Webbläsaren som du använder stöds inte av denna webbplats. Alla versioner av Internet Explorer stöds inte längre, av oss eller Microsoft (läs mer här: * https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Var god och använd en modern webbläsare för att ta del av denna webbplats, som t.ex. nyaste versioner av Edge, Chrome, Firefox eller Safari osv.

Carina Sjöholm

Carina Sjöholm


Carina Sjöholm

Commodification of recreational hunting in Sweden : hunting tourism experiences as ‘peculiar goods’


  • Erika Andersson Cederholm
  • Carina Sjöholm

Summary, in Swedish

Recreational hunting in Sweden can be depicted as being embedded in two different but overlapping cultural and socio-economic contexts. One is the traditional non-commercial and stewardship-oriented form hunting, in Swedish called ‘allmoge’ hunting. It is characterised by a democratic hunting tradition where the local hunting team is ascribed a main role in wildlife management. These teams often include the landowner, or the landowner may receive either monetary compensation or a proportion of the meat as payment. Another form is the commercial form of hunting, where hunting is packaged and offered to visitors, quite often with services such as accommodation, with food and other services included. Although the hunting as such is similar, these two forms of organising hunting are based on different logics of exchange. The ‘allmoge’ hunting is in general terms organised by local communities of hunters or through ‘friendship hunting’ a reciprocal relationship where friends are invited to hunt with a team. The other is market-oriented, arranging hunting events for visitors/tourists, with differing range of price depending on the segment. These two systems represent different value spheres that both intersect and collide, creating tensions and ambiguity. This is a tension that may be even reinforced considering the circumstance that hunting, as a consumptive form of wildlife tourism (cf. Lovelock, 2008), highlights ethical aspects and can thus be considered to be a morally-contested area (Cohen, 2014; von Essen, 2018).

The paper is based on a study of hunting tourism enterprising in Sweden. The study examines how hunting tourism businesses in Sweden navigate in a complex social, economic and moral environment. The aim of the present paper is to identify how tensions between a market-oriented value sphere and a value sphere based on friendship- and community reciprocity are played out in hunting tourism entrepreneurship. In particular, the study focuses on the ambiguous character of the hunting experience product and the different narratives and discourses framing what is considered, by the actors themselves, to be a ‘good’ hunting tourism experience.

Literature review
Hunting tourism takes many forms and can be broadly defined as a form of consumptive wildlife tourism, where hunting takes place in a region other than the hunter´s own region (Lovelock, 2008). In this type of tourism, the actors involved – tourists as well as service providers – do not always regard themselves as participants in the tourism industry. Landowners, for instance, may organize hunting events and invite hunters from their own personal network without considering themselves to be involved in tourism. Others may lease land and run commercial enterprises with packaged hunting tours, with a clear marketing profile as professional entrepreneurs.

It has been argued that hunting tourism can sustain a social sustainable development, benefiting rural communities and local economies (Dahl & Sjöberg, 2010; Matilainen & Keskinarkaus, 2010; Novelli, Barnes, & Humavindu, 2006; Nygård & Uthardt, 2011; Willebrand, 2009; Wszola et al., 2020). However, the extent to which hunting tourism is economically and socially beneficial to local livelihoods, particularly in comparison to non-consumptive wildlife tourism, is highly contextual (Baker, 1997; Mbaiwa, 2011, 2018; Novelli et al., 2006). Trophy hunting, for instance, is often seen as the most notorious form of international hunting tourism, and its effects on the conservation of wildlife is debated (Aryal, Morley, Cowan, & Ji, 2016). In a similar vein, local residents’ and the public’s views on trophy hunting and sport hunting in various parts of the world is probably even more controversial, and demonstrate underlying moral, social and political tensions (MacKay & Campbell, 2004; Mkono, 2019; Nordbø, Turdumambetov, & Gulcan, 2018).

In the Nordic countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, the general public is generally supportive of recreational hunting, particularly if it has a utilitarian dimension (Gamborg & Söndergaard Jensen, 2017; Kagervall, 2014; Ljung, Riley, & Ericsson, 2015; Willebrand, 2009). However, as this study demonstrates, commercialization of hunting is a controversial area, also among hunters themselves. Studies from Norway (Oian & Skogen, 2016) and Finland (Nygård & Uthardt, 2011) and a comparison between Finland and Scotland (Watts, Matilainen, Kurki, & Keskinarkaus, 2017) have shown a similar pattern of ‘frictional resistance’ (Watts et al., 2017) in the local and dominant hunting culture towards hunting tourism. Several reasons have been identified: Competition for resources in places where the game decreases due to an intensified hunting, and increased prices for hunting leases when more hunting rights are allocated to commercial actors. Other factors being identified are socio-cultural dimensions such as risks associated with unethical hunting practices. The few studies that exist of a Swedish context (Dahl & Sjöberg, 2010; Gunnarsdotter, 2005; Kagervall, 2014; Willebrand, 2009) point at a similar direction and have highlighted an ambivalence among hunters towards commercial hunting tourism.

These differing, sometimes oppositional, views and traditions among hunters and hunting operators in Sweden serves as the context and the backdrop for the present study. The analysis has identified different logics and forms of exchange, highlighting a tension between different value spheres (Andersson Cederholm & Sjöholm, 2020, 2021). This paper builds on previous publications and highlights how the promotion of specific experience values are embedded in moral accounts of value. The analysis departs from literature in economic sociology on the moral economy and the notion of ‘peculiar goods’ – a specific type of commodity that evokes moral doubt or ambiguity when commodified (Fourcade 2011). This is the kind of goods that must find legitimacy as ‘products’ (Beckert & Aspers, 2011). This paper investigates how this process of legitimacy is being enacted by the hunting tourism operators, by analysing accounts and narratives of the ‘good’ hunting tourism experience.

The study is based on ethnographic interviews with 30 business operators based in Sweden, observations of hunting arrangements, and document analysis of hunting media. The businesses have different profiles in terms of marketing – some of them do not market their business as specifically tourism oriented with service packages etc., or barely do any marketing at all, others have a clear marketized profile with specific service offerings and packages. The sample includes businesses of different size and character – some own their own land, some lease hunting grounds, some have extensive grounds, some are relatively small. They are located in various parts in Sweden which means that that they are offering different types of hunting depending on the fauna and geographical/natural conditions. Some of the establishments are run by a single owner, a few of them by a couple/family, and a couple of them comprise large estates or farms. All of them offer hunting tourism packages or events to national as well as international guests. In general terms, although the economic conditions and resources vary between the different enterprises, the business owners clearly emphasise their passion for hunting, and the lifestyle dimension in running such a business.

By analysing the interviewees accounts, we focus on the mode in which the social reality is explained, narrated and justified (Scott & Lyman, 1968). In this mode, we can also discern many different voices or counternarratives in the interviewees’ accounts as they relate to various, sometimes conflicting, positions and opinions of other stakeholders, such as customers, competitors, authorities, landowners, as well as the general public.

The analysis demonstrates how moral arguments concerning wildlife management and human well-being are embedded in market relations and discourses on experiences, entailing different, but intertwined, moral-economic narratives on what constitutes a ‘good’ hunting experience. In line with an experience discourse in tourism, hunting may be promoted as a holistic and embodied nature experience, packaged as a service offering with food, wine, accommodation. It may also be framed in line with sport-discourse, focusing on quantifiable results such as number of kills or the weight and length of trophies. Another way of framing the hunting experience is in utilitarian terms, such as hunting for the sake of having access to sustainable quality meat. The analysis demonstrates how these arguments are embedded and framed in different narratives and discourses, highlighting a tension between personal lifestyle values and business, stewardship and commerce, wildlife management and recreation/leisure.

The findings show a complex economy where stewardship hunting – the traditional so called ‘allmoge’ hunting characterised by friendship- and community reciprocity – is both intertwined with and kept separate from market relations. This makes the hunting tourism product appear as a multifaceted as well as a ‘peculiar’ form of commodity. In this paper, we propose the concept of moral economy as an analytical framework in order to understand this type of market, existing on the fringe between market and non-market relations, in a morally-contested space. The notion of moral economy as we define it, points at a social process – an ongoing and dynamic negotiation and justification of what a product is and should be, with an ever-present and lurking doubt whether this should, at all, be considered a ‘product’. Hunting tourism, we argue, is a good case in point to demonstrate such a dynamic process.


Andersson Cederholm, E., & Sjöholm, C. (2021). The tourism business operator as a moral gatekeeper – the relational work of recreational hunting in Sweden. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1922425
Andersson Cederholm, E., & Sjöholm, C. (2020). Decommodification as a socially embedded practice: The example of lifestyle enterprising in animal-based tourism. In M. Hall, L. Lundmark, & J. J. Zhang (Eds.), Degrowth and Tourism: New Perspectives on Tourism Entrepreneurship, Destinations and Policy. London and New York: Routledge.
Aryal, A., Morley, C. G., Cowan, P., & Ji, W. (2016). Conservation trophy hunting: implications of contrasting approaches in native and introducedrange countries. Biodiversity, 17(4), 179-181.
Baker, J. E. (1997). Trophy Hunting as a Sustainable Use of Wildlife Resources in Southern and Eastern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(4), 306-321.
Beckert, J., & Aspers, P. (Eds.). (2011). The Worth of Goods: Valuation and Pricing in the Economy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, E. (2014). Recreational Hunting: Ethics, Experiences and Commoditization. Tourism Recreation Research, 39(1).
Dahl, F., & Sjöberg, G. (2010). Social Sustainability of Hunting Tourism in Sweden. In A. Matilainen & S. Keskinarkaus (Eds.), The Social Sustainability of Hunting Tourism in Northern Europe. Helsinki: Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki.
Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and Sensibility: Economic Valuation and the Nature of “Nature”. American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1721-1777.
Gamborg, C., & Söndergaard Jensen, F. (2017). Attitudes towards recreational hunting: A quantitative survey of the general public in Denmark. Journal of Outdoor Recreaton and Tourism, 17, 20-28.
Gunnarsdotter, Y. (2005). Från Arbetsgemenskap till Fritidsgemenskap: Den svenska landsbygdens omvandling ur Locknevis perspektiv. (Doctoral thesis). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Kagervall, A. (2014). On the conditions for developing hunting and fishing tourism in Sweden. (Doctoral thesis). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
Ljung, P. E., Riley, S. J., & Ericsson, G. (2015). Game Meat Consumption Feeds Urban Support of Traditional Use of Natural Resources. Society & Natural Resources, 28(6), 657-669.
Lovelock, B. (Ed.) (2008). Tourism and the Consumption of Wildlife: Hunting, Shooting and Sport Fishing. New York: Routledge.
MacKay, K. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2004). An examination of residents’ support for hunting as a tourism product. Tourism Management, 25, 443-452.
Matilainen, A., & Keskinarkaus, S. (Eds.). (2010). The Social Sustainability of Hunting Tourism in Northern Europe. Helsinki: Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki.
Mbaiwa, J. E. (2011). Changes on traditional livelihood activities and lifestyles caused by tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management, 32, 1050-1060.
Mbaiwa, J. E. (2018). Effects of the safari hunting tourism ban on rural livelihoods and wildlife conservation in Northern Botswana. South African Geographical Journal, 100(1), 41-61.
Mkono, M. (2019). Neo-colonialism and greed: Africans’ views on trophy hunting in social media. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(5), 689-704.
Nordbø, I., Turdumambetov, B., & Gulcan, B. (2018). Local opinions on trophy hunting in Kyrgyzstan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1), 68-84.
Novelli, M., Barnes, J. I., & Humavindu, M. (2006). The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin: Consumptive Tourism in Southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(1-2), 62-79.
Nygård, M., & Uthardt, L. (2011). Opportunity or Threat? Finnish Hunters´ Attitudes to Hunting Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3), 383-401.
Oian, H., & Skogen, K. (2016). Property and Possession: Hunting Tourism and the Morality of Landownership in Rural Norway. Society & Natural Resources, 29(1), 104-118.
Scott, B. M., & Lyman, M. S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46-62.
Watts, D., Matilainen, A., Kurki, S. P., & Keskinarkaus, S. (2017). Hunting cultures and the ´northern periphery´: Exploring their relationship in Scotland and Finland. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 255-265.
Willebrand, T. (2009). Promoting hunting tourism in north Sweden: opinions of local hunters. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 55, 209-216.
von Essen, E. (2018). The impact of modernization on hunting ethics: Emerging taboos among contemporary Swedish hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(1), 21-38.
Wszola, L. S., Gruber, L. F., Stuber, E. F., Messinger, L. N., Chizinski, C. J., & Fontaine, J. J. (2020). Use and expenditures on public access hunting lands. Journal of Outdoor Recreaton and Tourism, 29.


  • Institutionen för tjänstevetenskap






Konferensbidrag: abstract


  • Sociology

Conference name

Nordic Tourism Symposium 2022

Conference date

2022-09-26 - 2022-09-29

Conference place

Porvoo, Finland




  • The social and cultural arena of hunting tourism entrepreneurship
  • Service Studies Tourism