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

Network relations Unlike in Ukraine, the majority of interactions among stakeholder organizations in Roma- nia consisted of ‘collaboration relations’ while transfer of information was less common (Fig 3 and S1 Table). Interactions in Romania were mostly achieved through joint projects. For example, the collaboration themes ‘environmental projects’, ‘sturgeon conservation’ and ‘conservation planning’ were all based on common projects (S1 Table). Within these projects, exchange of relevant information and data was easily achieved, as indicated by the interviewees. Outside projects, however exchange of comprehensive data in Romania was either not possible or was subject to payment. Thirty-two relational links in the network were represented by a single theme of interaction. Twenty-three links had 2 themes of inter- action, seven links had 3 themes of interaction and 1 link had 5 themes of interaction. Fig 2. Sociogram of Romanian stakeholders involved in Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation and conservation planning. Nodes represent organizations (see Table 1 for institution acronyms). The size of the nodes corresponds to the node strength (sum of weights of all its links). Arrows represent relationships between the nodes. Black arrows represent strong relationships (value �3). Gray arrows represent weak relationships (value < 3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221833.g002 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 8 / 20