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

staff members of the institutions or relevant departments during July 2017. Interviews with staff members were undertaken with the knowledge and consent of the organizations to which the staff members were affiliated. Persons that were selected for the interview were all in a central position in the organization and thus aware of most, if not all, organizational aspects relevant to the network analysis. Each stakeholder organization was interviewed about each other organization from the list (Table 1) using the same questions. We extracted the meaning and content of interactions from the interviews and no prior data was used. We compiled data on the context and the content of interactions among the stakeholders using the question asking interviewees to describe their professional relationships. Next, we asked the interviewees whether the described professional link involved or was related to Pon- tocaspian (PC) biodiversity. We were mainly interested in PC biodiversity conservation related information, so when the reported interaction between stakeholders was not related to PC biota, we refrained from posing subsequent questions and continued with the next stakeholder from the list (Table 1). Once a PC biodiversity related link was established, the interviewee was asked whether s/he considered the existing relationship sufficient or insufficient to achieve desired levels of collaboration and for what reasons. We collected the SNA data asking the interviewees to rank the reported PC biodiversity

related links based on the frequency of interaction [17]. We used frequency of contact as a measure of strength (weight) of the relationship (see [42, 47]). We defined five weight catego- ries ranging from no contact to very frequent contact (0–4) and integrated the strength defini- tions as a table in the questionnaire to provide reference for the interviewees. Answers to the questions allowed the generation of directed, weighted, values of information and knowledge transfer in the network. Table 1. List of the 17 selected stakeholders from Romania divided into three stakeholder categories. ID Abbreviation Category Organization name Department/Service 1 CMSN Acad CMSN—Museum of Natural Sciences, Constanța Delfinariu, Constanta 2 GAM Acad Grigore Antipa National Museum of Natural History 3 GEcM Acad Constanta Branch of the National Institute for Research and Development on Marine Geology and Geo-ecology–GeoEcoMar 4 IBB Acad Institute of Biology Bucharest, Romanian Academy Department of Microbiology 5 OUC Acad Ovidius University of Constanta The Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences 6 DDNI Acad The Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable use of Natural Resources 7 NIMR Acad The National Institute of Marine Research and Development "Grigore Antipa” 8 UB Acad University of Bucharest Department of Paleontology 9 AZS Acad Marine Biological Station of Agigea 10 DDA Gov Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority 11 LAC † Gov Local Environmental Protection Agency in Constanta

12 ANPA † Gov Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of Romania National Agency for Fisheries and Aquaculture 13 MOE Gov Ministry of Environment of Romania Biodiversity Directorate 14 MWF Gov Ministry of Waters and Forests Department for Water, Forests and Fishery 15 MN NGO ONG Mare Nostrum 16 OC NGO SEOPMM Oceanic Club 17 WWF NGO WWF Romania † Institutions that could not be interviewed for which relationships were imputed https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221833.t001 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 5 / 20