Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 222 (2016) 685 – 692

ASEAN-Turkey ASLI Conferences on Quality of Life 2015

AcE-Bs ver. 2: AicQoL2015Jakarta
AMER International Conference on Quality of Life
Millenium Hotel, Sireh, Jakarta, Indonesia, 25-27 April 2015
“Quality of Life in the Built & Natural Environment 3"

Buffer Zone Delineation at Conservation Reserve

Che Bon Ahmada*, Jamalunlaili Abdullahb, Jasmee Jaafarc
a
Centre of Studies, Park and Amenity Management
b
Centre of Studies, Town and Regional Planning
c
Centre of Geospatial Technology
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract

Stakeholders play an important role towards the Conservation Reserve Buffer Zone. Their perspectives with regards
to the concept and delineation criteria of BZ are important and may reduce the conflict of interest between livelihood
of the people and conservation objectives of the CR. This paper describes the pilot findings of in-depth interviews
with the key stakeholders of two important CR in Malaysia. The findings shows that they understand the concept of
BZ differently and there are disputes and agreements on delineation criteria and factors affecting the criteria.
©
©20162014Published by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This is
by Elsevier an open
Ltd. access article
Selection and under the CC BY-NC-ND
peer-review license
under responsibility of AMER (Association of
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers).
Peer-review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers) and cE-Bs (Centre for
Environment- Behaviour Studies, Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
Keywords: Conservation reserve; buffer zone delineation; Malaysia

1. Introduction

An important issue when delineating the BZ is to reach the agreement between the stakeholders to
ensure the delineation area contributes significant advantages to all stakeholders. Consequently, the
social-economic settings and relationships are among the ability of contracting stakeholders to sustain
their obligations in BZ development. In particular, stakeholders should be considered as valuable source

*
Corresponding Author. Tel.: +6-019-669-5857 ; fax: +6-03-5544-4353.
E-mail address: chebon848@uitm.edu.my

1877-0428 © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers) and cE-Bs (Centre for
Environment- Behaviour Studies, Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.227
686 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 222 (2016) 685 – 692

and although it is always a challenge in finding a balance between them, and more general priorities, the
outcome of any conciliation is more likely to have positive results if the approaches adapt to the local
context (Sheil, Nasi, & Johnson, 2004). Stakeholders’ consensus is required to determine the necessary
decision (e.g., managers, adjacent communities, legal enforcement agencies).
In general, broad participation becomes a norm in good practice. Nonetheless, it is effective only if
they involve in the planning process and the outcome of the process favor all parties (Suškevičs,
Tillemann, & Külvik). A reasonable initial point is to simply improve the integration of local stakeholders
and their needs into the planning process of determining the criteria. These decisions may be due to
economic considerations of the existing and future changes of the land uses. As decisions are made,
stakeholders should be aware of the potential changes in desired buffer functions that occur and the
potential compromise of long-term values. In most cases, a buffer width can be determined which will
meet landowner needs while also providing an adequate function of BZs (Liu et al., 2010). In actuality,
many BZs constitute a geographical expansion of the state authority beyond the boundaries of the CA and
into the communities and economic entities (man’s land) in which the establishment of it resulted in ‘new
forms of state intervention and restrictions on land use activities’(Stræde & Treue, 2006). Sadly to say,
this approach might be unwise without recognizing the ideal mutual support between local communities
or surrounding stakeholders and the conservation purposes.

2. Literature review

As agreed by many parties, CR is important for biodiversity; flora and fauna that contribute to a wide
range of benefits, from local to global (Klar et al., 2012). CR is also vital for carbon off-set; current
mitigation to overcome the climate change phenomena (Liu, Ouyang, & Miao, 2010; Strohbach, Arnold,
& Haase, 2012). One important thing is to establish criteria preferably multiple criteria, including spatial
design and socio-political criteria to be used for demarcation of the boundary of the Buffer Zone
(Gilmour & Nguyen, 1999; Moffett, Dyer, & Sarkar, 2006). Since the surrounding areas, so called
potential BZs, belong to various stakeholders (someone who can affect, or can be effected by others’
decisions), their input to share ideas, solutions, threats and opportunities is important to reflect the
collective responses to human-nature interface problems (Rastogi, Badola, Hussain, & Hickey, 2010).

2.1. Concept and criteria

BZs are supposed to serve the dual purpose of 'extension buffering', or an extension of core habitat
areas, and 'socio buffering' to provide goods and services to humans (Jotikapukkana, 2010). There is
no definition for ‘appropriateness’ of criteria used, but they should be explicit and quantifiable (Bibby,
1998). Previous studies have considered various factors in establishing the criteria for the delineation
of BZs (Borgström, Cousins, & Lindborg, 2012; Datta, Guha, & Chattopadhyay, 2010; DeFries et al.,
2010; Khoi & Murayama, 2010; Martino, 2001; Semlitsch & Jensen, 2001; Wild & Mutebi, 1997), but
there is no set of criteria which covers all the said factors – ‘suitable criteria’. Among considered
factors are:
x Social factors - Traditional use of land, harvesting of non-timber forest product (NTFP),
agricultural activities, man-made structure etc.
x Economic factors – Agriculture, aquaculture, timber, mining etc.
x Environmental factors which include:
x Biophysical factors ̢ Topography, soil, hydrology, road network, boundary, size, elevation,
slope etc.
 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 222 (2016) 685 – 692 687

x Ecological factors ̢ Forest patch size, number and size, change in forest structure, habitat and
conservation areas etc.
x Biological factors ̢ Criteria based on use by target species for life history functions such as
feeding, mating, nesting etc.
x Legal and political factors - determined by various levels of jurisdiction and agreements, from
international to national to local.
Other important factors that needs to be considered while establishing the criteria is the types of BZ
(Department of Wildlife and National Parks Malaysia, 2001):

2.2. Purpose of study

The purpose of this study is to gauge an understanding of the stakeholders on the BZ, and how these
may be improved through the mutual understanding and consensus among them which will be translated
into a set of ideal delineation criteria for BZ of CR and help to promote the conservation purposes. The
objectives of the study include identifying stakeholders and their experiences related to the study area;
their perception of the buffer zone concept, criteria and factors influencing the criteria and proposed
buffer zone delineation for the study area. This study is a preliminary stage with the intension to gauge
the level of understanding of the key important stakeholders towards the BZ concept and criteria. Further
study will be carried which involve more stakeholders.

2.3. Study areas

Study Area 1 is Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM), which was declared as a National
Heritage site in 2012 and now gearing towards UNESCO Heritage Site in 2015. Being one of the largest
man-made forests in the world, it can serve as a model for reforestation, forest management and forest
protection for the world. FRIM is located in Kepong, Kuala Lumpur and is surrounded by the Bukit
Lagong Forest Reserve on one side and new developments, mainly residential and commercial areas, on
the other. It stakeholders consist of Land Office, Forestry Department, Environmental Department,
District Office, local community and etc. As a national heritage site, FRIM enjoys secure protection in
law. However, while the area is relatively large in local terms, it is relatively narrow in width and thus is
vulnerable to disturbance and nonconforming physical development in the peripheries. The need for the
study arose out of increasing pressure for various forms of development in these peripheries, which had
the potential to negatively affect the integrity of the park and the unique resources of the area, especially
their biodiversity, water production, and scenic values. Landscape transformation by a number of land
uses such as agriculture, commercial afforestation, and new settlement was found to be a significant threat
to the natural beauty of much of the area.
Study Area 2 is Krau Wildlife Reserve (KWR) (Figure 1) is a typical PA in Malaysia which has been
listed under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category. It is located partly in
the district of Temerloh, Bentong and Raub in the state of Pahang, Malaysia and covers approximately
62,000 hectares. KWR is almost surrounded by forested land consisting of Permanent Reserve Forests
and State Land Forests. Although KWR is almost intact, the forested areas surrounding it had
considerably declined due to the changes of land use activities. Furthermore, the existence of stakeholders
and local community, especially indigenous people has contributed to its complex system as well. Their
activities in these areas have always had a great impact on the KWR and the surrounding areas (Che Bon,
Jamalunlaili & Jasmee, 2012a).
688 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 222 (2016) 685 – 692

3. Methodology and limitation of the study

The study uses qualitative approach with in-depth interviews to the stakeholders. Regardless to their
level of interest and influences, identifying the stakeholders were based on their expertise, knowledge,
experience and position in the organization The representatives of an organization are likely to be the
director or the person in-charged that is reliable to be interviewed. Five key important stakeholders were
identified – FRIM, Selayang District Office, Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia, representative
of residence (Taman Ehsan) and WWF Malaysia. Although there were more stakeholders of FRIM, five
are selected as this study is meant for a preliminary exploratory stage in order to clarify the thoughts and
opinions of the stakeholders regarding the concept and criteria of BZ delineation, and become a basis for
further detail study which will be carried out later.
On the other hand, the stakeholders for KWR are Department of Wildlife and National Park, Malaysia
(DWNP), Department of Town and Country Planning, Pahang (JPBD), Forestry Department, Pahang
(FDPM) and State Land Department, Pahang.
The result is very preliminary, with the intention to gain some broad ideas and background information
regarding the topic which will be used for further research in the near future.

4. Findings

Key stakeholders and their positions were listed in Table 1 and 2.

Table 1. Profile of stakeholders at FRIM, Malaysia

Stakeholders Descriptions
Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM) DeputyDirector
Selayang District Office (SDO) District Officer
Forestry Department, Selangor (FDPM) Head of Deputy Director
Taman Ehsan residence Community representative
World Wildlife Fund, Malaysia (WWFM) Senior Officer

Table 2. Profile of stakeholders at KRAU, Malaysia

Stakeholders Descriptions
Department of Wildlife and National Park, Malaysia (DWNP) Director
Department of Town and Country Planning, Pahang (JPBD) Chief Assistant Director
Forestry Department, Pahang (FDPM) Head of Deputy Director
State Land Department, Pahang Assistant Director
 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 222 (2016) 685 – 692 689

Table 3. Summary of key stakeholders’ understanding of concept, criteria and factors determining the criteria for BZ delineation at
FRIM

Respondent Understanding of concept of buffer Criteria Factors determining the

zone for conservation reserve criteria
Forest Research An area around, inside or outside the Community and conservation Land use
Institute of Malaysia conservation reserve allocated for benefits. Based on type of land Topography
(FRIM) protection of conservation reserve use activities, i.e., residential,
and cater for specific functions. industrial, forest area, highland Activity
area and stakeholders, i.e., JPS, Constraint
JKR, Forestry Dept, Env. Dept.
Conflict
Selayang District An area acts as a border to ‘rest Community benefits Existing land use
Office (SDO) down’ two different land use Infrastructure Future land use
activities. It may be in the form of
open spaces, railways, highways, Constraints
power lines and rivers. Potentials
*BZ is government land unless
mutual agreement is made between
two landowners
Forestry Department An area allocated around the forest Functions and benefits based Size of logging
of Peninsular meant for protection purposes. It on sustainability concept: Width of river stream
Malaysia (FDPM) determines by specific functions and Environment, economic and
benefits of the forest reserve social features Size of research plot
according to 11 forest classes assign Size of sample plot
by the dept.
Size of salt lake area
* virgin jungle forest (VGR),
permanent forest estate (PFE) and Wildlife coverage (small
water catchment area do not require mammal, elephant and
tiger)
BZ
Taman Ehsan Open space between two areas, i.e., Community benefits and Type of activity
residence residential and conservation reserve protection Type of basic amenities
World Wildlife Fund, Transition land which Forest’s functions (i.e., water Topography
Malaysia (WWFM) complementing both parties’ shed)
Biodiversity coverage
benefits. Local community’s benefits Ecosystem coverage
*existing or introduced forest
Adjacent land use
activities

Table 4. Summary of key stakeholders’ understanding of concept, criteria and factors determining the criteria for BZ delineation at
KRAU

Respondent Understanding of concept of buffer Criteria Factors determining the

zone for conservation reserve criteria
Department of An area allocated around the Conservation and community Ecological factors
Wildlife and National conservation reserve for the purpose benefits especially homogenous Social factors
Park, Malaysia of biodiversity conservation (habitat people living inside and
(DWNP) and ecosystem). surrounding the CR
690 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 222 (2016) 685 – 692

Department of Town A kilometre wide ‘Green Buffer’ Community benefits Existing land use
and Country Planning, allocated around the conservation Infrastructure Future land use
Pahang (JPBD) reserve. Must be not less than 70%
green/planted areas and note more Constraints
than 30% built-up area. Components Potentials
of ‘Green Buffer’ include road, drain
and trench, river and lake, car park,
open space, service building and
small agriculture plot.

Forestry Department, An area allocated around the forest
Pahang (FDPM) meant for protection purposes. It
determines by specific functions and
benefits of the forest reserve
according to 11 forest classes assign
by the dept.
* virgin jungle forest (VGR),
permanent forest estate (PFE) and
water catchment area do not require
BZ
Functions and benefits based
on sustainability concept:
Environment, economic and
social features
Size of logging
Width of river stream
Size of research plot
Size of sample plot
Size of salt lake area
Wildlife coverage (small
mammal, elephant and
tiger)

State Land Decision on land matters are based

Department, Pahang on mutual agreement of stakeholders

5. Discussion and analysis

5.1. Criteria for delineation

Perception of the local community is crucial for the management of KWR in order to come out with
the criteria to be used for the delineation.
Local communities suggested that they must be given a mutual recognition of the ownership (unique
rights) of the areas and activity permitted (i.e. allowed use) and a clear demarcation of the boundary (i.e.
width) which include:
x BZ will be an overlapping use by both wildlife and human. It is found that for all purposes, the
surrounding Permanent Reserve Forests and State Land Forests are performing these functions.
However, it has to be recognized and included into the planning document of the relevant agencies.
x The size of the BZ should be covering the surrounding Forest Reserves, agricultural areas and rivers
and can be considered as natural BZ for KWR.
x For areas that are bordering FeLDA, alienated land, state land and indigenous people areas, there
should be a restriction on the use of the BZ area.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

Although this paper present the output of the pilot interviews, it shows that there are some dispute,
disagreement as well as agreement among the stakeholders in term of their perspectives on buffer zone
delineation. Two different setting (location) of CR present different perspectives and it shows that the
requirement of criteria for delineation is may appropriately be based on the local context. As mentioned
earlier, this is the earlier attempt to delineate a buffer zone on private and communal land, and natural and
built environment around the peripheries of a major conservation area. The proposed buffer zone was
designed to benefit both, the park itself and the surrounding landowners. This research may be of more
 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 222 (2016) 685 – 692 691

significant should there be more important stakeholders is included especially the different group of the
local community. They play important role because the factors which influence their perceptions and
attitudes, as well as the nature and the extent of the impact are likely to be different in each community
(Ahmad, Abdullah, & Jaafar, 2013).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend the utmost appreciation to the respondents for their exceptional
dedication and enthusiasm and for sharing their valuable time and support. This appreciation also goes to
Research Management Institute, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia for the
expertise and financial support. The authors also acknowledge the constructive comments for reviewing
the manuscript.

References

Bennett, G. (2004). Integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: A lesson learned from ecological networks.
Gland,UK: Switzerland and Cambridge.
Daim, M. S. (2003). National Seminar on Protected Areas in Malaysia, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment,
Malaysia.
DeFries, R., Karanth, K. K., & Pareeth, S. (2010). Interactions between protected areas and their surroundings in human-dominated
tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143(12), 2870-2880. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.010.
Deparment of Wildlife and National Parks Malaysia. (2001). Protected area management guidelines 1. Deparment of Wildlife and
National Parks Malaysia: Deparment of Wildlife and National Parks Malaysia
Fan, F., Weng, Q., & Wang, Y. (2007). Land use and land cover change in Guangzhou, China from 1998 to 2003 based on Landsat
TM/EMT+ imagery. Journal of Sensor 2007, 7, 1323-1342. Retrieved on June 10, 2010 from
http://qihaoweng.net/refereed%20journal/sensors_07.pdf
UCN, (2008). About protected areas, the world conservation union. Cambridge, UK.
Lillesand, T. M., Kiefer, R. W., & Chipman, J. W. (2004). Remote sensing and image intepretation (5th Ed.). NJ; John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Liu, J., Ouyang, Z., & Miao, H. (2010). Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their perceptions regarding protected area-
community conflicts: A case study in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11), 2254-2262. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.007.
MacKinnon, K., Dudley, N., & Sandwith, T. (2011). Natural solutions: Protected areas helping people to cope with climate change.
ORYX, 45(4), 461-462.
Marther, P. M. (1999). Computer processing of remotely-sensed images: An introduction (2nd Edition). UK; John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
National Resource Canada (2005).
Department of Town and Country Planing, (2011). National Physical Plan II , Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Rastogi, A., Badola, R., Hussain, S. A., & Hickey, G. M. (2010). Assessing the utility of stakeholder analysis to protected areas
management: The case of Corbett National Park, India. Biological Conservation, 143(12), 2956-2964. doi:
10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.039.
Stræde, S., & Treue, T. (2006). Beyond buffer zone protection: A comparative study of park and buffer zone products' importance to
villagers living inside Royal Chitwan National Park and to villagers living in its buffer zone. Journal of Environmental
Management, 78(3), 251-267. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.017.
Alexandre, B., Crouzeilles, R., & Grelle, C. E. V. (2010). How can we estimate buffer zones of protected areas? A proposal using
biological data. Natureza a Conservacao, 8(2), 165-170.
Bibby, C. J. (1998). Selecting areas for conservation. Conservation and Action, 176-201.
Borgström, S., Cousins, S. A. O., & Lindborg, R. (2012). Outside the boundary - Land use changes in the surroundings of urban
nature reserves. Applied Geography, 32(2), 350-359.
692 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 222 (2016) 685 – 692

Datta, D., Guha, P., & Chattopadhyay, R. N. (2010). Application of criteria and indicators in community based sustainable
mangrove management in the Sunderbans, India. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53(8), 468-477. doi:
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.06.007.
DeFries, R., Karanth, K. K., & Pareeth, S. (2010). Interactions between protected areas and their surroundings in human-dominated
tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143(12), 2870-2880. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.010.
Gilmour, D. A., & Nguyen, V. S. (1999). Buffer zone management in Vietnam: IUCN - The world conservation union- vietnam
programme.
Hill, M. J., Braaten, R., Veitch, S. M., Lees, B. G., & Sharma, S. (2005). Multi-criteria decision analysis in spatial decision support:
the ASSESS analytic hierarchy process and the role of quantitative methods and spatially explicit analysis. Environmental
Modelling & Software, 20(7), 955-976. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.04.014.
Jotikapukkana, S., Berg, A. & Pattanavibool, A. (2010). Wildlife and human use of buffer-zone areas. Wildlife Research, 37(6),
466-474.
Khoi, D. D., & Murayama, Y. (2010). Delineation of suitable cropland areas using a GIS based multi-criteria evaluation approach in
the Tam Dao National Park Region, Vietnam. Sustainability doi: 10.3390
Klar, N., Herrmann, M., Henning-Hahn, M., Pott-Dörfer, B., Hofer, H., & Kramer-Schadt, S. (2012). Between ecological theory and
planning practice: (Re-) Connecting forest patches for the wildcat in Lower Saxony, Germany. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 105(4), 376-384. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.01.007.
Li, W., Wang, Z., & Tang, H. (1999). Designing the buffer zone of a nature reserve: a case study in Yancheng Biosphere Reserve,
China. Biological Conservation, 90(3), 159-165. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00011-7.
Liu, J., Ouyang, Z., & Miao, H. (2010). Environmental attitudes of stakeholders and their perceptions regarding protected area-
community conflicts: A case study in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(11), 2254-2262. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.007.
Lynagh, F. M., & Urich, P. B. (2002). A critical review of buffer zone theory and practice: a Philippine case study. Society and
Natural resources, 15, 129-145.
Martino, D. (2001). Buffer Zones Around Protected Areas: A Brief Literature Review. Electronic Green Journal, 1(15).
Moffett, A., Dyer, J. S., & Sarkar, S. (2006). Integrating biodiversity representation with multiple criteria in North-Central Namibia
using non-dominated alternatives and a modified analytic hierarchy process. Biological Conservation, 129(2), 181-191. doi:
10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.033.
Rastogi, A., Badola, R., Hussain, S. A., & Hickey, G. M. (2010). Assessing the utility of stakeholder analysis to Protected Areas
management: The case of Corbett National Park, India. Biological Conservation, 143(12), 2956-2964. doi:
10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.039.
Semlitsch, R. D., & Jensen, J. B. (2001). Core habitat, not buffer zone. National Wetland Newletter, 23(4).
Sheil, D., Nasi, R., & Johnson, B. (2004). Ecological criteria and indicators for tropical forest landscape: Challenges in the search
for progress. [Journal]. Ecology and Society, 9(1),7.
Stræde, S., & Treue, T. (2006). Beyond buffer zone protection: A comparative study of park and buffer zone products' importance to
villagers living inside Royal Chitwan National Park and to villagers living in its buffer zone. Journal of Environmental
Management, 78(3), 251-267. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.017.
Strohbach, M. W., Arnold, E., & Haase, D. (2012). The carbon footprint of urban green space—A life cycle approach. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 104(2), 220-229. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.013.