Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Wildlife translocations often raise concerns about the purpose and impact among people living in target locations. We applied the integrated impact assessment in planning the reintroduction of wild forest reindeer in Finland. We investigated the variety of expected socioecological impacts, the relative importance of these impacts and local willingness to participate in local-level reintroduction activities. The reintroduction project organised interactive forums in 2013 and 2016 in each of the four regions suitable for wild forest reindeer. The variety of recognised potential impacts was high, but the relative importance given to the expected impacts varied relatively little from forum to forum. Importantly, we found a contextual and relational value of wild forest reindeer that extended beyond their intrinsic and instrumental value. The results indicate high local acceptance of reintroduction and willingness to participate in it.

Keywords

Wildlife reintroduction local community integrated impact assessment pragmatism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Batson

W.G.

, Gordon

I.J.

, Fletcher

D.B.

and Manning

A.D.

. 2015. ‘Review: Translocation tactics: A framework to support the IUCN Guidelines for wildlife translocations and improve the quality of applied methods’. Journal of Applied Ecology 52 (6): 1598–1607. Crossref.

Bisi

, Kangas

, Hannuksela

and Liukkonen

. 2006. ‘Metsäpeurakannan paluu Suomenselälle – riesaksi vai rikkaudeksi?’ [Farmer attitudes towards the return of wild forest reindeer in Finland] Suomen Riista 52: 44–58.

Bisi

and Kurki

. 2003. Ihmisen suhde metsäpeuraan [The relationship of humans to the wild forest reindeer]. Raportteja ja artikkeleita 87. Seinäjoki: University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute.

Bond

, Curran

, Kirkpatrick

J.C.

, Lee

and Francis

. 2001. ‘Integrated impact assessment for sustainable development: A case study approach’. World Development 29 (6): 1011–24. Crossref.

Boym

2002. The Future of Nostalgia. New York: Basic Books.

Brady

1998. ‘Don't eat the daisies: Disinterestedness and the situated aesthetic’. Environmental Values 5: 97–114. Crossref.

Brady

2019. ‘Aesthetic integrity and environmental conservation’. In Lamarque

and Olson

S. H.

(eds), Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art: The Analytic Tradition. An Anthology (2nd ed.), pp. 684–94. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Brouwer

and Van Ek

. 2004. ‘Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands’. Ecological Economics 50 (1–2): 1–21. Crossref.

Brown

S.R.

1980. Political Subjectivity: Application of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

10.

Clark

T.W.

and Westrum

. 1989. ‘High-performance teams in wildlife conservation: A species reintroduction and recovery example’. Environmental Management 13 (6): 663–70. Crossref.

11.

Converse

S.J.

, Moore

C.T.

and Armstrong

D.P.

. 2013. ‘Demographics of reintroduced populations: Estimation, modeling, and decision analysis’. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77 (6): 1081–93. Crossref.

12.

Cotton

M.D.

and Mahroos-Alsaiari

A.A

. 2015. ‘Key actor perspectives on stakeholder engagement in Omani Environmental Impact Assessment: An application of Q-Methodology’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58 (1): 91–112. Crossref.

13.

Dewey

1988. ‘Human nature and conduct’. In Boydston

Jo Ann

(ed.), John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899–1924, vol. 14: 1922, pp. 1–236. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

14.

Dewey

John

. 2008. ‘Logic: The theory of inquiry’. In Boydston

Jo Ann

, (ed.) John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, vol. 12: 1938, pp. 1–793. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Crossref.

15.

Drake

and Temple

S.A.

. 2012. ‘Captive propagation and translocation’. In Silvy

N.A.

(ed.), The Wildlife Techniques Manual, Volume 2, pp. 293–306. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

16.

Fesmire

2003. John Dewey and Moral Imagination: Pragmatism in Ethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

17.

Fischer

and Lindenmayer

D.B.

. 2000. ‘An assessment of the published results of animal relocations’. Biological Conservation 96 (1): 1–11. Crossref.

18.

Galetti

, Pires

A.S.

, Brancalion

P.H.

and Fernandez

F.A.

. 2017. ‘Reversing defaunation by trophic rewilding in empty forests’. Biotropica 49 (1): 5–8. Crossref.

19.

Gammon

A.R.

2018. ‘The many meanings of rewilding: An introduction and the case for a broad conceptualisation’. Environmental Values 27 (4): 331–50. Crossref.

20.

George

K.A.

, Slagle

K.M.

, Wilson

R.S.

, Moeller

S.J.

and Bruskotter

J.T.

. 2016. ‘Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014’. Biological Conservation 201: 237–42. Crossref.

21.

Griffith

, Scott

J.M.

, Carpenter

J.W.

and Reed

. 1989. ‘Translocation as a species conservation tool: Status and strategy’. Science 245 (4917): 477–80. Crossref.

22.

Directive

Habitats

. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31992L0043 (accessed 12 October 2020).

23.

Harrington

L.A.

, Moehrenschlager

, Gelling

, Atkinson

R.P.

, Hughes

and Macdonald

D.W.

. 2013. ‘Conflicting and complementary ethics of animal welfare considerations in reintroductions’. Conservation Biology 27 (3): 486–500. Crossref.

24.

Helmstedt

K.J.

and Possingham

H.P.

. 2017. ‘Costs are key when reintroducing threatened species to multiple release sites’. Animal Conservation 20 (4): 331–40. Crossref.

25.

Hiedanpää

and Bromley

D.W.

. 2016. Environmental Heresies: The Quest for Reasonable. London: Palgrave.

26.

Hiedanpää

and Pellikka

. 2013. ‘Metsäpeuran palautusistutuksen sosiaalisten vaikutusten ja niiden merkittävyyden arviointi’. [Social impact assessment of the potential reintroduction of wild forest reindeer Rangifer tarandus fennicus]. Suomen Riista 59: 64–85.

27.

Hiedanpää

and Pellikka

. 2017a. ‘Preadaptative transactions and institutional change: Wolf-critical activism in southwestern Finland’. Environmental Policy and Governance 27 (3): 270–81. Crossref.

28.

Hiedanpää

and Pellikka

2017b. Metsäpeuran palautusistutuksen sosiaalisten vaikutusten arviointi Seitsemisen kansallispuistossa ja lähiympäristössä. [Social impact assessment of the reintroduction of the wild forest reindeer around the Seitseminen national park]. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 34/2017. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke).

29.

Hiedanpää

, Pellikka

and Ojalammi

. 2016. ‘Meet the parents: Normative emotions in Finnish wolf politics’. Trace – the Finnish Journal of Human-Animal Studies 2. http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/trace/issue/view/3915 (accessed 12 October 2020).

30.

Hunting Act (615/1993) https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1993/en19930615 (accessed 3 November 2020).

31.

Hyvärinen

, Juslén

, Kemppainen

, Uddström

and Liukko

U.M.

. 2019. The 2019 Red List of Finnish Species. Helsinki: Ministry of the Environment and Finnish Environment Institute (Syke).

32.

IUCN 2013. Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.

33.

Johannsen

2020. ‘To assist or not to assist? Assessing the potential moral costs of humanitarian intervention in nature’. Environmental Values 29 (1): 29–45. Crossref.

34.

Kleiman

D.G.

1989. ‘Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation’. BioScience 39 (3): 152–61. Crossref.

35.

Kojola

, Kaartinen

, Hakala

, Heikkinen

and Voipio

H.M.

. 2009. ‘Dispersal behavior and the connectivity between wolf populations in northern Europe’. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73 (3): 309–13. Crossref.

36.

Leopold

1989. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

37.

Lipsey

M.K.

, Child

M.F.

, Seddon

P.J.

, Armstrong

D.P

and Maloney

R.F.

. 2007. ‘Combining the fields of reintroduction biology and restoration ecology’. Conservation Biology 21 (6): 1387–1390. Crossref.

38.

Luke

2020. Metsäpeura. [The wild forest reindeer]. www.luke.fi/tietoa-luonnonvar-oista/riista/metsapeura/ (accessed 12 October 2020).

39.

McConnell

2010. ‘Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between’. Journal of Public Policy 30 (3): 345–62. Crossref.

40.

McKeown

and Thomas

D.B.

. 2013. Q Methodology. London: Sage Publications.

41.

Michael

M.A.

2020. ‘Is nonanthropocentrism anti-democratic?’ Environmental Values 29 (1): 9–28.

42.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007a. Metsäpeurakannan hoitosuunnitelma [The management plan for the wild forest reindeer population in Finland]. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. https://mmm.fi/documents/1410837/1516659/Mets%C3%A4peurakannan+hoitosuunitelma+9_2007/209f011e-61f9-43fb-b799-7475c6675f76 (accessed 3 November 2020).

43.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007b. Suomen karhukannan hoitosuun-nitelma [The management plan for the bear population in Finland]. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/80546/2007_2%20Suomen%20karhukannan%20hoitosuunnitelma.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 12 October 2020).

44.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007c. Suomen ilveskannan hoitosuunnitelma [The management plan for the lynx population in Finland]. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. https://mmm.fi/documents/1410837/1516659/Ilveskannan+hoitosuunnitelma/ab66f292-1d32-45f6-a78d-6ee228d89deb/Ilveskannan+hoitosuunnitelma.pdf (accessed 3 November 2020).

45.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2015. Suomen susikannan hoitosuunnitelma. [Management plan for the wolf population in Finland]. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. https://mmm.fi/documents/1410837/1720364/Suomen_susikannan_hoitosuunnitelmat.pdf/cf2138e7-6a9b-4955-9b93-d719c734590f (accessed 12 October 2020).

46.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2019. Management Plan for the Wolf Population in Finland. Helsinki: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Online. http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161867/MMM_2019_26.pdf (accessed 12 October 2020).

47.

Nieminen

and Laitinen

. 1983. ‘Metsäpeuran palautusistutus ja stressi’. [The reintroduction of the wild forest reindeer and the stress] Suomen Riista 30: 34–43.

48.

Nogués-Bravo

, Simberloff

, Rahbek

and Sanders

N.J.

. 2016. ‘Rewilding is the new Pandora's box in conservation’. Current Biology 26 (3): R87–R91. Crossref.

49.

Norton

B.G.

1996. ‘Integration or reduction: Two approaches to environmental values’. In Light

and Katz

(eds), Environmental Pragmatism, pp. 105–38. London: Routledge.

50.

Norton

B.G.

2005. Sustainability: The Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

51.

Ortiz

R.A.

and Markandya

. 2009. ‘Integrated impact assessment models of climate change with an emphasis on damage functions: A literature review’. Basque Centre for Climate Change Working Papers 2009/06. www.bc3research.org/working_papers/downpubli_6 (accessed 12 October 2020).

52.

Ostermann

S.D.

, Deforge

J.R.

and Edge

W.D.

. 2001. ‘Captive breeding and reintroduction evaluation criteria: A case study of peninsular bighorn sheep’. Conservation Biology 15 (3): 749–60. Crossref.

53.

Pellikka

and Hiedanpää

. 2020. Kansalaisten susisuhde [The relationship of the Finns to the grey wolf]. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 56/2020. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke).

54.

Plein

, Bode

, Moir

M.L.

and Vesk

P.A.

. 2016. ‘Translocation strategies for multiple species depend on interspecific interaction type’. Ecological Applications 26 (4): 1186–97. Crossref.

55.

R Core Team 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

56.

Rossini

F.A.

and Porter

A.L.

(eds). 2019. Integrated Impact Assessment. [First published 1983]. London: Routledge. Crossref.

57.

Reading

R.P.

, Clark

T.W.

and Kellert

S.R.

. 2002. ‘Towards an endangered species rein-troduction paradigm’. Endangered Species Update 19 (4): 142–6. Crossref.

58.

Reading

R.P.

, Miller

and Shepherdson

. 2013. ‘The value of enrichment to rein-troduction success’. Zoo Biology 32 (3): 332–41.

59.

Seddon

P.J.

2010. ‘From reintroduction to assisted colonization: Moving along the conservation translocation spectrum’. Restoration Ecology 18 (6): 796–802. Crossref.

60.

Seddon

P.J.

, Armstrong

D.P.

and Maloney

R.F.

. 2007. ‘Developing the science of reintroduction biology’. Conservation Biology 21: 303–12. Crossref.

61.

Sutton

A.E.

2015. ‘Leadership and management influences the outcome of wildlife reintroduction programs: Findings from the Sea Eagle Recovery Project’. PeerJ 3: e1012. Crossref.

62.

Tear

T.H.

, Scott

J.M.

, Hayward

P.H.

and Griffith

. 1993. ‘Status and prospects for success of the Endangered Species Act: A look at recovery plans’. Science 262 (5136): 976–8. Crossref.

63.

Therivel

and Wood

(eds). 2018. Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (4th edition). New York: Routledge.

64.

Thiele

L.P.

1999. Environmentalism for a New Millennium: The Challenge of Coevolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

65.

Watts

and Stenner

. 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911.

66.

Weldegiorgis

F.S.

and Ali

S.H.

. 2016. ‘Mineral resources and localised development: Q-methodology for rapid assessment of socioeconomic impacts in Rwanda’. Resources Policy 49: 1–11. Crossref.

67.

Weston

1992. Toward Better Problems: New Perspectives on Abortion, Animal Rights, the Environment, and Justice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

68.

Wolf

C.M.

, Griffith

, Reed

and Temple

S.A.

. 1996. ‘Avian and mammalian trans-locations: Update and reanalysis of 1987 survey data’. Conservation Biology 10 (4): 1142–54. Crossref.

69.

Zabala

2014. ‘Qmethod: A package to explore human perspectives using Q methodology’. R-journal 6 (2): 163–73. Crossref.

Homecoming without Nostalgia: Local Communities and the Reintroduction of the Wild Forest Reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus sennicus ) in Finland

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References