Governing dual objectives within single policy mixes: an empirical analysis of large carnivore policies in six European countries

Figures & data

Figure 1. Policy mix framework, adapted from Rogge and Reichardt (2016).

Table 1. Comparative overview of the policy making and implementation process style.

Table 2. Comparative overview of the large carnivore instrument mixes applied in the case countries.

Instrument	Country/Region
	SE	NOR	FI	CyL (ES)	NL	SX (DE)	BY (DE)
Ex post compensation payments	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Conservation performance payment system	x		x
Subsidy– for preventive measures	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
for livestock & agricultural productions insurance				x
for additional expenses as a result of wolf presence						x
Releasing livestock owners from their duty to pay for damage caused by escaped livestock when the escape was caused by wolf presence							x
Culling of problem-causing animals (lethal control of a specified individual)	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Licence or quota hunting/harvesting to regulate the population	x	x	x	x
(Note that different countries use different definitions for licence hunting, quota hunting, & traditional hunting)
Maximum to acceptable depredation loss	x
Promotion of ecotourism				x
Adaptive hunting quota plans for ungulates					x	x	x
Habitat- & food availability improvement through reforestation				x

Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar