Content uploaded by Abdullah Jamalunlaili
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdullah Jamalunlaili on Dec 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
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 1 0 5 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 6 1 0 – 6 1 8
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.2013.11.064
ScienceDirect
AicE-Bs2013London
Asia Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies
University of Westminster, London, UK, 4-6 September 2013
"From Research to Practice"
of Criteria for Delineation of
Buffer Zone at Conservation Reserve: FRIM heritage site
Jamalunlaili Abdullaha,c,
*
, Che Bon Ahmada, Jasmee Jaafarb,
b
aCentre for Environmental Design and Management
bCentre of Geospatial Technology
cMalaysian Academy of SME and Entrepreneurship Development
Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia
Abstract
A major challenge for conservation reserve (CR) to stay intact is the ever-growing economic activities surrounding it
which may pose harmful effects to the area. Worldwide, buffer zone (BZ) is said as one of mechanisms to safeguard
the CR. Although its requirement is stated in various international and national policies and regulations, its
delineation criteria and approaches are not explicitly mentioned. Since the surrounding areas, so called potential BZs,
belong to various stakeholders, this research is conducted to assess the BZ-stakeholder relationship and gain
consensus among them, and translates it into a set of ideal delineation criteria for BZ.
© 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: onservation reserve; buffer zones; FR IM na tional heritage site
1. Introduction
Conservation Reserve (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). Nonetheless, CR face major threats from the surrounding land uses particularly
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-019-669-5857 ; fax: +6-03-5544-4353.
E-mail address: chebon848@uitm.edu.my.
Avai lable 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.
611
Jamalunlaili Abdullah et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105 ( 2013 ) 610 – 618
economic activities that may pose harmful effects to the area (DeFries, Karanth, & Pareeth, 2010). Thus,
there is a need for it to be better protected through BZ (Lynagh & Urich, 2002). BZs have long been a
prominent feature in urban development, but recently it has become a necessity for natural areas.
Although the requirement of BZs for CR is stated in national land use plan, their approach and criteria for
delineation are not explicitly mentioned. There is a need for refine and delineation of the boundary of the
BZ, to ensure a rational basis for the implementation of regulations applied to the CR, as well as to reflect
the underlying physiographic and environmental determinants (Sheil, Nasi, & Johnson, 2004). 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
share ideas, solutions, threats and opportunities is important to reflect the collective responses to human-
nature interface problems (Rastogi, Badola, Hussain, & Hickey, 2010). An important issue of BZ is to
reach the agreement between the stakeholders to ensure the delineation area contribute significant
advantages to all stakeholders.
1.1. Stakeholders
Why stakeholders are important? It is because local knowledge, in particular, should be considered a
valuable source and although it is always a challenge in finding a balance between local 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). 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 ( ). 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
stablishment of it resulted in
restrictions on lan (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.
1.2. 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
, 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 . Among considered factors are:
612 Jamalunlaili Abdullah et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105 ( 2013 ) 610 – 618
Social factors - Traditional use of land, harvesting of non-timber forest product (NTFP), agricultural
activities, man-made structure etc.
Economic factors Agriculture, aquaculture, timber, mining etc.
Environmental factors which include:
Biophysical factors Topography, soil, hydrology, road network, boundary, size, elevation, slope etc.
Ecological factors Forest patch size, number and size, change in forest structure, habitat and
conservation areas etc.
Biological factors Criteria based on use by target species for life history functions such as feeding,
mating, nesting etc.
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):
Traditional use zones inside PAs - There are situations when there are no suitable land exists outside
reserves for BZs. It is preferable to permit collection for certain natural forest products from some
parts of the reserve at certain time rather than have to exercise valuable lands for buffers. For
examples, fishing without poisons or explosive and collecting gums and raisin.
Forest buffers - These include fuel wood or timber forests outside PA boundaries but on public land.
These maybe natural forests, enriched secondary forest or even plantations where emphasis is on
maximizing sustained yield for local village use, while maintaining good soil and water protection.
Economic buffers - It is needed to reduce the needs of villagers to rely on the park resources from PAs.
This could be in the form of special agriculture or provision of productive buffer lands, cash tree
plantations, and wildlife cropping outside PA boundaries, but on state land, where the emphasis is on
maximizing cash returns to benefit villagers. Such buffer lands could be provided on public or other
land around PAs if the necessary legislation exists.
Physical buffers - Where there is no land available for BZ development the boundary itself must serve
as a buffer and there is sometimes a need for physical barriers such as fences, ditches, canals, bamboo
or spiny hedges. These help encourage wildlife from leaving the reserve and deter people and domestic
stock from entering.
the delineation of BZ may be the best answer. This implies that both
conservation and development thoughts be engaged as appropriate for the specific conditions that pertain
for each BZ, with social settings considered at least as important as environmental factors, and that nature
conservation and socioeconomic development are not only complementary, but also strengthen each
Greve, 2000). Various approaches and formulas
have been devised to determine and evaluate the needed sizes of a BZ (Alexandre, Crouzeilles, & Grelle,
2010; Hill, Braaten, Veitch, Lees, & Sharma, 2005; Li, Wang, & Tang, 1999). Establishing criteria that
are scientifically based should be the goal of resource and conservation agencies.
2. Purpose of study and study area
This research is conducted to assess the BZ-stakeholder relationship, 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
613
Jamalunlaili Abdullah et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105 ( 2013 ) 610 – 618
of the key important stakeholders towards the BZ concept and criteria. Further study will be carried which
involve more stakeholders.
Fig. 1. Map showing FRIM and the surrounding
The study area 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.
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
614 Jamalunlaili Abdullah et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105 ( 2013 ) 610 – 618
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.
4. Results and discussions
Five key important stakeholders and their position and working experiences were listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Profile of stakeholders at FRIM, Malaysia
Stakeholders
Descriptions
Forest Research Institute of Malaysia
(FRIM)
Senior Fellow Researcher. Oversee the FRIM/UNESCO project. Has 25 years of
experiences with various positions. Expert in forest management, conservation project.
Selayang District Office (SDO)
District Officer. More than 4 years working experience in local authority.
Forestry Department of Peninsular
Malaysia (FDPM)
Head of Deputy Director. 22 years of experience in forestry management and policy
development.
Taman Ehsan residence
Community representative
World Wildlife Fund, Malaysia
(WWFM)
Senior Officer. More than 15 years working with WWF Malaysia
criteria for delineation of BZ
Respondent
Understanding of concept of buffer
zone for conservation reserve
Criteria
Factors determining the
criteria
Forestr y
Department of
Peninsular
Malaysia
(FDPM)
An area allocated around the forest
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)
Selayang
District Office
(SDO)
activities. It may be in the form of
open spaces, railways, highways,
power lines and rivers.
*BZ is government land unless
mutual agreement is made between
two landowners
Community benefits
Infrastructure
Existing land use
Future land use
Constraints
Potentials
Forest Research
Institute of
Malaysia
(FRIM)
An area around, inside or outside the
conservation reserve allocated for
protection of conservation reserve
and cater for specific functions.
Community and conservation
benefits. Based on type of land
use activities, i.e., residential,
industrial, forest area, highland
area and stakeholders, i.e., JPS,
JKR, Forestry Dept, Env. Dept.
Land use
Topography
Activity
Constraint
Conflict
Taman Ehsan
residence
Open space between two areas, i.e.,
residential and conservation reserve
Community benefits and
protection
Type of activity
Type of basic amenities
World Wildlife
Fund, Malaysia
(WWFM)
Transition land which
complementing both par
benefits.
*existing or introduced forest
i.e., water
shed)
Topography
Biodiversity coverage
Ecosystem coverage
Adjacent land use
activities
615
Jamalunlaili Abdullah et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105 ( 2013 ) 610 – 618
4.1. Concept of buffer zone for conservation reserve
The study found that the understanding of the BZ concept for CR differ significantly among the
stakeholders (Table 2). FDPM defines BZ as an area located around the forest or other protected areas
meant for protection purposes. Its size determines by specific functions and benefits provided by the
forest reserve according to 11 major forest classes and some other type of protected areas, define by the
es for example, virgin jungle forest (VGR),
permanent forest estate (PFE) and water catchment area do not require BZ. While other areas for
examples, selective logging forest, river stream, and research plots, sample plots, salt lake areas, wildlife
coverage (small mammal, elephant and tiger) requires BZ. Buffer width or size for those areas has been
assigned according to
Meanwhile, SDO defines
It may be in the form of open spaces, railways, highways, power lines and rivers as well as conservation
reserve and other protected areas. The area gazetted for BZ should be handed over to government (unless
mutual agreement is made between two respective landowners), and SDO become the manager and
enforcement agencies. Similar to FDPM, SDO has its own guidelines especially in terms of the size and
functions. All BZ should cater for the local community benefits for example BZ in the form of landscape
area, basic amenities (playground and play field) and infrastructures.
On the other hand, FRIM defines BZ as an area around; inside or outside the conservation reserves
allocated for the protection of conservation reserve and cater for specific functions. The sizes vary
depending on the local condition and functions. Whilst, local community define BZ as an open space
between two areas for example, between residential and conservation reserve and should provide benefits
and protections to the community. BZ may be in the form of open space, landscape area and basic
amenities. WWFM describe BZ as a transition area which complementing
regardless to the sizes, BZ should be in the form of existing or introduced forest areas.
Nonetheless, all stakeholders agree that BZ is necessary for CR. Out of five stakeholders, only FDPM
suggest not having a buffer zone between permanent forest reserve which include water catchments
(covering the northern part) and FRIM. This is due to no activities carry out in the permanent forest
reserve; even selective logging is prohibited, which may affect the FRIM area. Thus, the entire area may
become a CR and having a BZ in between does not serve any purpose. On the other hand, all of them
agree that BZ should be inside the FRIM at the area bordering the residential due to the land ownership
constraints It is economically wise to have a BZ inside rather than outside and on private land because
these residential areas are medium low density which does not have much land or open space left for BZ.
4.2. Criteria for delineation of buffer zone at conservation reserve
The findings of the study further highlighted the understanding of the stakeholders on the delineation
criteria proposed for BZs. Although there is some dispute among them, but in general its leads to common
agreements where BZ should serve specific functions mainly for the conservation and community
benefits - Interestingly, FDPM has been practicing the sustainability concept that
covers environment, economy and social factors for their BZ. They also suggest that BZ contributes to the
preservation and improvement of natural habitat and also to enhance the environmental services provided
by the conservation reserve, for example, watershed protection. Additionally, FRIM suggests community
and conservation benefits as the criteria for their BZ with regards to the type of land use activities, i.e.,
residential, industrial, forest area, highland area and stakeholders, i.e., JPS, JKR, Forestry Department,
and Environmental Department. On the other hand local community suggests the criteria for BZ should
, and
616 Jamalunlaili Abdullah et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105 ( 2013 ) 610 – 618
FDPN and SDO further suggested that
there needs to abide to laws and regulations and also local arrangements. In many cases, principles are
less clear-cut and are better when agreed upon rather than simply imposed.
In conclusion, it is found that the criteria suggested are very important though, are quite general and
overlap with each other. It becomes a basis to develop further in the next research whereby more
stakeholders will be participated.
4.3. Factors determining the criteria
All stakeholders manage to list down some of the common factors which influence the establishment
of the criteria that they propose. FDPM has come out with factors specifically meant for their BZ and
mentioned in the management plan. On the other hand, SDO has listed three main factors; existing land
use, future land use and constraints resulted from both factors. These factors require further elaboration to
form sub-factors. SDO further suggest three important documents which help to identify all the related
factors National Physical Plan, Structure Plan and Local Plan. Whilst, FRIM listed five main factors;
land use, topography, activity, constraint and conflict. Those factors too require further elaborations.
Local community manages to come out with two factors; type of activity and basic amenity, while WWF
suggested four important factors; topography, biodiversity coverage, ecosystem coverage and adjacent
land use activities.
In conclusion, it is found that all factors are important, and some of it is overlapping with each other
and requires further elaboration so that sub-factor could be identified. It is also necessary to refer to
documents suggested by stakeholders and other related document such as policies and guidelines.
5. Conclusion
This study in general concludes that the stakeholders agreed on the requirement to have a buffer zone
for conservation reserve though there is dispute in term of understanding on the concept of BZ.
Interestingly, all stakeholders have the same perceptions on the delineation criteria for BZ which is to
serve specific functions and provide conservation and community benefits. This is in line with the
globally accepted concept of BZ where it serves as dual-purpose environmental and socioeconomic
benefits. No doubt, stakeholders are extremely influential towards the development of BZ. The failures
and success of BZ are depending on the stakeholders. Defining coherent conservation goals are
impossible if conflicts and disagreement remain unsolved among them.
6. Recommendation
As mentioned earlier, this is the first attempt in Malaysia to delineate a buffer zone on private and
communal land around the peripheries of a major conservation area such as FRIM. The proposed buffer
zone was designed to benefit both, the park itself, as well as landowners, visitors, and tourists, through the
implementation of control measures to conserve the integrity and natural character of both, the CA and
the buffer, and by promotion of sustainable land uses, including tourism. This research may be of more
significant should there be more important stakeholders is included especially the local community group,
tourism operators, managers and enforcement bodies. Generally, apart from the other stakeholders, local
community 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 (Eshlik &
Kaboudi, 2012).
useful in order to support the findings from the stakeholder
617
Jamalunlaili Abdullah et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105 ( 2013 ) 610 – 618
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
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.
Datta, D., Guha, P., & Chattopadhyay, R. N. (2010). Application of criteria and indicators in community based sustainable
mangrove management in the Sunderbans, India. [doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.06.007]. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 53(8), 468-477.
DeFries, R., Karanth, K. K., & Pareeth, S. (2010). Interactions between protected areas and their surroundings in human-dominated
tropical landscapes. [doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.010]. Biological Conservation, 143(12), 2870-2880.
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. [doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.06.007]. Journal of Environmental Management,
91(11), 2254-2262.
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. [doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.039]. Biological Conservation, 143(12),
2956-2964.
Semlitsch, R. D., & Jensen, J. B. (2001). Core Habitat, Not Buffer Zone. [Newsletter]. 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. [doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.017]. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(3), 251-267.
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
618 Jamalunlaili Abdullah et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 105 ( 2013 ) 610 – 618
governance: The case of the Green Network in Estonia. Journal for Nature Conservation(0). doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.12.007
Wild, R. G., & Mutebi, J. (1997). Bwindi Impenetratable Forest Uganda. Nature and Resources, 3, 33-55.
