European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 303–312 | Cite as

Adapting moose hunting: a case study on fragmented hunting grounds around Nuuksio National Park in Helsinki metropolitan area, Finland

Original Paper


Ecological and social fragmentation of hunting grounds presents a challenge to the management of ungulate populations. We studied how the local groups of moose hunters (hunting clubs) have adjusted their hunting practices in the face of competing uses of the land in the Helsinki metropolitan area. We analyzed qualitative and quantitative data from the 11 hunting clubs operating around the Nuuksio National Park. Our theoretical approach was a blend from the social-ecological systems theory and pragmatist conception of habit. According to our findings, there are some key mechanisms of adaptation operative and functioning in this particular social-ecological system. First, we discovered various technical and tactical adaptations in how the actual hunt was exercised in the environment where the perturbations are frequent. We also identified the ways in which the hunters attempted to entrain their activities with the spatial and temporal rhythms of other users. Thirdly, we found out how the hunters also tried to influence the societal rules and the interpretation of existing rules. In the face of continuous fragmentation, the wildlife administration and management would benefit if the collaborative politics of becoming, i.e., prospective will for habit breaking and habit taking in perpetually changing environments, was exercised.


Moose hunting Social-ecological Fragmentation Collaboration Adaptation 


  1. Abel N, Cumming DHM, Anderies JM (2006) Collapse and reorganization in social-ecological systems: Questions, some ideas, and policy implications. Ecol Soc 11: 17 Accessed 13 May 2014
  2. Audi R (2009) Moral values and human diversity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Beier CM, Patterson TM, Chapin FS III (2008) Ecosystem services and emergent vulnerability in managed ecosystems: a geospatial decision-support tool. Ecosystems 11:923–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes F, Folke C (eds) (2000) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Biermann F, Pattberg P, van Asselt H, Zelli F (2009) The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Glob Environ Pol 9:14–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castoriadis C (1997) World in fragments: writings on politics, society, psychoanalysis, and the imagination. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark A (1997) Being there: putting mind, body and world together again. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dandy N, Ballantyne S, Moseley D, Gill R, Peace A, Quine C (2011) Preferences for wildlife management methods among the peri-urban public in Scotland. Eur J Wildl Res 57:1213–1221. doi:10.1007/s10344-011-0534-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dandy N, Ballantyne S, Moseley D, Gill R, Quine C, Van Der Wal R (2012) Exploring beliefs behind support for and opposition to wildlife management methods: a qualitative study. Eur J Wildl Res 58:695–706. doi:10.1007/s10344-012-0619-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeStefano S, DeGraaf RM (2003) Exploring the ecology of suburban wildlife. Front Ecol Environ 1:95–101Google Scholar
  12. Dewey J (1988) Human nature and conduct. (original 1922.) The Middle Woks of John Dewey Vol. 14. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and EdwardsvilleGoogle Scholar
  13. Dussault C, Ouellet JP, Courtois R, Huot J, Breton L, Jolicoeur H (2005) Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors. Ecography 28:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ericsson G (2003) Of moose and man: the past, the present, and the future of human dimensions in moose research. Alces 39:11–26Google Scholar
  15. Espoo (2014) Housing and environment. Accessed 13 May 2014
  16. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finnish Forest Research Institute (2009) Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Official Statistics of Finland. Agriculture, forestry and fishery 2009. Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, SastamalaGoogle Scholar
  19. Finnish Hunting Act (1993) Accessed 13 May 2014
  20. Finnish Wildlife Agency (2013) Suomalaiset suhtautuvat metsästykseen entistä myönteisemmin Accessed 13 May 2014
  21. Forman RT, Deblinger RD (2000) The ecological road‐effect zone of a Massachusetts (USA) suburban highway. Conserv Biol 14:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gunderson L, Holling CS (2001) Panarchy: understanding transformations in systems of humans and nature. Island Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Hahn T, Shultz L, Folke C, Olsen P (2008) Social networks as sources of resilience in social ecological systems. In: Norberg J, Cumming GS (eds) Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 119–148Google Scholar
  24. Haila Y, Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ (1993) What do we presently understand about ecosystem fragmentation? In Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Ehrlich PR (eds) The Reconstruction of Fragmented Ecosystems. Nature Conservation 3. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, N.S.W N.S.W, pp 45–56Google Scholar
  25. Härkönen S, Heikkilä R, Faber WE, Pehrson Å (1998) The influence of silvicultural cleaning on moose browsing in young Scots pine stands in Finland. Alces 34:409–422Google Scholar
  26. Heberlein TA, Willebrand T (1998) Attitudes toward hunting across time and continents: the United States and Sweden. Gibier Faune Sauvage 15:1071–1080Google Scholar
  27. Heberlein TA, Ericsson G, Wollscheid K-U (2002) Correlates of hunting participation in Europe and North America. Zeitschrift Für Jagdwissenschaft 48(Suppl 1):320–326. doi:10.1007/BF02192424 Google Scholar
  28. Hiedanpää J, Pellikka J, Laulumaa M, Nieminen J (2010) Hirvieläinten metsästys sosioekologisesti pirstoutuneilla metsästysmailla. Riista- ja kalatalous – Tutkimuksia 2/2010.Google Scholar
  29. Hutchins E (1996) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  30. Jyrhämä J, von Boehm A (2010) Nuuksion kansallispuiston kävijätutkimus 2009–2010. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja B 146. Metsähallitus, EspooGoogle Scholar
  31. Kallio S, Kosama T, Välimäki A, Levola K, Ristimäki O, Helminen-Halkola R, Munter A, Lintunen P, Savikko T (2007) Espoon asuntoraportti 2007. Espoon kaupunki, Kehittämis- ja tutkimusryhmä, EspooGoogle Scholar
  32. Koskela T, Nygrén T (2002) Hirvenmetsästysseurueet Suomessa vuonna 1999. Suomen Riista 48:65–79Google Scholar
  33. Kurki S, Lindén H (1995) Forest fragmentation due to agriculture affects the reproductive success of the ground-nesting black grouse Tetrao tetrix. Ecography 18:109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kurki S, Nikula A, Helle P, Lindén H (1998) Abundances of red fox and pine marten in relation to composition of boreal forest landscapes. J Anim Ecol 67:874–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kurki S, Nikula A, Helle P, Lindén H (2000) Landscape fragmentation and forest composition effects on grouse breeding success in boreal forests. Ecology 81:1985–1997Google Scholar
  36. Leivo M (2003) Nuuksio - miljoonan ihmisen erämaa. Tammi, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  37. Liebfriend S, Pierson P (1996) Social policy in the european union: between fragmentation and integration. Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  38. Ludwig G (2007) Mechanisms of population declines in boreal forest grouse. Dissertation, University of JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  39. Månsson J, Andrén H, Pehrson Å, Bergström R (2007) Moose browsing and forage availability: a scale-dependent relationship? Can J Zool 85:372–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Metsähallitus (2006) Nuuksion kansallispuiston hoito- ja käyttösuunnitelma. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja C19. Metsähallitus, JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  41. Metsähallitus (2011) Natural Features of Nuuksio National Park. Accessed 13 May 2014
  42. Metsähallitus (2014) Nuuksion kansallispuisto täyttää 20 vuotta – ikätoverit ilmaiseksi Haltiaan. Accessed 13 May 2014
  43. Ministry of Environment (2006) Metsästys eteläisen Suomen kansallispuistoissa Ympäristöministeriön asettaman työryhmän raportti. Ympäristöministeriö, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  44. Ministry of Environment (2013) Everyman’s right in Finland. Accessed 13 May 2014
  45. Muradian R (2001) Ecological thresholds: a survey. Ecol Econ 38:7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orava R, Eronen V, Rautiainen O (2007) Selvitys Meikon alueen metsästyksestä. Uudenmaan riistanhoitopiiri, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  47. Peres CA (2001) Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates. Conserv Biol 15:1490–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Punch K (2005) Introduction to social research. Sage Publications Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Tigas LA, Van Vurena DH, Sauvajot RM (2002) Behavioral responses of bobcats and coyotes to habitat fragmentation and corridors in an urban environment. Biol Conserv 108:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Toivonen A-L (2009) The Finnish hunter 2008. Riista- ja kalatalous – Selvityksiä 19/2009. 22 pGoogle Scholar
  51. Varela FJ (1999) Ethical know-how: action, wisdom, and cognition. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Vikberg P, Orava R, Svensberg M (2002) Puolella seuroista oma metsästysmaja. Metsästäjä 51(5):50–53Google Scholar
  53. Walker BH, Salt D (2006) Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington D.C., USAGoogle Scholar
  54. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Resources Institute FinlandTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Natural Resources Institute FinlandHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations