Using social network analysis to assess the Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation capacity in Ukraine

Gogaladze, Aleksandre; Wesselingh, Frank P.; Biesmeijer, Koos; Anistratenko, Vitaliy V.; Gozak, Natalia; Son, Mikhail O.; Raes, Niels

doi:10.5751/es-11575-250225

Cited by 6 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A whole network approach requires the definition of network boundaries by establishing a list of relevant stakeholders; and the collection of responses from all stakeholders of the network about each other [ 25 ]. We defined a stakeholder as an organization who is involved and influences or is influenced by the Pontocaspian biodiversity research and conservation activities [ 17 , 20 ]. Based on this definition we initially identified 23 stakeholder institutes in Romania through online research and consultations with partners in the PRIDE project.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We assigned these stakeholders to three different categories based on their function and responsibilities, knowingly academic (Acad), governmental (Gov) and nongovernmental organizations (NGO). For comparison, the Ukrainian network consisted of 22 stakeholders of which nine were academic institutions, five governmental organizations, three nongovernmental organizations and five protected areas (Pa) [ 17 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We obtained the qualitative and quantitative network data using an identical survey questionnaire that was previously used in a similar study in Ukraine [ 17 ]. We interviewed the staff members of the institutions or relevant departments during July 2017.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Being part of the EU, Romania experiences continuous adjustments in the institutional alignment [ 15 ] and a transformation of governance systems from authoritative state, to democratic and inclusive, multi-stakeholder systems [ 16 ]. This may result in different social environment in Romania to deal with biodiversity conservation issues compared to Ukraine [ 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here we employ the mixed-method approach to analyze the information sharing network of stakeholders, which are involved in Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation in Romania and compare this network to the similar stakeholder network of Ukraine, which was studied using the same analytical approach [ 17 ]. This study is part of the Horizon 2020 ‘Pontocaspian Biodiversity Rise and Demise’ (PRIDE) program ( http://www.pontocaspian.eu/ ) which was designed to generate scientific knowledge on PC biota and guide effective conservation action.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%