Buffer zones for forest reserves: opinions of land owners and conservation value of their forest around nature reserves in southern Sweden

Buffer zones around reserves are often suggested, but have rarely been evaluated. We examined their design for small forest reserves (5–225 ha), where buffer zones (200 m wide) would protect the reserves and reduce negative edge effects. The potential buffer zones could be partly protected, but remain as private land. Alternatively, the state may buy land outside reserves (to be included in reserves). To consider opinions of forest owners, we interviewed 33 private forest owners in potential buffer zones of reserves. The respondents were weakly positive to conservation, but disliked a state reserve on their land, or a buffer zone where 50% of the forest would be protected without compensation; however, with compensation the majority of them were neutral or positive to such a buffer zone. In a choice between buffer zone or reserve bought by the state, the great majority of the respondents chose the buffer zone (compensation paid, land still private). We found no relationships between opinions of respondents and conservation values of their forests (densities of old and dead trees), but older owners had forests of higher value. The forest in the potential buffer zones had higher conservation value than other non-protected forests in southern Sweden. Thus, buffer zones may be valuable, and we suggest they are created in cooperation with local residents where this is possible.

[1]  Simon Ferrier,et al.  How well protected are the forests of north-eastern New South Wales? − Analyses of forest environments in relation to formal protection measures, land tenure, and vulnerability to clearing , 1996 .

[2]  Robert L. Pressey,et al.  Ad Hoc Reservations: Forward or Backward Steps in Developing Representative Reserve Systems? , 1994 .

[3]  Alfred Runte,et al.  National Parks: The American Experience. , 1979 .

[4]  Gary K. Meffe,et al.  Principles of Conservation Biology , 1995 .

[5]  M. Jeffries,et al.  Biodiversity and conservation , 1999 .

[6]  Christer Nilsson,et al.  Protected Areas in Sweden: Is Natural Variety Adequately Represented? , 1992 .

[7]  Åke Berg,et al.  Common and rare Swedish vertebrates — distribution and habitat preferences , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[8]  A. Luloff,et al.  Attitudes toward the management of nonindustrial private forest land , 1994 .

[9]  Larry D. Harris,et al.  The fragmented forest : island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity / Larry D. Harris , 1984 .

[10]  Lena Gustafsson,et al.  Dying and dead trees. A review of their importance for biodiversity , 1994 .

[11]  C. Nilsson,et al.  Criteria used for protection of natural areas in Sweden 1909-1986 , 1992 .

[12]  J. G. Nelson,et al.  National parks and protected areas: keystones to conservation and sustainable development. , 1997 .

[13]  Brent Mitchell,et al.  Extending the Reach of National Parks and Protected Areas: Local Stewardship Initiatives , 1997 .

[14]  J. Kuuluvainen,et al.  Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply , 1996 .

[15]  Mark A. Harwell,et al.  ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT OF SOUTH FLORIDA : DEVELOPING A SHARED VISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIETAL SUSTAINABILITY , 1997 .

[16]  R L Pressey,et al.  Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[17]  P. Beier,et al.  Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity? , 1998 .

[18]  L. Lönnstedt.  Non‐industrial private forest owners' decision process: A qualitative study about goals, time perspective, opportunities and alternatives , 1997 .

[19]  R. D. Semlitsch.  Biological Delineation of Terrestrial Buffer Zones for Pond‐Breeding Salamanders , 1998 .

[20]  I. Ahlén,et al.  Geography of plants and animals , 1996 .

[21]  L. Gustafsson,et al.  Threatened Plant, Animal, and Fungus Species in Swedish Forests: Distribution and Habitat Associations , 1994 .

[22]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda , 1998, Nature.

[23]  J. Mcneely.  Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to society , 1994, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[24]  S. Nilsson.  Forests in the Temperate–boreal Transition—Natural and Man-made Features , 1992 .

[25]  L. Hansson,et al.  Boreal ecosystems and landscapes : structures, processes and conservation of biodiversity , 1997 .

[26]  M. Jonsell,et al.  Substrate requirements of red-listed saproxylic invertebrates in Sweden , 1998, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[27]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Opinion of forest owners and the public on forests and their use in Finland , 1996 .

[28]  G. F. Peterken,et al.  Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. , 1996 .