No abstract

No abstract

/ This review will trace the evolution of beyond boundary/buffer zone thinking and policy responses in the US National Park Service (NPS); address buffer zone science, benefits, and limitations; examine pertinent legal and social concerns; highlight some agency attempts to create buffer zone-like areas; and propose highlights of a protected area strategy, with buffer zones and corridors as one component. Some findings follow. The need to expand national parks to accommodate large ungulate movement began in the late 1800s, but the recognition that such land was also needed to thwart human impacts such as poaching surfaced in the 1930s. External park buffer zone recommendations by 1930s park scientists were not implemented, and other related adopted policy forgotten, supporting the belief that great insight can be discovered in forgotten institutional history. Buffer zones can remedy some impacts but not others, but their benefits are multiple and underappreciated. The science of buffer zones is very immature and deserves more attention. A present primary obstacle to creating park buffer zones and connecting corridors is a social climate opposing federal initiatives that may intrude on the rights of private landowners. Some proactive NPS bufferlike activity examples are reviewed, but there were none where permanent, complete, effective nonlegislated park buffer zones, derived from nonfederal property, circumscribed large natural area parks. The need for buffer zones and corridors may be a symptom of inadequate regional planning. Options to create buffer zones from private and federal land are outlined. A comprehensive, overall protected area strategy must include more than just buffer zones, with highlights provided. Because optimal regional planning for US national parks is now thwarted by land-use politics, American society must soon decide what is most crucial to future well-being. KEY WORDS: Buffer zone; Reserve; Boundary; Policy; Planning

h i g h l i g h t s• Although IUCN protected area management categories V-VI were adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in 2003, the fears of some skeptics have not been resolved.• Although promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people may be linked, tradeoffs are inevitable.• The expected win-win success stories for categories V-VI have not been abundant although evaluation methods are still unrefined. • Categories V-VI will be more effective for biological diversity conservation if the buffer zones have land use restrictions and adequate governance.• Local participation in buffer zone management is a wise strategy but enforcement by protected area authorities, and some coercion, may be essential to insure that land use practices are biologically optimal for the core area and its buffer zone. a b s t r a c tThe debate about the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) protected area management categories V-VI has been ongoing since the mid-1990s. Even though these two categories were officially adopted at the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003, and approved at the Fourth IUCN World Parks Conference in Barcelona, in 2008, this has not completely alleviated the fears of some debate participants. The question persists, can the perceived dual role of these two categories in promoting the preservation of biological diversity and the economic welfare of local people actually work in synergy? One aspect of categories V-VI needs careful scrutiny: buffer zone land use restrictions and adequate governance. Although local participation in buffer zone management marks a wise cooperative policy, some coercion and enforcement by protected area (PA) authorities seems essential to assure that land use practices in the buffer zone are optimal for core area biota. Buffer zone policy and governance is key to PA biological diversity conservation success.

No abstract