Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33095780›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

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

Aleksandre Gogaladze, Niels Raes, Jacobus C Biesmeijer, Camelia Ionescu, Ana-Bianca Pavel, Mikhail O Son, Natalia Gozak, Vitaliy V Anistratenko, Frank P Wesselingh

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A social network analysis of the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Aleksandre GogaladzeNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1764-0410
Niels RaesNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4329-4892
Jacobus C BiesmeijerNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Camelia IonescuWWF Romania, Bucharest, Romania.
Ana-Bianca PavelConstanta Branch of the National Institute for Research and Development on Marine Geology and Geo-ecology-GeoEcoMar, Constanta, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-0518-1659
Mikhail O SonInstitute of Marine Biology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Odessa, Ukraine.
Natalia GozakNGO "Ecoaction", Kyiv, Ukraine.
Vitaliy V AnistratenkoDepartment of Invertebrate Fauna and Systematics, Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine.
Frank P WesselinghNaturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

BiodiversitySocial NetworkingConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemHuman ActivitiesHumansInformation DisseminationRomaniaUkraine

Identifiers

PMID33095780
PMCPMC7584225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.