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

Similar to Ukraine, links represented with more themes were significantly stronger than links represented with less themes (S1 Fig). In Romania, like in Ukraine, Pontocaspian species played a minor and mostly incidental role in inter-organizational relations (Fig 3 and S1 Table), indicating low priority for PC biodi- versity conservation. Collaborative interactions theme ‘conservation planning’ involved biodi- versity monitoring according to the EU Habitats Directive (Article 17), and planning of conservation activities within Natura 2000 sites, coinciding with PC habitats (e.g. Razim-Sinoe Lake Complex as a Natura 2000 site https://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/?query= Natura2000Sites_9883_1, Site Code: ROSPA0031). Furthermore, the theme ‘Research’ involved joint fieldwork and publications on the biodiversity of the Black Sea coastal areas, lagoons, rivers and lakes, which also cover the PC habitats. Interactions within the ‘commercial fishing’ theme involved some PC fish species such as the Pontic shad and some invasive spe- cies, such as the veined Rapa whelk, which is potentially harmful to native PC species. Similar to Ukraine, ‘sturgeon conservation’ was the only collaborative theme, which directly targeted PC biodiversity conservation. This theme, however, primarily focused on sturgeon species and other PC groups were left out. Communication relations mostly included a) information trans- fer related to reporting obligations to the EU (Fig 3 and S1 Table; themes ‘biodiversity data’ and ‘environmental data’), b) administrative work to implement the research projects (theme

‘permit request’) and c) sharing of project management experiences and advice; all of which occasionally covered the PC habitats. This is indicative of low priority for PC biodiversity con- servation on both the national and European agendas, with the notable exception of sturgeon species [60]. Individual scientific organizations, such as Grigore Antipa National Museum of Natural History, Constanta Branch of the National Institute for Research and Development on Marine Geology and Geo-ecology–GeoEcoMar, and the Danube Delta Research Institute did possess PC species occurrence and distribution data, but they reported that this data is not uti- lized because governmental organizations and NGOs file no data requests (Tables 4 and S1). Perceived sufficiency of network relations A total of 19 relational ties (44% of 43 ties for which sufficiency was indicated by the inter- viewed stakeholders) were reported to be insufficient in Romania to achieve the desired levels of collaboration and information exchange (S2 Table). We identified 3 themes of insufficient interactions–‘lack of funding’, ‘political constraints’ and ‘institutional turnover’. For compari- son, in Ukraine 31% of relational links were construed as insufficient. The causes for insuffi- cient relationships were different in two countries. ‘Lack of funding’ in Romania (mentioned 10 times), and ‘budget constraints’ in Ukraine (mentioned 18 times) were the most prominent Table 2. Network statistics for Romanian stakeholder network compared to the previously published Ukrainian stakeholder network (in grey) [17].

Network data Romania Ukraine Total actors 17 22 Total No. of ties 63 191 Mean degree 7 17 Density (%) 23 41 Degree of centralization (%) 20 38 Tie reciprocity (rho) 0.38 0.78 Tie reciprocity (rho) excluding the Gov. organizations 0.79 0.76 Strong/weak ties (%) 59/41 61/39 Mean shortest distance 2.2 1.5 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221833.t002 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 9 / 20