Indiana Residents' Perceptions of Woodland Management: “Indiana
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Indiana Residents’ Perceptions of Woodland Management: “Indiana Woodland Monitor 2009 (IWM-09)” A Final Report to: Jack Seifert & the IN Division of Forestry Submitted by: Dr. Shannon M. Amberg Assistant Professor, Human Dimensions of Natural Resources Purdue University March10, 2010 In cooperation with: D.J. Case & Associates 317 E. Jefferson Blvd. Mishawaka, IN 46545 574-258-0100 – phone 574-258-0189 – fax Communication Specialists in Natural Resources Conservation Daniel J. Witter, Ph.D [email protected] David Case [email protected] FINAL REPORT – Indiana Woodland Monitor 2010 Executive Summary In August 2009, scientists at Purdue University, with the aid of consultants from D.J. Case, constructed a telephone survey intended to assess the opinions of Indiana residents regarding woodland management in the state. The survey, hereafter referred to as “Indiana Woodland Monitor 2009,” was administered to Indiana residents in October. A total of 1,402 Indiana adults, 18 years and older completed the survey. Some highlights in opinions revealed by the survey include the following: Forty-eight percent said they were “very concerned” about the long-term health and productivity of Indiana’s woodlands, and 45%, “somewhat concerned.” Half (50%) said they were “very interested” in Indiana’s fish, forests, wildlife, and the out- of-doors, and 40% indicated they were “somewhat interested.” At least 78% of respondents indicated that they or someone in the household participates in select outdoor activities with the most common activities being “visiting an Indiana state forest” (78%), “fishing or hunting in Indiana woodlands” (72%), and “gathering mushrooms, nuts, or berries from woodlands” (51%). Fifteen percent indicated they were “very familiar” with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, with most others (54%) saying they were “somewhat familiar” with the DNR. Many Hoosiers (58%) said they were “not familiar” with the Division of Forestry within the DNR. However, a relatively small group (6%) that said they were “very familiar” with the Division of Forestry, a large majority (74%) of the small group who said they were very familiar rated the Division’s performance as “excellent” or “good.” A plurality of Indianans (47%) thought most of the state’s woodlands are held in about equal ownership by “private-corporate owners” and “government,” and 26% thought most woodlands are “government” owned (in fact, roughly 85% of the state’s forestlands are privately owned). When informed that “Indiana’s State Forest System makes up about 3% of Indiana’s woodlands,” a majority (55%) thought that the amount was “not enough,” and 39%, “about right.” Majority approval was given to: o Removing some trees to protect Indiana woodlands from spread of disease and wildfire (95%), o Harvesting Indiana trees for woodland management if overseen by professional foresters (85%), o Harvesting Indiana trees to improve places for wildlife to live (82%), o Advising Indiana private landowners on how many and what kinds of trees they might harvest and sell (70%), and o Harvesting Indiana trees to make lumber or other wood products that we use (61%). 2 | Page FINAL REPORT – Indiana Woodland Monitor 2010 Majority agreement was given to the statements: o “Indiana woodlands should be managed for a balance of wood products that we use, and other benefits like recreation, wildlife, and good water quality” (88%), o “If I hear an Indiana forest is being managed as a certified green forest, I get the idea it’s being wisely managed for future generations” (76%). Nearly three-quarters (72%) agreed with the statement, “The amount of forested land in Indiana is shrinking.” Respondents identified “urban sprawl” as the highest-ranking threat to today’s Indiana woodlands. 3 | Page FINAL REPORT – Indiana Woodland Monitor 2010 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 8 Survey Methodology........................................................................................................ 9 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................. 15 Background Characteristics ................................................................................................... 15 Outdoor Interest and Activity .................................................................................................. 18 Familiarity with IN DNR and Division of Forestry ................................................................... 22 Perceptions of Woodlands and Forest Management .............................................................. 26 Hoosiers’ Sources of Woodland Information ........................................................................... 39 Summary and Concluding Remarks .............................................................................. 46 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... 47 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 48 Appendices Appendix A: Survey Instrument .............................................................................................. 50 Appendix B: Weight Table ...................................................................................................... 56 Appendix C: Frequency analyses of all variables (Unweighted data)...................................... 58 Appendix D: Frequency analyses of all variables (Weighted data—sample) ........................ 138 Appendix E: Frequency analyses of all variables by selected classification variables ........... 160 Appendix F: Frequency analyses of all variables by geographic region (weighted) .............. 222 4 | Page FINAL REPORT – Indiana Woodland Monitor 2010 List of Figures Figure 1. Indiana counties, major highways, and forest cover ............................................................ 14 Figure 2. Q18: “Have you or any member of your household…”.............................................................. 20 Figure 3. Indiana State Forest Properties ........................................................................................... 21 Figure 4. Q5: “What first comes to mind when you think of the Indiana Division of Forestry?” Multiple responses possible. ............................................................................................................... 24 Figure 5. Q10: “There are a number of ways that woodlands might be managed. After listening to each way, please tell me if you approve or disapprove.” .................................................... 30 Figure 6. Q13: “For each of the following statements about Indiana woodlands, please tell me if you agree, disagree, or are neutral.” ..................................................................................................... 36 Figure 7. Q12: “If you’ve heard the term ‘certified green forests,’ in a few words, could you please tell me what the term means,” Multiple responses possible. .................................................... 37 Figure 8. Q14: “Do you think each of the following represents a high, medium, or low threat to today’s Indiana woodlands.” ................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 9. Q15: “From what sources do you learn about woodland ecosystems or woodland management? Do you learn ‘a lot,’ ‘some,’ or ‘nothing’ from…”. ..................................................... 41 List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of Indiana population and IWM-09 unweighted distributions for gender, metro-/outside-metro residence, age, and education. ....................................................................... 11 Table 2. Comparison of Indiana population and IWM-09 weighted (age-education) distributions for gender, metro-/outside-metro residence, age, and education. ..................................................... 12 Table 3. Comparison of distributions for unweighted and weighted (age-education combination) responses to “How interested are you in Indiana’s fish, forests, wildlife, and the out-of-doors?” ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 4. Comparison of the Indiana Woodland Monitor sample distribution and actual distribution for Indiana residents living north and south of Interstate Highway 70. .............................. 15 Table 5. Respondents’ background characteristics. .................................................................................. 16 Table 6. Respondents’ background characteristics reduced to dichotomous variables. ........................ 17 Table 7. Q2: “How interested are you in Indiana’s fish, forests, wildlife, and the out-of-doors.” ............ 18 Table 8. Q2: “How interested are you in Indiana’s fish, forests, wildlife, and the out-of-doors,” by selected background variables............................................................................................................. 19 Table 9. Q2: “How interested are you in Indiana’s fish, forests, wildlife, and the out-of-doors,” by geographic region, proximity to State Forest, Indiana Woodland Monitor 2009 (unweighted