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 GÖTMARK * , HELENA SÖDERLUNDH and MARIA THORELL Animal Ecology, Department of Zoology, University of Göteborg, Box 463, SE 405 30 Göteborg, 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; Götmark 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