Public Perceptions of Indiana’s Forests and Woodlands: Insights from a Statewide Survey

Erica Kronenberger, Zhao Ma, and Cynthia Longmire

Introduction

Public opinion plays a critical role in natural resource management. Natural resource agencies and organizations increasingly recognize that achieving and maintaining public approval is essential for the effective implementation of management activities. Sustained public support can reduce delays, minimize conflict, and limit resistance, thereby facilitating smoother and more efficient management (Moffat et al., 2016). Public opinion is also relevant to woodland owners because their management decisions occur within a broader social and policy context shaped by public perceptions toward forest and forest management. These perceptions influence the priorities, regulations, and assistance programs developed and/or administered by natural resource agencies. Because these agencies rely on public trust and approval to provide guidance, enforce regulations, and implement management initiatives, public perceptions can directly shape the opportunities and constraints woodland owners face when managing their forests. Effective natural resource management therefore begins with understanding public values and perceptions and aligning management approaches with those values and perceptions (Floress et al., 2019). Equally important is identifying the factors that shape these values and perceptions, such as trust in the managing entity and familiarity with its practices (Eriksson et al., 2023).

In the fall of 2024, the Human Dimensions Lab at Purdue University partnered with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (INDNR) and DJ Case & Associates to administer a statewide public opinion survey assessing Indiana residents’ perceptions of Indiana’s forests and woodlands. Developed through a collaborative design process, the survey covered topics such as state forest visitation, woodland use, perceived threats to forests, perceptions of forest management practices, attitudes towards INDNR and its Division of Forestry (DoF), and the information sources residents use to learn about forests. For the purpose of the survey, forestland was defined as “a land area at least 1 acre in size, not maintained as lawn, where trees are the predominant vegetation type” (Metcalf et al., 2012). The previous statewide assessment of public opinion was conducted in 2009 using a telephone survey. Fifteen years later, the 2024 survey adopted a more modern approach. To reach a broad range of Hoosiers and ensure strong geographic and demographic representation, questionnaires were mailed to approximately 12,000 Indiana residents age 18 and older. We divided the state into four regions—Northern Indiana, Southern Indiana, Central Indiana, and the Indianapolis Metro Area—and sent an equal number of questionnaires to households in each region. Recipients could either return a pre-paid paper survey or scan a QR code to complete the survey online. Over a six-week period, which included four waves of contact, the survey yielded 2,780 usable responses. The 39-question survey produced a wealth of insights, including several findings of particular interest to woodland owners. Below, we highlight select results.

Overview of Survey Respondents

Overall, the demographic characteristics of the final sample of survey respondents were generally consistent with U.S. Census data, indicating that the sample was broadly representative of Indiana’s population. Woodland owners accounted for 600 of the 2,780 total respondents, or approximately 22% of the sample. Among woodland owners, the average length of forest ownership was 17 years, and more than half (56%) owned less than 10 acres of forestland. Respondents reported moderate engagement with Indiana’s public lands. Within the past 12 months, 66% indicated that they had visited a state park, 41% had visited a state forest, and 30% had visited a fish and wildlife area.

Public Values, Concerns, and Opinions on Forests and Forest Management

Indiana’s forests provide a wide range of ecological, recreational, and economic benefits. When asked which benefits matter to them, residents generally placed greater value on environmental and recreational benefits – including clean air and water, carbon storage, biodiversity, and opportunities for hiking, camping, and hunting – than on economic benefits such as jobs, income, and wood production. Respondents generally felt that current forest management in Indiana supports these benefits and align with their values. However, many also indicated that they “don’t know” whether current management produces sufficient benefits across the listed categories, suggesting a potential knowledge gap about the outcomes of forest management in the state.

Woodland owners and non-woodland owners shared similar views on the environmental and recreational value of forests. However, woodland owners placed somewhat greater importance on the economic value of forests, such as their ability to produce wood products and provide jobs. Overall, the results suggest that both groups share broadly similar perspectives on the importance and management of Indiana’s forests, although woodland owners place slightly more emphasis on economic benefits. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of responses to the forest values and management questions.

More than half of woodland owners (53%) reported harvesting timber from their land at some point since acquiring their property. Public views on timber harvesting, however, vary depending on its purpose. As noted earlier, respondents identified land conversion for housing or industrial development as a major threat to Indiana’s forests. Consistent with this concern, opinions were divided on whether tree removal is necessary to accommodate new housing: 42% considered it necessary, while 58% disagreed. When asked about oversight of timber harvesting, most residents— including woodland owners—agreed that harvesting should be guided by professional foresters. Opinions were more divided on whether the DoF should advise landowners on how many and which types of trees to harvest and sell. While 65% of residents agreed that this falls within the DoF’s role, 35% disagreed. Among woodland owners, opposition was somewhat higher, with 44% indicating that advising landowners on timber harvesting is not part of the DoF’s responsibility.

At the same time, Hoosiers broadly support active forest management. More than 90% of respondents indicated that timber harvesting is appropriate and necessary when conducted to promote biodiversity, prevent wildfire and disease, and maintain overall forest health. Similarly, most residents (60%) did not consider planned or prescribed fires—one of the active forest management practices listed in the survey—to be a threat, and only 5% viewed it as “a very big threat.” Overall, respondents favored a balanced approach to forest management that supports wood production while protecting environmental, recreational, and biodiversity benefits. Woodland owners were somewhat more likely to oppose leaving Indiana forests unharvested for carbon sequestration and expressed stronger opposition to importing wood and wood products from outside the state. Figure 3 shows the distribution of opinions on these forest management practices across the full sample.

 Figure 3. Opinions on forest management practices.

How do Indiana residents perceive public forestry programs?

Indiana residents were asked about three public forestry programs: the Private Forestland Green Certification Program, the Classified Forest and Wildlands Program, and the Family Forest Carbon Program. For each program, respondents were first given a brief description and then asked whether they were previously familiar with it and whether they supported or opposed it after reading the description. Although initial familiarity with all three programs was low, more than half of respondents expressed support or strong support once the programs were explained (Figure 4). Additionally, woodland owners were somewhat more likely than non-woodland owners to be familiar with these programs, particularly the Classified Forest and Wildlands Program, but the vast majority still reported they had not previously heard of them.

Figure 4. Familiarity with and support for public forestry programs.

Public Perceptions of the INDNR and DoF

Using a five-point scale (“never heard of it,” “slightly familiar,” “somewhat familiar,” “moderately familiar, and “extremely familiar”), most residents reported being at least somewhat familiar with the INDNR (65%). Familiarity with the DoF was much lower: only 28% reported being at least somewhat familiar, while 45% were only slightly familiar and 27% had never heard of it. Despite this limited familiarity, respondents expressed relatively high levels of trust in the DoF’s management activities and personnel (Figure 5), suggesting a favorable foundation for maintaining public support for forest management. When asked to rate the DoF on a scale from 1 (managing forests very poorly) to 10 (managing forests very well), the average rating was 6.55, with no statistically significant differences across the four regions surveyed.

At first glance, it may seem surprising that respondents expressed trust in the DoF and evaluated its performance as generally effective despite limited familiarity with the DoF. These perceptions may reflect that Indiana residents hold a general baseline of trust in public forestry professionals and in the broader umbrella agency, the INDNR. It is also possible that respondents based their opinions on their overall perceptions of Indiana’s forests—formed through experiences such as visiting state forests, parks, and fish and wildlife areas, rather than on direct knowledge of the DoF itself.

Figure 5. Trust levels for the Division of Forestry.

Beyond familiarity and trust, it is also useful to understand what functions and activities Indiana residents associate with the DoF. Respondents were asked what first comes to mind when they think of the DoF. Mostly commonly, the DoF was associated with forest management, environmental conservation, natural resources, and tree planting. However, fewer respondents identified more specific responsibilities, such as timber harvesting, game management, wildfire response, or providing technical assistance to woodland owners, as illustrated in Figure 6.

 Figure 6. Percent of respondents that associate INDNR DoF with topic.

Public Perceptions and Use of Forest-Related Information in Indiana

When asked where they obtained information about trees, woodlands, and forests in Indiana, half of respondents identified friends and family as a source. The next two most commonly used sources were news media and TV shows. In contrast, professional sources, such as INDNR, federal agencies, district foresters, conservation officers, and university websites, were used much less frequently. Interestingly, information use did not align with trust. The sources used by more respondents were not the ones they trusted most. In fact, several less frequently used sources, including the INDNR, Purdue Extension, Conservation Officers, District Foresters, and the Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners Association, received the highest trust ratings, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Public perceptions and use of information sources about trees, woodlands, and forests in Indiana.

Summary of Findings and Considerations for Woodland Owners

Woodland owners in Indiana value many of the same forest benefits as other residents—an encouraging finding given the important role public perceptions play in shaping natural resource governance. Although some differences exist, particularly regarding the economic benefits of forests and the importance of in-state timber and wood product production, both woodland owners and non-woodland owners generally support active forest management to promote healthy forests and believe that current forest management in Indiana aligns with their values.

Support for removing trees as a management practice, however, varies depending on its purpose. Respondents widely recognized the need to remove trees to achieve objectives such as preventing the spread of insects and diseases, improving forest health, reducing wildfire risk, and supporting biodiversity. At the same time, many residents expressed concern about land conversion, especially when forests are cleared for housing or industrial development. Harvesting trees for wood products was more likely to be viewed as a potential threat to Indiana’s forests. These perceptions reflect the values residents most strongly associate with forests, especially environmental and recreational benefits. 

The results also point to a gap between public forestry agency and the broader public in Indiana. Respondents reported low familiarity with the DoF and very limited awareness of specific forestry programs. Despite this, they expressed relatively high levels of trust in the DoF and strong support for its programs once they were explained. These results suggest that public attitudes towards the DoF and its initiatives are generally positive but not deeply informed, highlighting an opportunity for more intentional outreach and communication.

Increasing public awareness of forestry programs and management initiatives may help residents better understand how Indiana’s forests are managed and why certain practices are used, thereby strengthening public support and trust. Effective strategies for encouraging the public to engage with high-quality, credible information about Indiana’s forests will also be important. As agencies such as INDNR work to sustain and build public trust, continued alignment with public values, attention to perceived threats to Indiana’s forests, and clear communication about the role and purpose of different forest management practices will be essential.

Acknowledgement

We thank the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, particularly the Division of Forestry, for supporting this project. We also thank the survey participants for contributing their time, thoughtful responses, and valuable insights.

Erica Kronenberger is a Research Associate for the Human Dimensions Lab in the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at Purdue University. Zhao Ma is a Professor of Natural Resource Social Science at Purdue University.  Cynthia Longmire is a Senior Social Scientist at DJ Case & Associates.

References

Eriksson, M., Safeeq, M., Padilla, L., Pathak, T., O’Geen, T., Egoh, B., Lugg, J., & Bales, R. (2023). Drivers of social acceptance of natural-resource management: A comparison of the public and professionals in California. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118605

Floress, K., Vokoun, M., Huff, E. S., & Baker, M. (2019). Public perceptions of county, state, and national forest management in Wisconsin, USA. Forest Policy and Economics, 104, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.008

Metcalf, A. L., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E., Shumway, D., & Stedman, R. C. (2012). Private forest

landowners: Estimating population parameters. Journal of forestry, 110(7), 362-370.

Moffat, K., Lacey, J., Zhang, A., & Leipold, S. (2016). The social licence to operate: A critical review. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 89(5), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpv044