Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1377���1390, 2000. �� 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Buffer zones for forest reserves: opinions of land owners and conservation value of their forest around nature reserves in southern Sweden FRANK G��TMARK*, HELENA S��DERLUNDH and MARIA THORELL Animal Ecology, Department of Zoology, University of G��teborg, Box 463, SE 405 30 G��teborg, Sweden *Author for correspondence (fax: +46-31416729 e-mail: f.gotmark@zool.gu.se) Received 6 July 1999 accepted in revised form 5 January 2000 Abstract. 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 re- serves 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. Key words: buffer zones, forest, landowners, nature reserves, state, values Introduction Nature reserves and national parks are valuable for protection of biodiversity (Pressey et al. 1993 Meffe and Carroll 1997 Howard et al. 1998). Many reserves and parks have, however, been established for other primary reasons than protection of biodi- versity, e.g. for recreational, aesthetic and cultural values (Runte 1987 G��tmark and Nilsson 1992 Pressey 1994). It is important to improve the protection of biodiversity in reserve systems (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1992 Pressey 1994), by identifying valuable unprotected areas and adding them in a proper way to the reserve system, and by improving areas that are already protected (Rodgers et al. 1993 Pressey et al. 1993 McNeely 1994 Pressey et al. 1996 Meffe and Carroll 1997 Howard et al. 1998). In many cases, the reserves are small and populations of species also are small and isolated. Such reserves are vulnerable to natural and human disturbance (agriculture, forestry and urban growth). One may improve the function of small or vulnerable

1378 reserves by establishing buffer zones around them, where land use is regulated to protect the core area (e.g. Meffe and Carroll 1997 Nelson and Serafin 1997 Sem- litsch 1998). Buffer zones are one part of UNESCO���s zoning strategy for biosphere reserves, where the main aims are biodiversity protection and involvement of local populations in sustainable land use (UNESCO 1996 Harwell 1997). Although buffer zones are part of biosphere reserves, few studies have tested their utility for other already existing reserves. Published case studies mainly concern wetlands, usually a single wetland. Since many reserves in Europe are small (the mean size is often less than 100 ha Nilsson and G��tmark 1992 B��cking 1997), buffer zones may be a valuable addition to existing reserves. The value of buffer zones remains to be tested, however, taking into account the complex biological, administrative and economical effects of the changes in land use in buffer zones. In Sweden, for instance, the main strategy seems to be addition of new reserves near or at the borders of certain old reserves, rather than buffer zones (F. G��tmark and M. Thorell, unpublished data). In this study, we used a sample of forest reserves from southern Sweden to examine the value of potential buffer zones. We focused on forest reserves for three reasons. First, nature reserves containing forest in southern Sweden are usually small (median size 50 ha, F. G��tmark and M. Thorell, unpublished data). Second, protection of natural or semi-natural forests has high priority in Sweden and other countries (Hansson 1997 SEPA 1997 SOU 1997). In Sweden, most of the protected forest is situated near alpine areas or on land of low productivity. Therefore, the present conservation efforts are directed at southern for- ests, which are rich in species, but poorly protected. Third, there are few studies of the buffer zone concept for forest reserves (but see Harris 1984 for an often cited model). The present study is part of a larger project, where we characterised 383 forest reserves in five counties from available documents. In the field, we mapped conser- vation values within fifty nature reserves and outside them in potential buffer zones (Thorell and G��tmark, in preparation). One important component of buffer zones is the land owner, that may be affected by regulation of land use. Here we focus on two protection alternatives for buffer zones: (1) purchase of the land by the state, and (2) economic compensation to land owners for conservation measures (land remains private). We investigated the opinions of forest owners near existing nature reserves, as regards conservation issues and buffer zones. Moreover, we used our field data to examine the conservation value of their land (forest), also in relation to their attitudes. Methods Study area and ecosystems Sweden is situated in the boreal and temperate zones of Europe and consists of 20 counties, in ���Norrland��� (large northern region, with alpine areas and much boreal