The implementation of Natura 2000 in Austria—A European policy in a federal system. (March 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Geitzenauer, Maria; Hogl, Karl; Weiss, Gerhard
• Is Part Of: Land use policy. Volume 52(2015:Nov.)
• Page Start: 120
• Page End: 135
• Publication Date: 2016-03
• Subjects: Nature conservation policy -- Implementation theory -- Compliance -- European Union -- Austria; Land use -- Periodicals; Land use -- Government policy -- Periodicals; Sol, Utilisation du -- Périodiques; Sol, Utilisation du -- Politique gouvernementale -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 333.7305
• DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.026
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-8377

Abstract

Highlights: Different modes of implementation are related to different outputs. Modes of implementation are variations of one type of "worlds of compliance". Different modes of implementation relate to different prospects for change in management practices. Initial decisions had long-lasting effects. Deadlock and delay occurred at various levels of the Natura 2000 implementation. Abstract: The implementation of EU policies is far from linear and straightforward, and this is also true of the establishment of the Natura 2000 network. In this article, we contribute to the discussion of how the implementation of EU directives can be explained by various approaches to implementation research and examine the explanatory strength of these approaches using the example of the implementation of Natura 2000 in Austria. First, we review the body of literature on both Natura 2000 and the theoretical approaches to implementation theory. Second, we develop a theoretical framework that includes as explanatory factors the pressure of the problem, administrative capacities, pressure for institutional change, and the role of actors and the culture of compliance. Using this framework to analyse the implementation of Natura 2000 in seven Austrian federal states, we observe three different modes of implementation that are related to different outputs: (a) a landowner-oriented mode, (b) a compromise-oriented mode, and (c) a non-participatory, top-down mode of implementation.