Commender, Katie E.Munsell, John F.Ares, AdrianSullivan, JayChamberlain, James L.2021-03-312021-03-312020-091873-7617http://hdl.handle.net/10919/102902Forest conservation buffers provide ecosystem services such as soil and water conservation, wildlife habitat, and clean air. This research studied the experiences and intentions of participants in forest buffer contract programs in Virginia, USA provided by governmental conservation agencies. These programs offer technical assistance and share costs of establishment and maintenance for a period of time typically between 2 and 15 years. Program participant reflections about their experience and intention to retain their forest buffer after their cost-share contract ends were measured. Two-hundred and fifty-one program participants received a mail survey and 136 were returned (response rate = 54%). Two-step cluster analysis grouped respondents into four participant types based on responses to questions about buffer maintenance and costs, and perceived environmental benefits. Discontented and Doubtful respondents (23.4%) experienced financial and maintenance challenges. They also were doubtful about environmental benefits. Contented and Confident respondents (28.2%) experienced minimal financial and maintenance difficulties, and were confident that their buffers provide environmental benefits. Benefited with Burden respondents (22.6%) also were confident about environmental benefits, but experienced burdensome maintenance and costs. Skeptical without Strife respondents (25.8%) were not convinced their buffers provide environmental benefits, but have not had problems with maintenance or costs. A Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test (alpha = 0.05) indicated that Discontented and Doubtful respondents are least likely to retain their buffer after their cost-share contract expires (rank sum = 42.2) and Contented and Confident are most likely (rank sum = 82.8). Benefited with Burden and Skeptical without Strife respondents (rank sum = 59.7 and = 59.8, respectively) were statistically similar to their Discontented and Doubtful counterparts, but slightly more likely to keep their buffer after their contract expires. Overall, Discontented and Doubtful and Benefited with Burden respondents had larger parcels of land and represented the largest percentage of full-time farmers, whereas Contented and Confident and Skeptical without Strife respondents had smaller parcels and were most likely to be part-time farmers or female. Findings suggest distinctions between types are clear along the onus of management, not necessarily perspectives on conservation. The two most influential drivers of program participation were cost-share assistance and water quality, whereas their most important management objective was improving land health.application/pdfenPublic DomainConservation buffersCost-shareBuffer retentionRiparian buffersSocial marketingArticle - Refereedhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09435-81931873-7854