Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study

The structure of a social network has implications for biodiversity conservation. Social net- works can vary in their properties, for example, in the number of connections, the structural position of individual stakeholders or the frequency of interactions between stakeholders. There is no single network structure that will be most beneficial in all contexts [31, 32]. There are, however, certain network properties which are suggested to facilitate effective manage- ment of natural resources and effective conservation of biodiversity. For example, a high num- ber of connections in a network was shown to enable improved transfer of information relevant to biodiversity conservation [33, 34]. Similarly, strong, i.e. frequent connections are desirable for effective conservation as they indicate high levels of trust [35–38]. Weak, or less frequent connections on the other hand, facilitate the transfer of novel information as they tend to connect dissimilar actors [39, 40]. Furthermore, networks in which only one or a lim- ited number of organizations have a central position (holding the majority of relational ties) are more effective for quick mobilization of resources and decision making in the initial phase of conservation action [41, 42]. On the contrary, networks with more organizations in a central position are more suitable for long-term environmental planning and complex problem-solv- ing [35]. In summary, whether a network is optimal or not depends on the local context, the organizations that are involved, and the phase of the conservation process [35, 43, 44].

Merely the structural analysis of a network may not be sufficient to fully understand all the processes and dynamics within the network. Therefore, a qualitative analysis of the data pro- vided by the stakeholders is very important to inform and explain the results of the SNA [45]. Qualitative data on the nature and content of reported interactions, as well as the additional social variables, such as the funding schemes, stability and functioning of organizations, the implementation capacity and the governance arrangements, amongst others provide a deeper understanding of how the network functions and translates into conservation action [44]. Combining a quantitative structural analysis of the network data with a qualitative analysis of the interactions is referred to as the mixed-method approach [29, 46]. Here we employ the mixed-method approach to analyze the information sharing network of stakeholders, which are involved in Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and compare this network to the similar stakeholder network of Ukraine, which was studied using the same analytical approach [17]. This study is part of the Horizon 2020 ‘Pontocaspian Biodi- versity Rise and Demise’ (PRIDE) program (http://www.pontocaspian.eu/) which was designed to generate scientific knowledge on PC biota and guide effective conservation action. We assess whether the different socio-political contexts in Romania and Ukraine result in dif- ferences in the social network structure of stakeholders, the content of the interactions and the

external social variables which may help or hinder the functioning of the network. Impor- tantly, we aim to identify how differences and/or similarities in the two networks translate into PC biodiversity conservation. We conclude the paper with recommendations for improved national and cross-border conservation efforts. Materials and methods Stakeholder identification and prioritization We applied the whole network analysis approach to examine the stakeholder interactions in Romania. A whole network approach requires the definition of network boundaries by estab- lishing a list of relevant stakeholders; and the collection of responses from all stakeholders of the network about each other [25]. We defined a stakeholder as an organization who is involved and influences or is influenced by the Pontocaspian biodiversity research and conser- vation activities [17, 20]. Based on this definition we initially identified 23 stakeholder insti- tutes in Romania through online research and consultations with partners in the PRIDE PLOS ONE Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221833 October 23, 2020 3 / 20