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

countries are aware of each other and some collaboration exists. Established programs relevant to PC biodiversity conservation are the cross-border cooperation program (within the Euro- pean Neighborhood Instrument - https://www.euneighbours.eu/en) and the EU LIFE pro- gram. The former includes the “Black Sea”, “Danube”, and other bilateral or trilateral (including Moldova) ecological programs with substantial budgets. Usually in their formula- tions the term "Pontocaspian" does not exist, but these projects mainly concern the habitats of PC fauna (Danube Delta and Prut River, Lower Dniester and the Black Sea coastline of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria). The EU LIFE program targets Danube sturgeons. For other PC taxa we did not find evidence for deep collaboration. The PRIDE project (http://www. pontocaspian.eu/) was a pioneering EU funded project, which, in collaboration with WWF Ukraine, attempted to integrate the entire PC community in the sturgeon related awareness raising activities for different coastal protected area administrations and local residents in Ukraine. Future projects that can extend the current organizational focus from flagship species to the entire PC biota in Ukraine and Romania are critically important. Such projects can be expected to raise awareness of the need of PC biodiversity conservation and increase the inter- est of governmental and nongovernmental organizations to collaborate more and exchange the relevant information. Conclusions We found structurally different networks of stakeholder organizations in Romania and

Ukraine. However, PC biodiversity was not a driver of inter-organizational relations in either of the countries, resulting in incidental coverage of this biota in conservation practices. In an earlier study from Ukraine, we concluded that the maintenance of existing network is a neces- sary base, and can be expected to result in increased conservation action if the content of inter- actions is improved and funding and legal limitations are resolved. In Romania, such social variables are more consequential for the network functioning resulting in a hierarchical, non- inclusive system of conservation planning, continuous institutional reforms, and reduced col- laboration. Improvements can be expected, however, as the adjustments to the EU institutional structures and the participatory conservation governance systems mature in Romania. Foster- ing cross-border collaboration through new calls for project proposals from the state and the 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 15 / 20

EU budgets, which involve wider Pontocaspian taxa, will likely increase the PC conservation awareness and interest of different types of stakeholders in both countries to engage more in the conservation actions related to PC biota. Extending the Sturgeon networks to the other, non-charismatic Pontocaspian species may be a preferable course to initiate such action. Supporting information S1 Dataset. Raw data used for performing the network analyses. (XLSX) S1 Fig. Number of themes representing a relational link and the strength of the link. (TIF) S1 Table. Identified themes of stakeholder interactions and their descriptions. (DOCX) S2 Table. Identified themes of insufficient interaction and their description. (DOCX) S3 Table. Number of mentioning of interaction themes by individual stakeholders. (DOCX) S1 Text. Social network analysis methods. (DOCX) S1 Appendix. Survey questions. (PDF) Acknowledgments We would like to thank Professor Marius Stoica and Lea Rausch from the University of Bucha- rest, and Dr. Luis Ovidiu Popa, Alberto Martinez Gandara, Oana Paula Popa and Ana-Maria Krapal from the Grigore Antipa National Museum of Natural History for their invaluable assistance and support in Romania and helping to arrange meetings with stakeholders. We also thank all the interviewed stakeholders for finding time to meet and for providing honest and thorough answers to the survey questions. We acknowledge Cristina Sandu from the International Association for Danube Research for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this

paper. We would like to also acknowledge our colleagues from Naturalis Biodiversity Center: Nieke Knoben, for the assistance in developing the questionnaire and Caroline van Impelen for organizational support. Finally, we thank our reviewers who gave us invaluable comments that improved our work considerably. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Aleksandre Gogaladze, Niels Raes, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Frank P. Wesselingh. Formal analysis: Aleksandre Gogaladze, Niels Raes. Investigation: Aleksandre Gogaladze. Methodology: Aleksandre Gogaladze, Niels Raes, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Frank P. Wesselingh. Validation: Niels Raes, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Camelia Ionescu, Ana-Bianca Pavel, Mikhail O. Son, Natalia Gozak, Vitaliy V. Anistratenko, Frank P. Wesselingh. 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 16 / 20

Writing – original draft: Aleksandre Gogaladze, Niels Raes, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Frank P. Wesselingh. Writing – review & editing: Camelia Ionescu, Ana-Bianca Pavel, Mikhail O. Son, Natalia Gozak, Vitaliy V. Anistratenko. References 1. Kostianoy AG, Kosarev AN. The Caspian Sea Environment: Springer Science & Business Media; 2005. 2. Krijgsman W, Tesakov A, Yanina T, Lazarev S, Danukalova G, Van Baak CG, et al. Quaternary time scales for the Pontocaspian domain: Interbasinal connectivity and faunal evolution. Earth-science Reviews. 2019; 188:1–40. 3. Grigorovich IA, Therriault TW, MacIsaac HJ. History of aquatic invertebrate invasions in the Caspian Sea. Marine bioinvasions: Patterns, processes and perspectives: Springer; 2003. p. 103–15. 4. Marret F, Leroy S, Chalie´ F, Franc¸oise F. New organic-walled dinoflagellate cysts from recent sedi- ments of Central Asian seas. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology. 2004; 129(1–2):1–20. 5. Wesselingh FP, Neubauer TA, Anistratenko VV, Vinarski MV, Yanina T, ter Poorten JJ, et al. Mollusc species from the Pontocaspian region–an expert opinion list. ZooKeys. 2019; 827:31. https://doi.org/10. 3897/zookeys.827.31365 PMID: 31114425 6. Therriault TW, Docker MF, Orlova MI, Heath DD, MacIsaac HJ. Molecular resolution of the family Dreis- senidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) with emphasis on Ponto-Caspian species, including first report of Mytilop- sis leucophaeata in the Black Sea basin. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution. 2004; 30(3):479–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00240-9 PMID: 15012933

Ukraine Animal World. Third Edition ed: Globalconsulting, Kiev, Ukraine.; 2009. p. 307. 15. Vasile V. Romania: A country under permanent public sector reform. Public Sector Shock. 2013:449. 16. Stringer LC, Paavola J. Participation in environmental conservation and protected area management in Romania: a review of three case studies. Environmental Conservation. 2013; 40(2):138–46. 17. Gogaladze A, Wesselingh F, Biesmeijer K, Anistratenko V, Gozak N, Son M, et al. Using social network analysis to assess the Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation capacity in Ukraine. Ecology and Soci- ety. 2020; 25(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-11286-250104 PMID: 32523609 18. Semenchenko VP, Son MO, Novitsky RA, Kvatch YV, Panov VE. Alien macroinvertebrates and fish in the Dnieper River basin. Russian Journal of Bbiological Invasions. 2015; 6(1):51–64. 19. Zhulidov AV, Kozhara AV, van der Velde G, Leuven RS, Son MO, Gurtovaya TY, et al. Status of the invasive brackish water bivalve Mytilopsis leucophaeata (Conrad, 1831)(Dreissenidae) in the Ponto- Caspian region. BioInvasions Records. 2018; 7:111–20. 20. Durham E, Baker H, Smith M, Moore E, Morgan V. BiodivERsA Stakeholder Engagement Handbook. BiddivERsA: Paris, France. 2014. 21. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, et al. Knowledge systems for sus- tainable development. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2003; 100(14):8086–91. 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 17 / 20

22. Francis RA, Goodman MK. Post-normal science and the art of nature conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation. 2010; 18(2):89–105. 23. Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications: Cambridge university press; 1994. 24. Ernoul L, Wardell-Johnson A. Governance in integrated coastal zone management: a social networks analysis of cross-scale collaboration. Environmental Conservation. 2013; 40(3):231–40. 25. Haythornthwaite C. Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library & information science research. 1996; 18(4):323–42. 26. Barnes ML, Lynham J, Kalberg K, Leung P. Social networks and environmental outcomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016; 113(23):6466–71. 27. Sandstro¨ m A, Rova C. Adaptive co-management networks: a comparative analysis of two fishery con- servation areas in Sweden. Ecology and Society. 2010; 15(3). 28. Yamaki K. Applying social network analysis to stakeholder analysis in Japan’s natural resource gover- nance: two endangered species conservation activity cases. Journal of Forest Research. 2017; 22 (2):83–90. 29. Hauck J, Schmidt J, Werner A. Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level. Ecology and Society. 2016; 21(2). 30. Mills M, A´ lvarez-Romero JG, Vance-Borland K, Cohen P, Pressey RL, Guerrero AM, et al. Linking regional planning and local action: Towards using social network analysis in systematic conservation

planning. Biological Conservation. 2014; 169:6–13. 31. Bodin O¨ , Crona B, Ernstson H. Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society. 2006;11(2). 32. Bodin O¨ , Crona BI. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change. 2009; 19(3):366–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2009.05.002. 33. Weimann G. On the importance of marginality: One more step into the two-step flow of communication. American Sociological Review. 1982:764–73. 34. Abrahamson E, Rosenkopf L. Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization science. 1997; 8(3):289–309. 35. Crona B, Bodin O¨ . What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management. Ecology and society. 2006; 11(2). 36. Newman L, Dale A. Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience building: a response to Tomp- kins and Adger. Ecology and society. 2005; 10(1). 37. Newman L, Dale A. Homophily and agency: creating effective sustainable development networks. Envi- ronment, Development and Sustainability. 2007; 9(1):79–90. 38. Opsahl T, Colizza V, Panzarasa P, Ramasco JJ. Prominence and control: the weighted rich-club effect. Physical review letters. 2008; 101(16):168702. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.168702 PMID: 18999722 39. Burt RS. The social capital of structural holes. The new economic sociology: Developments in an emerging field. 2002; 148:190.

40. Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology. 1973; 78(6):1360–80. 41. Leavitt HJ. Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1951; 46(1):38. 42. Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource man- agement. Society and Natural Resources. 2009; 22(6):501–18. 43. Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the develop- ment of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society. 2004; 9(4). 44. Cowling RM, Wilhelm-Rechmann A. Social assessment as a key to conservation success. CAM- BRIDGE UNIV PRESS 32 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, NY 10013–2473 USA; 2007. 45. Herz A, Peters L, Truschkat I, editors. How to do qualitative strukturale Analyse? The qualitative inter- pretation of network maps and narrative interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualita- tive Social Research; 2015. 46. Kowalski AA, Jenkins LD. The role of bridging organizations in environmental management: examining social networks in working groups. Ecology and Society. 2015;20(2). 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 18 / 20

47. Paletto A, Hamunen K, De Meo I. Social network analysis to support stakeholder analysis in participa- tory forest planning. Society & natural resources. 2015; 28(10):1108–25. 48. Stork D, Richards WD. Nonrespondents in communication network studies: Problems and possibilities. Group & Organization Management. 1992; 17(2):193–209. 49. Csardi G, Nepusz T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Com- plex Systems. 2006; 1695(5):1–9. 50. Opsahl T. Structure and evolution of weighted networks: Queen Mary, University of London; 2009. 51. Grilli G, Garegnani G, Poljanec A, Ficko A, Vettorato D, De Meo I, et al. Stakeholder analysis in the bio- mass energy development based on the experts’ opinions: the example of Triglav National Park in Slo- venia. Folia Forestalia Polonica. 2015; 57(3):173–86. 52. Burt RS. Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology. 2004; 110(2):349–99. 53. Burt RS. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1992. 54. Fazey I, Evely AC, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Kruijsen J, White PC, et al. Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environmental Conservation. 2013; 40(1):19–36. 55. Newman ME. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM review. 2003; 45(2):167–256. 56. Ryan GW, Bernard HR. Techniques to identify themes. Field methods. 2003; 15(1):85–109. 57. Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing

taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health services research. 2007; 42(4):1758–72. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x PMID: 17286625 58. Bogdan R, Taylor SJ. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York; 1975. 59. Glaser BG, Strauss AL, Strutzel E. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research New York Aldine De Gruyter. Inc; 1967. 60. ICPDR. The Danube river basin district management plan: ICPDR-Internat. Commission for the Protec- tion of the Danube River Secretariat; 2015. 61. Hermoso V, Clavero M, Villero D, Brotons L. EU’s conservation efforts need more strategic investment to meet continental commitments. Conservation Letters. 2017; 10(2):231–7. 62. Nita A, Rozylowicz L, Manolache S, Ciocănea CM, Miu IV, Popescu VD. Collaboration networks in applied conservation projects across Europe. PloS one. 2016; 11(10):e0164503. https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0164503 PMID: 27723834 63. Lazega E, Quintane E, Casenaz S. Collegial oligarchy and networks of normative alignments in trans- national institution building. Social Networks. 2017; 48:10–22. 64. Kluvankova-Oravska T, Chobotova´ V, Banaszak I, Slavikova L, Trifunovova S. From government to governance for biodiversity: the perspective of central and Eastern European transition countries. Envi- ronmental Policy and Governance. 2009; 19(3):186–96. 65. Wesselink A, Paavola J, Fritsch O, Renn O. Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives. Environment and Planning A. 2011; 43(11):2688–704.

66. Manolache S, Nita A, Ciocanea CM, Popescu VD, Rozylowicz L. Power, influence and structure in Natura 2000 governance networks. A comparative analysis of two protected areas in Romania. Journal of environmental management. 2018; 212:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.076 PMID: 29428654 67. Ostrom E, Burger J, Field CB, Norgaard RB, Policansky D. Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. science. 1999; 284(5412):278–82. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278 PMID: 10195886 68. Dumont H, Mamaev V, Zaitsev Y. Black Sea Red Data Book. United Nations Office for Project Services. 1999:413. 69. Cuttelod A, Seddon M, Neubert E. European red list of non-marine molluscs: Publications office of the European Union Luxembourg; 2011. 70. Akimov I. Red Data Book of Ukraine. Animal World. Globalconsulting, Kiev, Ukraine.[In Ukrainian.]; 2009. 71. Baboianu G. Danube Delta: The Transboundary Wetlands (Romania and Ukraine). The Wetland Book: II: Distribution, Description and Conservation. 2016:1–12. 72. Strat D, Mihăilescu S, Sandu CS, Sahlean TC, editors. Conservation status of species and habitats of community importance on the Romanian Black Sea coast. Sabotinov N(Ed-in-Chief), Book of Abstracts, First European Symposium Research, conservation and management of biodiversity in the European seashores-RCMBES; 2017. 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 19 / 20

73. Kittinger W. The Danube River Protection Convention. Protecting Danube River Basin Resources: Springer; 1997. p. 43–7. 74. Munteanu A, Ehlinger T, Golumbeanu M, Tofan L. Network environmental governance in the EU as a framework for trans-boundary sturgeon protection and cross-border sustainable management. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology. 2013; 14(2):685–92. 75. The World Bank study team. Draft Danube Delta Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy (2030), REPORT 2.2. 2014. 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 20 / 20