihan, 2019).

🔒 Burden-Generating Relationships — opens in new tab

This subgraph isolates the 109 burden-generating edges — relationships where regulatory authority, compliance requirements, or administrative processes impose learning, compliance, or psychological costs on shellfish operators (Herd & Moynihan, 2019).

Open Burden Network ↗

Centrality Results

Top Brokers — Betweenness Centrality

Betweenness centrality identifies actors whose network position mediates flows between otherwise disconnected actors. High betweenness nodes are structural brokers — their removal would disconnect parts of the governance system.

Actor Actor Type Coalition Betweenness Degree (All) Degree (In) Degree (Out)
South Carolina Shellfish Growers Association (SCSGA) advocacy pro-expansion 0.1325 20 17 3
SCDNR Shellfish Management Section regulatory regulatory-cautious 0.1221 42 11 31
Emily Osborne science-extension neutral 0.1186 26 22 4
SCDES Shellfish Sanitation Section regulatory regulatory-cautious 0.0913 34 3 31
Andrew Richard regulatory regulatory-cautious 0.0513 4 2 2
Caitlyn Mayer industry pro-expansion 0.0153 8 5 3
College of Charleston (institutional) science-extension neutral 0.0134 6 5 1
USC Geography Department science-extension neutral 0.0063 2 1 1
Matt Gorstein science-extension neutral 0.0061 5 2 3
Minorities in Aquaculture (MIA) advocacy pro-expansion 0.0048 2 1 1
Clemson University (institutional) science-extension neutral 0.0048 5 4 1
University of South Carolina (institutional) science-extension neutral 0.0046 3 2 1
Mike Marshall regulatory regulatory-cautious 0.0039 2 1 1
William Green industry pro-expansion 0.0032 5 4 1
East Coast Shellfish Growers Association (ECSGA) advocacy pro-expansion 0.0018 2 1 1
Thomas (Tom) Bierce industry pro-expansion 0.0015 6 5 1
Andrew Speaker industry pro-expansion 0.0008 6 4 2
Julie Davis industry pro-expansion 0.0004 5 4 1
Trey McMillan industry pro-expansion 0.0004 5 4 1
Jeff Massey industry pro-expansion 0.0004 6 4 2

Most Connected Nodes — Degree Centrality

Actor Actor Type Coalition Degree (All) Degree (In) Degree (Out) Betweenness
SCDNR Shellfish Management Section regulatory regulatory-cautious 42 11 31 0.1221
SCDES Shellfish Sanitation Section regulatory regulatory-cautious 34 3 31 0.0913
Emily Osborne science-extension neutral 26 22 4 0.1186
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Charleston Regulatory Office regulatory regulatory-cautious 25 0 25 0.0000
SCDES Bureau of Coastal Management (OCRM) regulatory regulatory-cautious 25 0 25 0.0000
South Carolina Shellfish Growers Association (SCSGA) advocacy pro-expansion 20 17 3 0.1325
Caitlyn Mayer industry pro-expansion 8 5 3 0.0153
College of Charleston (institutional) science-extension neutral 6 5 1 0.0134
Thomas (Tom) Bierce industry pro-expansion 6 5 1 0.0015
Andrew Speaker industry pro-expansion 6 4 2 0.0008
Jeff Massey industry pro-expansion 6 4 2 0.0004
Larry Toomer industry pro-expansion 6 4 2 0.0004
Matt Gorstein science-extension neutral 5 2 3 0.0061
Clemson University (institutional) science-extension neutral 5 4 1 0.0048
William Green industry pro-expansion 5 4 1 0.0032
Julie Davis industry pro-expansion 5 4 1 0.0004
Trey McMillan industry pro-expansion 5 4 1 0.0004
Bob Baldwin industry pro-expansion 5 4 1 0.0004
Jeff Spahr industry pro-expansion 5 4 1 0.0000
Carrie Spahr industry pro-expansion 5 5 0 0.0000

Coalition Structure

Coalition Actor Type N Mean Betweenness Mean Degree
conservation advocacy 5 0.0000 0.8
neutral science-extension 22 0.0070 3.2
neutral industry 2 0.0000 5.0
neutral regulatory 1 0.0000 1.0
pro-expansion advocacy 9 0.0155 3.3
pro-expansion industry 29 0.0008 4.4
regulatory-cautious regulatory 26 0.0103 5.5

Network Summary Statistics

Metric Value
Active nodes 94.0000
Edges 193.0000
Network density 0.0221
Average path length 2.5600
Diameter 5.0000
Clustering coefficient (global) 0.1488
Burden-generating edges 109.0000
Non-burden edges 84.0000
Regulatory authority edges 112.0000
Collaboration edges 38.0000
Information edges 42.0000

Methods Note

This network was constructed using a hybrid observed-plus-survey methodology. Edges were coded from documented relationships using a three-tier evidence hierarchy: Tier 1 (formal authority, statutory mandate, signed agreement), Tier 2 (co-membership, documented joint project, survey self-report), and Tier 3 (documented co-attendance, role-overlap inference). Conflict edges require behavioral evidence from the documentary record per codebook Rule 8. Historical nodes (actors no longer active but instrumental in establishing current regulatory structures, including Peter Kingsley-Smith, departed May 2026) are retained in the node roster but excluded from centrality calculations.

Coalition encoding follows the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993): pro-expansion, regulatory-cautious, conservation, and neutral. Administrative burden coding follows Herd & Moynihan (2019): learning, compliance, and psychological burden types assigned by role relationship rather than self-report.

All analysis conducted in R using igraph (Csárdi & Nepusz, 2006) and visNetwork (Almende B.V., 2022). Data current as of May 2026.


Chatman, K. (2026). SC Shellfish Aquaculture Governance Network. MPA/EVSS Thesis, College of Charleston / SC Sea Grant Consortium. Beta visualization: rpubs.com/chatmanka