Cargando…

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

Romania and Ukraine share the Black Sea coastline, the Danube Delta and associated habitats, which harbor the endemic, aquatic Pontocaspian biota. Currently, this biota is diminishing both in numbers of species and their abundance because of human activities, and its future persistence strongly depe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gogaladze, Aleksandre, Raes, Niels, Biesmeijer, Jacobus C., Ionescu, Camelia, Pavel, Ana-Bianca, Son, Mikhail O., Gozak, Natalia, Anistratenko, Vitaliy V., Wesselingh, Frank P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584225/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33095780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221833
_version_ 1783599553725857792
author Gogaladze, Aleksandre
Raes, Niels
Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.
Ionescu, Camelia
Pavel, Ana-Bianca
Son, Mikhail O.
Gozak, Natalia
Anistratenko, Vitaliy V.
Wesselingh, Frank P.
author_facet Gogaladze, Aleksandre
Raes, Niels
Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.
Ionescu, Camelia
Pavel, Ana-Bianca
Son, Mikhail O.
Gozak, Natalia
Anistratenko, Vitaliy V.
Wesselingh, Frank P.
author_sort Gogaladze, Aleksandre
collection PubMed
description Romania and Ukraine share the Black Sea coastline, the Danube Delta and associated habitats, which harbor the endemic, aquatic Pontocaspian biota. Currently, this biota is diminishing both in numbers of species and their abundance because of human activities, and its future persistence strongly depends on the adequacy of conservation measures. Romania and Ukraine have a common responsibility to address the conservation of Pontocaspian biodiversity. The two countries, however have different socio-political and legal conservation frameworks, which may result in differences in the social network structure of stakeholder institutions with different implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation. Here, we study the social network structure of stakeholder organizations involved in conservation of Pontocaspian biodiversity in Romania and the implications of network structure for conservation outcomes. Then we compare the findings from Romania to an earlier similar study from Ukraine. We apply a mix of qualitative and quantitative social network analysis methods to combine the content and context of the interactions with relational measures. We show that Pontocaspian biodiversity plays a minor and mostly incidental role in the inter-organizational interactions in Romania. Furthermore, there is room for improvement in the network structure through e.g. more involvement of governmental and nongovernmental organizations and increased motivation of central stakeholders to initiate conservation actions. Social variables, such as lack of funding, hierarchical, non-inclusive system of conservation governance and continuous institutional reforms in the public sector are consequential for the network relations and structure. Social network of stakeholders in Ukraine is more connected and central stakeholders utilize their favorable positions. However, neither in Ukraine is the Pontocaspian biodiversity a driver of organizational interactions. Consequently, both networks translate into sub-optimal conservation actions and the roads to optimal conservation are different. We end with sketching out conservation implications and recommendations for improved national and cross-border conservation efforts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7584225
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75842252020-10-28 Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study Gogaladze, Aleksandre Raes, Niels Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. Ionescu, Camelia Pavel, Ana-Bianca Son, Mikhail O. Gozak, Natalia Anistratenko, Vitaliy V. Wesselingh, Frank P. PLoS One Research Article Romania and Ukraine share the Black Sea coastline, the Danube Delta and associated habitats, which harbor the endemic, aquatic Pontocaspian biota. Currently, this biota is diminishing both in numbers of species and their abundance because of human activities, and its future persistence strongly depends on the adequacy of conservation measures. Romania and Ukraine have a common responsibility to address the conservation of Pontocaspian biodiversity. The two countries, however have different socio-political and legal conservation frameworks, which may result in differences in the social network structure of stakeholder institutions with different implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation. Here, we study the social network structure of stakeholder organizations involved in conservation of Pontocaspian biodiversity in Romania and the implications of network structure for conservation outcomes. Then we compare the findings from Romania to an earlier similar study from Ukraine. We apply a mix of qualitative and quantitative social network analysis methods to combine the content and context of the interactions with relational measures. We show that Pontocaspian biodiversity plays a minor and mostly incidental role in the inter-organizational interactions in Romania. Furthermore, there is room for improvement in the network structure through e.g. more involvement of governmental and nongovernmental organizations and increased motivation of central stakeholders to initiate conservation actions. Social variables, such as lack of funding, hierarchical, non-inclusive system of conservation governance and continuous institutional reforms in the public sector are consequential for the network relations and structure. Social network of stakeholders in Ukraine is more connected and central stakeholders utilize their favorable positions. However, neither in Ukraine is the Pontocaspian biodiversity a driver of organizational interactions. Consequently, both networks translate into sub-optimal conservation actions and the roads to optimal conservation are different. We end with sketching out conservation implications and recommendations for improved national and cross-border conservation efforts. Public Library of Science 2020-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7584225/ /pubmed/33095780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221833 Text en © 2020 Gogaladze et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gogaladze, Aleksandre
Raes, Niels
Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.
Ionescu, Camelia
Pavel, Ana-Bianca
Son, Mikhail O.
Gozak, Natalia
Anistratenko, Vitaliy V.
Wesselingh, Frank P.
Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study
title Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study
title_full Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study
title_fullStr Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study
title_full_unstemmed Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study
title_short Social network analysis and the implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and Ukraine: A comparative study
title_sort social network analysis and the implications for pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in romania and ukraine: a comparative study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584225/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33095780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221833
work_keys_str_mv AT gogaladzealeksandre socialnetworkanalysisandtheimplicationsforpontocaspianbiodiversityconservationinromaniaandukraineacomparativestudy
AT raesniels socialnetworkanalysisandtheimplicationsforpontocaspianbiodiversityconservationinromaniaandukraineacomparativestudy
AT biesmeijerjacobusc socialnetworkanalysisandtheimplicationsforpontocaspianbiodiversityconservationinromaniaandukraineacomparativestudy
AT ionescucamelia socialnetworkanalysisandtheimplicationsforpontocaspianbiodiversityconservationinromaniaandukraineacomparativestudy
AT pavelanabianca socialnetworkanalysisandtheimplicationsforpontocaspianbiodiversityconservationinromaniaandukraineacomparativestudy
AT sonmikhailo socialnetworkanalysisandtheimplicationsforpontocaspianbiodiversityconservationinromaniaandukraineacomparativestudy
AT gozaknatalia socialnetworkanalysisandtheimplicationsforpontocaspianbiodiversityconservationinromaniaandukraineacomparativestudy
AT anistratenkovitaliyv socialnetworkanalysisandtheimplicationsforpontocaspianbiodiversityconservationinromaniaandukraineacomparativestudy
AT wesselinghfrankp socialnetworkanalysisandtheimplicationsforpontocaspianbiodiversityconservationinromaniaandukraineacomparativestudy