Power, influence and structure in Natura 2000 governance networks. A comparative analysis of two protected areas in Romania

Manolache, Steluta; Niţă, Andreea; Ciocănea, Cristiana Maria; Popescu, Viorel D.; Rozyłowicz, Laurenţiu

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.076

Cited by 65 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This may suggest low motivation of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders to engage in Pontocaspian conservation action [65]. The marginal involvement of NGOs has been observed in earlier study in Romania in the Natura 2000 governance network [66]. The lack of reciprocated communication (governmental stakeholders receiving information from multiple sources but not sharing back to the network) may be indicative of strong hierarchy [67].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Gogaladze

Raes

Biesmeijer

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

22 23 Abstract 24 Romania and Ukraine share the Black Sea coastline, the Danube Delta and associated habitats, 25 which harbor the unique Pontocaspian biodiversity. Pontocaspian biota represents endemic 26 aquatic taxa adapted to the brackish (anomalohaline) conditions, which evolved in the Caspian 27 and Black Sea basins. Currently, this biota is diminishing both in the numbers of species and28 their abundance because of human activities. Consequently, its future persistence strongly 29 depends on the adequacy of conservation measures. Romania and Ukraine have a common 30 responsibility to effectively address the conservation of this biota. The socio-political and legal 31 conservation frameworks, however, differ in the two countries -Romania is a member of the 32 European Union (EU), thus complying with the EU environmental policy, whereas Ukraine is an 33 EU-associated country. This may result in differences in the social network structure of 34 stakeholder institutions with different implications for Pontocaspian biodiversity conservation.35 Here, we study the structure and implications of the social network of stakeholder organizations 36 involved in conservation of Pontocaspian biodiversity in Romania, and compare it to Ukraine. 37 We apply a mix of qualitative and quantitative social network analysis methods to combine the 38 content and context of the interactions with relational measures. We show that the social 39 networks of stakeholder organizations in Romania and Ukraine are very different. Structurally, in 40 Romanian network there is a room for improvement through e.g. more involvement of 3 41 governmental and non-governmental organizations and increased motivation of central 42 stakeholders to initiate conservation action, whereas Ukrainian network is close to optimal. 43 Regardless, both networks translate into sub-optimal conservation action and the road to optimal 44 conservation is different. We end with sketching implications and recommendations for 45 improved national and cross-border conservation efforts. 46 47 Introduction 48 Pontocaspian (PC) biota is a unique, endemic flora and fauna which includes mollusks, 49 crustaceans, planktonic groups (e.g. dinoflagellates and diatoms) and fish species. This 50 biodiversity evolved in brackish (anomalohaline) conditions of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea 51 basins over the past 2.5 million years [1,2] and nowadays PC communities inhabit the Northern 52 Black Sea, Sea of Azov, Caspian Sea and adjacent river and lake systems, stretching across the 53 vast political and administrative boundaries of the surrounding countries [3]. Currently, PC biota 54 is decreasing in numbers of species and abundances as a result of human activities and their 55 future persistence strongly depends on the adequacy of conservation measures [1,4,5]. Romania 56 and Ukraine hold an important part of the PC habitats. PC species in Romania are limited to the 57 Razim-Sinoe-Babadag lake complex [6,7], the area along the Danube River and the Black Sea 58 coastal zone, which t...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Gogaladze

Raes

Biesmeijer

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, there was a momentum generated by the accession of Romania to the European Union (2007), where the delineation of Natura 2000 sites and the development of management plans for them was and are still an ongoing process (Manolache et al 2017). Second, the establishment of conservation biology as a research discipline in the academic environment of Romania (besides the classical ecology research, especially in the 2000s, also resulted in research projects which targeted rare species and habitats as well as the negative impact of management (especially overgrazing) on these.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is researching biodiversity hotspots in Eastern Europe? A case study on grasslands from Romania

Niţă

Hartel

Manolache

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The governance structures involved in landscape management are often fragmented because policies and operational responsibilities are divided between an array of competing organizations and individuals, often with contradictory objectives (Gieseke, 2020). This is also the case of Romania, for example, in protected areas and water resource governance (Manolache et al, 2018; Nita et al, 2018; Vinke-de Kruijf et al, 2016). The complex governance arenas make the analysis of stakeholders’ interaction and response to policies difficult with conventional tools, and network analysis may provide an ideal framework to understand the formation and coordination of management structures and provide feedback to policymakers (Alexander et al, 2016; Bodin et al, 2019; Nita et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Considering the complex socio-cultural and institutional background around multifunctional management, our goal is to employ social network methods to understand governance systems around the management of ancient grasslands from Romania and provide insights for the multilevel governance strategies of these systems. Network governance has become an increasingly used approach among practitioners from various research areas: collaborative public management, resource governance, ecology, conservation planning, environmental policy (Berardo et al, 2014; Bodin et al, 2016; Manolache et al, 2018). The investigation of governance networks allows the analysis of informal and formal arrangements where people or organizations work together towards a common goal (Scarlett and McKinney, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governance networks around grasslands with contrasting management history

Manolache

Niţă

Hartel

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2Romanian grasslands have high nature value, being between the best biodiversity hotspots at the 1 3 global level. Current agri-environment measures of the European Union Common Agricultural 1 4 Policy (CAP) contradicts the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 objective by hindering coordinated 1 5 grassland governance and collaboration among the involved actors. At the European level, few 1 6 attempts have been made in creating conceptual strategies for implementing conservation 1 7 measures in a multi-actor and multi-scale governance setting. Our paper focuses on a 1 8 comparative network analysis of grassland landscape governance of three Romanian regions 1 9 (Iron Gates Natural Park -SW; Sighisoara -Tarnava Mare -center; and Dobrogea -SE), 2 0representatives for grassland management in mountain and lowland settings. In Sighisoara, 2 1 2 grasslands governance has been centralized but biodiversity-friendly, while in Iron Gates, 2 2 grasslands were traditionally managed through a decentralized, community-level system, and this 2 3 type of governance continues to date. Whereas for Dobrogea's grasslands, the governance was 2 4 performed in an intensive, centralized state-run management regime during the communist time 2 5and by large landowners after the transition period ended. Our findings illustrate the structure of 2 6 the three governance networks and dissimilar patterns of collaboration, indicating distinct 2 7 particularities to be considered when exploring barriers to and options for successful governance 2 8 in traditionally managed grasslands in the context of CAP measures-driven management.

show abstract

Power, influence and structure in Natura 2000 governance networks. A comparative analysis of two protected areas in Romania

Cited by 65 publications

References 41 publications

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

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

Who is researching biodiversity hotspots in Eastern Europe? A case study on grasslands from Romania

Governance networks around grasslands with contrasting management history

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About