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

frequency. We grouped the identified themes of interaction based on similarity in two catego- ries, knowingly ‘collaboration relations’–links between the stakeholders consisting of joint action, and ‘communication relations’–links between the stakeholders mostly used for convey- ing information. Ethics statement. The social network analysis of stakeholder organizations which we con- ducted here is not subject to ethical screening as for example is required for medical and/or socio-medical studies, which involve personal data. As such, we did not conduct a priori ethics review nor is there any established procedure within our organization (Naturalis Biodiversity Center) which could be followed. We informed all participants prior to the interviews that they were being interviewed on behalf of the organization which they represent, and that the results would be part of a publication. We assured all participants that they would not be indi- vidually identifiable and asked for their consent. Results and discussion Conservation of Pontocaspian (PC) biodiversity is critically dependent on adequacy of conser- vation measures and coordination of actions across their distribution range—the northern part of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea region. This paper assesses the adequacy of stake- holder networks for conservation in two countries covering a large part of the native range of PC biota. We compare the social network structures of stakeholders involved in biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine, based on new data from the former and data from a

previous published paper from the latter [17]. Then we discuss the implications of the Roma- nian results for effective conservation and compare these to the findings from Ukraine. We examine the challenges within, as well as beyond the network structure for optimal PC biodi- versity conservation and provide recommendations for improved cross-border conservation efforts. Network structure The Romanian network was smaller compared to Ukrainian one (17 vs. 22 stakeholders respectively) and also less connected. In Romania, 15 out of the 17 stakeholder institutions were interviewed (covering 88% of the network data). Fourteen organizations were inter- viewed through face to face in-depth interviews and one organization through an electronic questionnaire via email. The remaining two institutions could not be reached and data were imputed (Table 1). The studied network in Romania was not well connected (Fig 2) with a total number of 63 relational ties out of 272 potential ties, resulting in a network edge density measure of 23% (Table 2). For comparison, the Ukrainian network had an edge density value of 41%. On average each organization in Romania had 7 relational ties with other stakeholders in the network, while in Ukraine each stakeholder had on average 17 ties. This resulted in larger mean distance between stakeholders in the Romanian network compared to Ukrainian one (2.2 vs 1.5 respectively). The Romanian network had a lower degree of centralization score (20%) than the Ukrainian network (38%), meaning that the former was less centralized than

the latter. The correlation of incoming and outgoing ties, although positive in both networks, was lower in Romania compared to Ukraine (rho = 0.38 in Romania vs. rho = 0.78 in Ukraine) indicating that information exchange was in general less reciprocated in Romania (Table 2). When governmental organizations (including the DDA) were omitted from the Romanian network, the correlation increased (rho = 0.79), suggesting that the governmental organiza- tions in Romania received information from multiple sources but did not share similarly. In both countries, the majority of relationships were strong (59% in Romania and 61% in Ukraine), indicating regular interactions. 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 7 / 20