Forest 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 (α = 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.

中文翻译：

---

成本分担参与者经验对保留森林缓冲区的影响

森林保护缓冲区提供生态系统服务，例如水土保持，野生动植物栖息地和清洁空气。这项研究研究了由政府保护机构提供的美国弗吉尼亚森林缓冲合同计划参与者的经验和意图。这些计划提供技术援助，并分担建立和维护费用，通常为2至15年。计划参与者对他们的经验和在分摊成本合同结束后保留​​森林缓冲区的意图的反思得到了衡量。251位程序参与者收到了邮件调查，并且有136位被退回（响应率= 54％）。基于对缓冲区维护和成本问题的回答，两步聚类分析将受访者分为四种参与者类型，不满和令人怀疑的受访者（23.4％）遇到了财务和维护方面的挑战。他们还对环境效益表示怀疑。满意且有信心的受访者（28.2％）几乎没有遇到财务和维护上的困难，并且有信心他们的缓冲带会带来环境效益。受惠于负担沉重的受访者（22.6％）也对环境收益充满信心，但经历了繁重的维护和成本。持怀疑态度但没有争吵的受访者（25.8％）不相信他们的缓冲液可以带来环境效益，但在维护或成本方面没有问题。Kruskal–Wallis非参数检验（α= 0.05）表明不满和怀疑被调查者在其费用分成合同期满之后（等级总和= 42.2）最不可能保留其缓冲时间，并且满足和自信的可能性最高（等级总和= 82.8）。从负担沉重和持怀疑态度的无冲突受访者中受益（排名总和分别为59.7和= 59.8）在统计上与他们的不满和令人怀疑的同行相似，但在合同期满后保留其缓冲的可能性略高。总体而言，“不满，可疑和受惠的负担者”的土地面积较大，占全职农民的比例最大，而“满足，自信和持怀疑态度但没有争吵的受访者的包裹较小，最有可能是兼职农民或女性。研究结果表明，在管理的责任范围内，类型之间的区别很明显，而对保护的观点则不一定。计划参与的两个最有影响力的推动因素是费用分摊援助和水质，而它们最重要的管理目标是改善土地健康。