Community Perspectives on Buffer Zone for Protected Areas: A Preliminary Study

Abstract

Local community gives impact to the Buffer Zones (BZ) and vice-versa. Their input in terms of criteria for delineation of BZ is important and may reduce the conflict of interest between livelihood of the people and conservation objectives of the Protected Areas (PA). This paper describes the preliminary findings of researchers' informal interviews and observations on the local communities. The findings shows that most of them understand the basic concept of BZ, support its potential delineation and agreed on its benefits and possible uses of support-activities in BZ to the local communities. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Full text

P r o c e d i a - S o c i a l a n d B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e s 8 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 9 8 – 2 0 5
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying,
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.351
AcE-Bs 2013 Hanoi
ASEAN Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies
Hanoi Architectural University, Hanoi, Vietnam, 19-22 March 2013
"Cultural Sustainability in the Built and Natural Environment"
Community Perspectives on Buffer Zone for Protected Areas:
A preliminary study
Che Bon Ahmadᤝ᤟
*
, Jamalunlaili Abdullahᤝᥴ, Jasmee Jaafar᤟
ᤝ
Centre for Environmental Design & Management
᤟
Centre of Geospatial Technology
Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying,
ᥴ
Malaysian Academy of SME & Entrepreneurship Development (MASMED)
Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract
Local community gives impact to the Buffer Zones (BZ) and vice-versa. Their input in terms of criteria for
delineation of BZ is important and may reduce the conflict of interest between livelihood of the people and
conservation objectives of the Protected Areas (PA). This paper describes the preliminary findings of researchers’ in-
formal interviews and observations on the local communities. The findings shows that most of them understand the
basic concept of BZ, support its potential delineation and agreed on its benefits and possible uses of support-activities
in BZ to the local communities.
© 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Centre for Environment-
Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.
Keywords: Buffer zones; protected areas; local community; Krau Wildlife Reserve
1. Introduction
Many Buffer Zones (BZs) constitute a geographical expansion of the state authority beyond the
boundaries of the Protected Areas (PAs) and into the rural communities and economic entities (man’s
land) in which the establishment of BZ resulted in a ‘new form’ of management intervention and
restrictions on land use activities. Thus, defining the boundaries of BZ will eventually ease the
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000 .
E-mail address: chebon848@salam.uitm.edu.my / cb2_nismo@yahoo.co.uk.
Avai la ble o nl in e at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies (cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture,
Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
ScienceDirect

199
Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 85 ( 2013 ) 198 – 205
management intervention. However, few studies incorporate the opinion or agreement of the local
communities based on their knowledge, experiences and rights about the site towards the delineation of
the BZ. From protecting the crops and people from the animals leaving the PA, to the ‘dual-purpose’ of
the BZ, it is remain necessary to the conservation and local people. Even after approximately 50 years of
BZ evolvement, today’s de facto delineation of the boundary of BZs, and their great importance to local
community suggest that this reality and their opinion and agreement to develop the BZ should be
explicitly translated into the form of criteria for the delineation and thus, recognizing the ideal mutual
understanding of the local communities.
Studies (Che Bon, Jamalunlaili & Jasmee, 2012a; Stræde & Treue, 2006) have proven that activities
around the PAs such as rubber and oil palm plantations, aquaculture farms and over harvesting of natural
forest products could increase the pressure and provide significant impacts to the latter. Thus, the
effective management of the BZs has long been one of the most important mechanisms. The areas serve
as dual-purpose buffering: accommodating the conservation objectives and the socio-economic benefits–
‘win-win situation’.
Although the requirement of BZs for PAs is mentioned in various conservation and development
policy including, in the case of Malaysia, National Physical Plan II and the National Policy on Biological
Diversity, it does not explicitly mention the criteria of BZ. On the other hand, in some cases, the aspect
that may be considered in establishing the BZ for PA is that its width for example, is usually the same
size all around the PAs (Thorell & Götmark, 2005) and does not vary with the importance of the
influences in the different sections around the PAs (Sinun, 2011). As a result, more than one BZ
prescription (criteria) may be needed for a PA.
Furthermore, not many PAs in Malaysia takes into account the opinion and agreement of the local
communities when deciding on policies including delineation of BZ (i.e. Tasek Bera) (Che Bon,
Jamalunlaili & Jasmee, 2012b: Wetland International, 1999).
2. Study area and purpose of study
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).
The purpose of this study is to gauge an opinion of the local communities on BZ for PAs, to determine
who the communities’ stakeholders are and to identify their opinion and agreement on the potential
delineation and possible support activities that may benefits the communities.

200 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 85 ( 2013 ) 198 – 205
Fig. 1. Location of Krau Wildlife Reserve, Malaysia
3. Methodology and limitation of study
This study suggested the perspectives of the local community around the KWR (Figure 2) regarding
the overall concept of BZ, opinion and agreement on the criteria of delineation, potential implementation
and possible uses of support-activities in the BZ areas. It involved researchers’ observations at site, in-
formal interviews with local community and discussion with parties involved directly in the development
and wellbeing of the indigenous community including Department of Wildlife and National Park and
Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli. 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. Result and discussion
Generally the local communities who live around KWR are Malay who is the majority of the
population, and indigenous people comprising of Jah Hut, Chewong and Temuan. Jah-Hut and Temuan
mostly lives around KWR while Che Wong mostly lives inside the KWR (Figure 2). Malay community
lives permanently in their settlement areas while some of the indigenous community has moving from one
settlement to another due to a few factors including marriage and source of food. Each group of
community appears to have their own agenda and seemed to interact with people in their own group. It is
suggested that the Malay community (FeLDA settlers), (Figure 2) besides recreational interest, have
relatively little to do with forest, being supported by their work on the estate which bordering the KWR.
Indigenous community to varying degrees remains dependent on the forest for food, materials and

201
Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 85 ( 2013 ) 198 – 205
produce for sale. Excluding the Malay community, the more numerous Jah Hut and Temuan are more
dependent on agriculture while less numerous Che Wong are understood to depend on the forest.
Fig. 2. Settlement around Krau Wildlife Reserve
Source: Department of Wildlife and National Park (2010)
Figure 2 shows the location of current settlements. Apart from the small Che Wong settlements at
Bayek, Senel and Bancal, and the Jah Hut border settlements at Berdut, all settlements are outside KWR.
However, their use of KWR and BZ are not random, but controlled by mutual recognition between the
communities, of the boundaries of their areas of exclusive exploitation. The lost of considerable amount
of traditional forest to outsiders who did not comprehend their system of land occupation and use. The
forest once used by Berdut, Rekah and Penders community was taken and cleared by FeLDA, and
occupied by people from other areas.
Table 1. Settlements and tribes/races outside and inside KWR
Settlements (outside KWR)
Settlements (inside KWR )
Tribes / Races
FeLDA, Lembah Klau
Malay
FeLDA, Jenderak Utara
Malay
Kg. Tengah, Ulu Cekah
Malay
FeLDA, Jenderak Selatan
Malay
Kg. Pian
Jah Hut
Kg. Teris
Malay

202 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 85 ( 2013 ) 198 – 205
Table 1. Settlements and tribes/races outside and inside KWR (cont’d)
Settlements (outside KWR)
Settlements (inside KWR )
Tribes / Races
Kg. Pasu
Jah Hut
Kg. Temir Klau
Temuan
Penderas
Jah Hut
Kg. Bolok Hilir
Malay
Kg. Bolok Hulu
Malay
Kg. Cempaka
Malay
Kg. Bess
Temuan
Kg. Rekah
Jah Hut
Kg. Bkt. Berdut
Jah Hut
Kg. Sg. Terboi
Jah Hut
Kg. Enggang
Che Wong
Kg. Kusa 1
-
Kg. Sene l
Che Wong
Kg. Ban cal
Che Wong
Kg. Kalau
Che Wong
Kg. Perah
Che Wong
Kg. Enggang
Che Wong
Kg. Bayek
Che Wong
Kg. Bayek Neram
Che Wong
Kg. Kusa
-
Kg. Beranti
Che Wong
Kg. Tua
Che Wong
Kg. Sabut
Che Wong
Source: Department of Wildlife and National Park (2010)
4.1. Understanding the concept of buffer zones
In general, most of the local community understands the overall concept of BZ - to protect the PAs,
from the negative impact came from the surrounding activities. This includes land clearing for agriculture
and settlements. They are also aware that KWR has been gazetted for wildlife conservation which
requires an intact ecosystem and habitat and BZs help to build local and regional supports for
conservation programs. Nonetheless, their activities including collecting of natural resource product and
hunting for self-use are permitted in KWR. Furthermore, it is understood that under the conservation
objectives, BZ is an alternative in terms of extraction of natural resources, to PAs or in other words those
activities should be shifted from KWR to BZ areas.
However, most of the local communities do not understand the current significant development in BZ
concepts which have been accepted globally such as:
x The principle of ‘Integrated Conservation and Development Projects’ - to alleviate human impacts on
conservation region whereby through the project, it has to take into the consideration the historic use
and future pressures of the BZs and can’t be isolated from the surrounding land - bringing problems

203
Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 85 ( 2013 ) 198 – 205
such as agricultural fertilizer run-off or local people grazing livestock and cutting wood (Lynagh and
Urich, 2002).
x It is also widely applied in solving problem in the increasing global awareness of biological and
ecosystem value and from resulted of increasing pressure on nature reserve (Ebregt & Greve, 2000).
x Presently, BZs are 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, et al., 2010).
4.1.1. The benefits and implication of buffer zone to people
Buffer zones are particularly valuable to indigenous community. They depend on it for economic
resources such as agricultural and tourism sectors and collecting natural resource product. Thus, it’s
required a clear demarcated boundary, to avoid illegal hunting, harvesting the natural resource products,
and pollution can be minimized by the power of enforcement and authority. Being the community who
has lived in the area for more than 600 years, their knowledge and experience about the site should not be
under estimated and they should be given a power to perform their daily activities and manage the site.
Although they basically agreed with the BZ concept, they are more concern on their source of basic
needs for a living such as food and shelter, and income to certain communities when restriction is
imposed to the areas. Even though, they have a restriction on harvesting of local product, they have the
right to extract it for self-use.
The Chewong and Jah-Hut possess a unique knowledge of the use of forest plants such as rattan. There
is no exemption to the fact that indigenous community who lives around or in the KWR are allowed to
collect rattan for subsistence and sale. It has been traditionally a primary source of cash income for both
communities. Even though there are many other forest products they can collect, it would be unlikely to
pose a problem for the biodiversity of rattan if the indigenous community were to only use rattan for their
own subsistence.
Surprisingly, commercial collection of rattan in the BZ area is also unavoidable. Excessive harvesting
is carried out by Jah Hut community due to the fact that their belief and respect to nature (take what you
need only) is less compare to Che Wong community. Entrepreneurial mind tend to be higher among the
Jah Hut as compared to Che Wong community.
4.1.2. 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.

204 Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 85 ( 2013 ) 198 – 205
4.2. Potential implementation of buffer bones
The management of what people do and the effects they create is relatively straightforward. The
management body, which consist of collaborated parties has the power to control over the BZ must be
given, and ensuring all activities within is compatible with the management objectives of the BZ.
Local communities around KWR, has been recognized as the important element for the development
of BZ and the survival of KWR. The diverse communities contributed to the various needs, concerns,
problems and opportunities. Local communities and the land they use cannot be approached as separate
issues. The direct and indirect dependency of these local communities requires special attention in order
to achieve a sound management of the BZ. It is believed that local community involvement in the
management and decision making process could minimize the threats to the BZ areas through community
organization rather than just merely full control by the government agencies. Some of the support
activities suggested by the local communities that may be suitable to be carried out in the BZ including:
x Community forest
x Agro-forestry activities
x Indigenous people – craft
x Ecotourism activities
x NTFP harvesting
x Animal husbandry
x FeLDA settlers cooperative
These activities and its association could be potential for development of a more meaningful and
extensive local community involvement in the future.
5. Conclusion
This study in general has proven that the local communities understand the concept of BZ for PAs.
Their positive perception on the potential delineation shows that they support the conservation of the
KWR and at the same time keen to contribute in the related activities to improve their socio-economic
level. As different group and land use activities already exist around KWR (i.e. plantation schemes, state
owned forested land, individual/private land ownership etc.) these areas may have to act as BZ and the
criteria (i.e. width) will vary according to the agencies/activity.
Acknowledgements
The authors like to extend the utmost appreciation to the Department of Wildlife and National
Park, for providing the related information and Research Management Institute, Universiti Teknologi
MARA for funding this research. The authors also acknowledge the constructive comments from the peer
reviewer for reviewing the manuscript.
References
Che Bon, A., Jamalunlaili, A., Jasmee, J. (2012a). Proceedings from ASIA Pacific International Conference on Environment-
Behaviour Studies: Community activities around protected areas and the impacts on the environment at Krau Wildlife Reserve
Malaysia. Giza, Egypt.
Che Bon, A., Izzarul Hafni, M. A, Jamalunlaili, A. and Jasmee, J. (2012b) Stakeholders’ Perception on Buffer Zone Potential
Implementation: A Preliminary Study of Tasek Bera, M'sia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 582-590.

205
Che Bon Ahmad et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 85 ( 2013 ) 198 – 205
Cai, M., & Wang, Y. M. (2012). Low-carbon tourism: A new mode of tourism development. Economy and Management, 1.
Wetlands, I., - Asia, Pacific (1999). Integrated Management Plan - Tasek Bera Ramsar Site. D. o. W. a. N. Park, Wetlands
International - Asia Pacific.
Deparment of Wildlife and National Parks Malaysia. (2005). Integrated management plan of Tasek Bera.
Ebregt, A. a. G., & Pol De. (2008). Buffer zones and their management: Policy and best practices for terrestrial ecosystems in
developing countries.
Jotikapukkana, S., Berg, A., & Pattanavibool, A. (2010). Wildlife and human use of buffer-zone areas in a wildlife sanctuary.
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.
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.
Phua, M. H., Tsuyuki, S., Furuya, N., & Lee, J. S. (2012). Detecting deforestation with a spectral change detection approach using
multitemporal Landsat data: A case study of Kinabalu Park, Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4),
784-795.
Semlitsch, R. D., & Jensen, J. B. (2001). Core habitat, not buffer zone. National Wetland Newletter, 23(4).
Sinun, W. (2011, February 8). South-East Asia Rainforest Research Programme.
Thorell, M., & Götmark, F. (2005). Reinforcement capacity of potential buffer zones: Forest structure and conservation values
around forest reserves in southern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 212(1–3), 333-345. Retrieved from doi:
10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.028