Larson, Ibes, and White 2011 Gender Perspectives about Water Risk and Policy

Article

Environment and Behavior43(3) 415 –438

© 2011 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0013916510365253http://eab.sagepub.com

Gendered Perspectives About Water Risks and Policy Strategies: A Tripartite Conceptual Approach

Kelli L. Larson,1,2 Dorothy C. Ibes,1 and Dave D. White2

Abstract

Previous research has examined gendered perspectives on a variety of envi ronmental risks. Mixed results complicate the ability to make generalizations about human-ecological judgments, largely because of the use of inconsistent conceptual and methodological approaches in previous work. Following the tripartite model, we examine differences between men and women for diverse attitudinal judgments about water scarcity and resource governance in the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. Although women exhibit significantly stronger affective concern about water scarcity risks than men, cognitive per ceptions about the causes of risks and conative attitudes about management strategies are largely the same across genders. As a whole, this article clarifies gender differences in environmental perspectives and posits a clear conceptual approach in examining multidimensional judgments in diverse contexts.

Keywords

attitude theory, risk perceptions, gender, water resource governance

1Arizona State University, Tempe2Arizona State University, Phoenix

Corresponding Author:Kelli L. Larson, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Mail Code 5302, Tempe, AZ 85287-5302Email: [email protected]

416 Environment and Behavior 43(3)

Introduction

Long-term drought, population growth, and rising demands raise concerns about future water scarcity. The effects of climatic change and human devel-opment on global water supplies will increase significantly in the coming decades, with relatively arid regions and rapidly expanding cities facing abso-lute scarcity and other resource challenges (Vörösmarty, 2000). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), acute shortages may afflict nearly 2 billion people worldwide (WHO, 2008). The United Nations recognizes the importance of sustainable water resource use and governance with its 2005-2015 Water for Life International Decade for Action initiative (UN, 2008). Although access to a reliable supply of water for drinking and sanitation in less developed regions is a central focus of these global initiatives, affluent nations confront risks ranging from severe shortages and inadequate infra-structure to degraded water quality and insufficient capacity to manage res ources. Moreover, because per capita water demand is 10 times higher in the developed world than in poorer nations (British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC], 2003), the potential for positive change, or detrimental consequences, is substantial.

In certain regions of the world, environmental change threatens warmer, drier climatic conditions that negatively affect snowpack and water supplies. Scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography specially warn of a highly variable climate in the Southwestern United States, where historic 150-year mega droughts have reduced water flows in the Colorado Basin to as low as 25% of the average flow for decades (Monroe, 2008). Such an event would be disastrous for the 30 million people that depend on this water supply today (Kunzig, 2008), including residents of central Arizona, where plentiful resources in the recent past have resulted in comparatively high rates of water consum ption (Hirt, Gustafson, & Larson, 2008).

Situated in Phoenix, Arizona, the study presented herein examines gen-dered perspectives about a variety of water scarcity and resource governance issues. Because women commonly make decisions about water use and are often the primary users of water in households (Schahn & Holzer, 1990), they represent a critical population of interest for water use and gover-nance. The UN (2008) and other organizations highlight women’s essential role in accomplishing related goals such as increasing access to reliable water sources or developing locally effective water management strate-gies. Generally, understanding the diversity of human judgments about environmental issues assists in designing socially acceptable policies and effective conservation programs that require public support and behavior change.

Larson et al. 417

Two previous reviews of the literature have concluded that the evidence is unclear concerning the effect of gender on environmental attitudes and behav-iors (Mohai, 1992; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). Numerous studies have reported a link between gender and environmental perspectives, many of which have found that women are more environmentally concerned than men (Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996; Tindall, Davies, & Mauboulés, 2003; Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). Still other studies have illustrated conflicting relationships wherein men are more environmentally concerned than women (Mostafa, 2007) or no gender differences exist at all (Lyons & Breakwell, 1994). This lack of clarity is partly because few studies have delved deeply into examin-ing multiple realms of judgment concerning environmental problems and their amelioration. Furthermore, the widespread use of ambiguous constructs and limited measures that lack a theoretical foundation confounds general-izations across studies (Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996; Dunlap & Jones, 2002). As a result, studies employing robust conceptual approaches are needed to better understand gendered environmental perspectives.

In this article, we integrate the tripartite model of attitudes (for a review, see Dunlap & Jones, 2002) with socialization theory (Zelezny et al., 2000) to address how and why three types of judgments vary by gender: (1) affective concern about water scarcity risks, (2) cognitive perceptions about the causes of resource shortages, and (3) conative support for alternative policies. In doing so, we emphasize two primary contributions of this research. First, we offer a conceptually clear approach in examining three important dimen-sions of human-ecological perspectives, and second, we provide additional evidence on how and why gender influences particular judgments more than others. As a whole, this study advances knowledge production and informs decision making through improved understanding of residents who affect and are affected by water resource use and governance.

Gender and Human-Ecological Perspectives: A Tripartite ConceptualizationSpurred by rising concern in the 1960s, copious research has addressed how people understand, perceive, and evaluate environmental problems and their mitigation. Scholars from various disciplinary backgrounds have employed an assortment of concepts and measures to examine “environmental con-cern,” although they have frequently relied on an unclear, atheoretical approach (Dunlap & Jones, 2002; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1981). As Dunlap and Jones (2002, p. 483) noted specifically, “a recurring theme . . . is whether it is appropriate to conceive of environmental concern as a single construct.”


Slovic (1999) has emphasized that risk perceptions are indeed multidi-mensional, yet in the past much of the related research has focused on how human judgments vary based on the characteristics of diverse risks (Sjoberg, 2000), as opposed to how social characteristics influence various aspects of a particular risk. In this article, we therefore employ a three-part theoretical approach to examine gender differences in concern about water scarcity, perceptions about the sources of potential shortages, and attitudes about resource management approaches. Although building on the tripartite theory of “concern” or “attitudes,” as it has been called in the literature (e.g., Bogozzi, Tybout, Craig, & Sternthal, 1979; Dunlap & Jones, 2002), we prefer the broader notions of environmental perspectives or judgments to clearly define and evaluate concern, attitudes, and related constructs as dis-tinctive domains of judgment, as further defined and conceptualized later in this article.

Affective Judgments: Emotional ConcernsAffective judgments address a person’s feelings and emotional evaluations about environmental issues (Dunlap & Jones, 2002), such that expressions of care and concern apply beyond simply knowing or acting in an ecologically relevant way. Explicit expressions of concern are distinctive because people may exhibit little distress or worry about an issue while still understanding aspects of the problem and potentially acting in ways that help alleviate risks or losses. Likewise, people might exhibit concern over an issue regardless of their knowledge or understanding of the problem, and possibly without sup-porting or undertaking particular actions to address it. One study found, for example, that people who express elevated concern about water consumption actually use more of the resource, not less (Askew & McGuirk, 2004). Over-all, since scarcity is a function of a variety of water quantity and quality factors (USGS, 2008), we operationalized affective judgments as “concern” about risk factors including drought, consumption rates, and the safety of drinking water, with special attention to local-scale risks.

With limited attention to water scarcity and related risks, the majority of past studies has analyzed concern about environmental problems generally, or risks such as nuclear power and toxic waste specifically, with varying results. In half of 18 reviewed articles evaluating general environmental con-cern, women were found to be more concerned than men, but the remaining studies revealed no significant differences between genders (Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996). Studies examining specific environmental hazards more consistently found higher women compared to men. For instance, Hamilton

Larson et al. 419

(1985) demonstrated that women were more concerned than men about toxic waste, perhaps due to child-rearing duties and fears about the welfare of their families. Because women often participate in housework more than men, Schahn and Holzer (1990) argue that their increased concerns (and actions) are largely a result of making many of the household decisions that affect the environment.

Some research has determined that men are more environmentally con-cerned than women. For instance, men have been found to be more concerned about acid rain compared to women (Arcury, Scollay, & Johnson, 1987). Meanwhile, Blocker and Eckberg (1989) revealed that men in their study were more concerned with economic issues pertaining to environmental reg-ulations. At the same time, they found that women were more concerned about localized problems than men, whereas no gender differences were found for general ecological concern.

Broadly, previous research has shown that ecological concern varies based on the geographic scope of the problem. Termed the “hyperopia effect,” people typically express more concern about environmental risks at broader, distal scales (e.g., global or national levels) compared to smaller-scale, proximate levels (such as towns or households; Garcia-Mira, Real, & Romay, 2005; Uzzell, 2000). With respect to gender, studies have shown the opposite effect in women, who instead have displayed heightened concern for several types of local risks (Blocker & Eckberg, 1989; Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996). This phenomenon may have critical implications for conservation or related initiatives aimed at behavior change, since the distancing of problems away from one’s personal concerns may result in a lack of responsibility or efficacy for individual actions that help ameliorate collective environmental problems (Garcia-Mira et al., 2005; Uzzell, 2000).

In sum, additional research is needed to clarify the types and scales of risks toward which men and women are least to most concerned. Given the hyperopia effect and the importance of local human-environment interac-tions, we focused our examination of concern at small geographic scales including the neighborhood (local) and metropolitan (regional) levels. With regard to gender and affective judgments, we posed the following hypothesis (1): Women will be more concerned than men about water scarcity risks, especially at local scales.

Cognitive Judgments: Perceived CausesCognitive aspects of human understanding encompass knowledge as well as subjective beliefs and ideas about environmental problems and their causes


and solutions (Dunlap & Jones, 2002). Cognitive judgments are distinguish-able from affective ones because they do not inherently imply personal worry or emotional attachment to an issue. Nor do they necessarily reflect what people think ought to be done about problems. Yet the cognitive framing of environmental risks may influence or relate to affective judgments and cona-tive evaluations, as with a study wherein men were both more knowledgeable and concerned about acid rain compared to women (Arcury et al., 1987). Another case found that heightened awareness of environmental problems leads to positive attitudes and behaviors regarding green purchases (Mostafa, 2007). With our focus on water scarcity, we are primarily interested in the perceived causes of potential shortages, ranging from residents’ use of water (e.g., for irrigating lawns) and other human activities (e.g., for growth and tourism) through to nature or biophysical processes (e.g., drought). These judgments reflect people’s framing of environmental problems in terms of attributing them to anthropogenic versus natural causes, along with signify-ing the sense of individual responsibility people hold for risks such as water scarcity.

Related to water conservation, an Australian study described how residents displace responsibility and control away from the household by emphasizing a national consciousness about drought and the desert environment (Askew & McGuirk, 2004). Still other research illustrates a general tendency for peo-ple to shift accountability and blame for environmental problems to other peo ple and to nature (see, e.g., Dutcher, Finley, Luloff, & Johnson, 2004; Faulkner, Green, Pellaumail, & Weaver, 2001; Leiserowitz, 2005; Sonnett, Morehouse, Finger, Garfin, & Rattray, 2006; Swyngedouw, 1997). To our knowledge, however, no studies have examined the degree to which this ten-dency plays out across genders. Because women exhibit heightened concerns about relatively proximate risks, and given their role in related household choices, they may perceive residential water uses as more important than men. Alternatively, women may shift blame away from the household and toward other human activities or natural processes, thereby cognitively avoiding responsibility for water use and conservation at home.

Irrespective of gender, Leiserowitz (2005) characterized risk perceptions and policy preferences in the global warming debate, reporting that “naysay-ers” tend to attribute climatic change to natural processes. Consequently, they often support the status quo or a do-nothing approach to governance. Leiserowitz also explained how people confuse climatic phenomena such as global warming and ozone depletion, thereby confounding cognitive or other judgments about complex phenomena. As a whole, people’s thought processes often reflect an “othering” effect in which people distance

Larson et al. 421

environmental problems away from themselves and their communities, which may very well complicate risk mitigation efforts that depend on the collective actions of individuals. Thus, in our study, we assessed cognitive judgments capturing the degree to which men and women believe that various anthropo-genic and natural factors contribute to water scarcity.

Although we found no studies examining beliefs about natural versus human sources of risks by gender, past research has examined other judgments in the cognitive realm. Some studies suggest, for instance, that men are more knowledgeable or aware of environmental problems than women (Arcury et al., 1987; Mostafa, 2007; Schahn & Holzer, 1990). Many more studies have examined cognitive worldviews through the use of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale created by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). As these scholars note themselves, the initial failure to ground the NEP scale in social theory has resulted in its conceptualization as environmental concern, values, attitudes, and related constructs (Dunlap et al., 2000). In actuality, the NEP embodies a set of basic beliefs about human-ecological relations, such as those concerning the limits of nature and human control over the environ-ment. Focusing on the NEP, Zelezny et al. (2000) reviewed 10 years of gender research (from 1988 to 1998) and found that women consistently express more proecological worldviews than men. A more recent study reported the same pattern (Johnson, Bowker, & Cordell, 2004). In an Egyptian study, men were rather uniquely found to exhibit stronger ecological world-views than women (Mostafa, 2007).

In short, we anticipated the following result with regard to subjective judg-ments about the factors contributing to potential water risks (hypothesis 2): Women will perceive more factors—both anthropogenic and natural—as significant causes of water scarcity compared to men.

Conative Judgments: Policy AttitudesMost closely linked to human behavior, conative attitudinal measures reflect dispositions and intentions toward action (Dunlap & Jones, 2002). Previous studies are mixed concerning the effect of gender on environmental activ-ities (such as consumer, political, or voluntary behaviors) and related, behavior-ori ented attitudes. Although some studies suggest women engage in proe cological behaviors more than men (Schahn & Holzer, 1990; Zelezny et al., 2000), others report that men more commonly undertake certain environmental activities (Johnson et al., 2004). The latter study examined an array of envi-ronmental behaviors, finding that women engaged more in recycling whereas men more commonly volunteered for outdoor groups and read about


environmental problems. Mostafa’s (2007) Egyptian study also illustrated that men have more positive attitudes about green purchasing behaviors than women. In a cross-national study, moreover, Hunter, Hatch, and Johnson (2004) found that gender differences in “environmental concern”—as mani-fested through proenvironmental behaviors—varied widely across different cultural contexts.

Relative to affective and cognitive judgments, men appear to be most eco-logically oriented (compared to women) in the behavioral realm of judgment and action. However, mixed findings from previous studies demand addi-tional research to clearly examine multifaceted judgments about complex human-ecological phenomena, especially those involving affective and cog-nitive judgments as well as conative attitudes or behaviors. Since several previous studies have focused on reported environmental behaviors, we examined conative judgments that reflect voting intentions and dispositions toward different approaches to water resource governance. Specifically, we operationalized conative, policy attitudes as the level of expressed support or opposition for mitigation approaches ranging from voluntary to regulatory strategies. Past work on policy attitudes has illustrated greater public support for voluntary efforts compared to regulatory and economic measures (Harlan et al., 2006; Larson & Santelmann, 2007). Similar to our expectations for affective and cognitive judgments, we posed the following hypothesis (3): Women will be more supportive of risk mitigation policies than men.

Socialization Theory: The Underlying Causes of Gender DifferencesThe different ways in which young girls and boys are raised and socialized is thought to result in gendered environmental perspectives (Arcury et al., 1987; Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996). Some feminist scholars have explored the idea that women are intrinsically “closer to nature” than men, arguing that this connection is socially and politically driven (Leach, 2007). Partly arising from Judeo-Christian religious traditions, others suggest that culture, which is commonly associated with male affairs, is above nature and related female activities (Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996). By extension, men’s con-cerns deal more with the public world of business, politics, science, and other social domains, whereas women’s concerns are centered in the private, “nat-ural” realm. In general, the different social experiences of men and women result in five common explanations for gendered environmental perspectives: safety concerns, parental roles, knowledge, institutional trust, and economic salience.

Larson et al. 423

The premise most supported by previous work is the safety concern hypoth-esis, which suggests that because women are typically household caretakers, they frequently confront the health and safety of their families and, therefore, are more concerned about environment risks (Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996). Flynn, Slovic, and Mertz (1994) reported that women assigned higher health-risk ratings than men to 25 different types of risk, ranging from blood transfusions and sun-tanning to pollution and ozone depletion. In past studies, women have also expressed heightened concern about the potential health and safety threats that specific environmental risks pose to their communities and fami-lies (Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996). A related explanation for heightened human-ecological concerns is the dominant parental role that women typi-cally play in nuclear families. The support for this hypothesis has been mixed, though, and weaker than the safety concerns thesis. Given these explanations and associated empirical findings, we expected women to be more concerned than men about relatively local, proximate water scarcity risks that are likely to affect their families.

The knowledge hypothesis suggests that heightened knowledge about risks among men may lead to diminished concern compared to women (Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996). Yet some studies have shown that height-ened awareness of risks leads to increased concerns. On the whole, “the consistent finding has been that women do indeed express higher levels of concern than do men, not because they know less but because they care more” (p. 328). However, if men are more knowledge about environmental issues than women, as illustrated earlier for some cases, then their subjective per-ceptions about particular causes of potential water scarcity may also differ. For example, if men are more knowledgeable about water issues, the critical role that residential uses and climatic dynamics play in determining regional water demand (as reported by recent research including Balling & Gober, 2006; Ellis, Hawkins, Balling, & Gober, 2008; Wentz & Gober, 2005) may lead them to perceive these factors as more critical contributors to water scar-city compared to women.

The economic salience thesis argues that because men have traditionally been the family breadwinners, their involvement in and concerns about eco-nomic matters may lead them to disregard environmental risks or problems (Davidson & Freudenberg, 1996). Although evidence from previous studies does not substantiate this claim, the logic could extend to our assessment of conative attitudes about environmental policy regimes, especially consider-ing that men have expressed greater concern about the economic effects of environmental regulation than women (Blocker & Eckberg, 1989). Thus, men may oppose regulations more so than women, or they may strongly


oppose strategies with economic effects, such as increasing the price of water. Alternatively, men might favor market-based strategies or other poli-cies because of their trust in the entities that implement them. As the second most substantiated thesis for gendered perspectives (Davidson & Freuden-berg, 1996), this institutional trust explanation is likely to pertain most to conative attitudes, such that men might express enhanced support for poli-cies because of their faith and central involvement in related social institutions.

Research and Survey DesignThe study area of metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona is situated in the Sonoran Desert of the Southwestern U.S. Surrounded by mountains and commonly referred to as “The Valley” by residents, the region receives less than 8 inches of precipitation annually, on average (Jacobs & Holway, 2004). Despite its location in an arid desert environment, the Phoenix area was originally settled because of a relative abundance of surface water and other resources (Gober, 2006). Scholars warn, though, that the era of plentiful water is unlikely to last forever, especially given the environmental, sociopolitical, and institutional uncertainties associated with securing additional water supplies to meet increas-ing demands (Hirt et al., 2008). As a result, increased attention has being placed on demand-side strategies that seek to reduce water-use rates through enhanced efficiency. Given that the region still maintains among the highest consumption rates in the United States, and since residential uses of water represent a sizable portion of overall demand, domestic conservation strate-gies are a key component of sustainable water use.

Located in one of the fastest growing regions of the U.S., the 2006 popula-tion for the greater metropolitan area (Maricopa County) was estimated at 3.8 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Rising water demands from rapid growth exacerbate the provision of a reliable future water supply, along with inefficient water uses and predicted climatic changes (Ellis et al., 2008; Hirt et al., 2008). Elevated temperatures because of the urban heat island effect have been linked to increased demand in Phoenix (Guhathakurta & Gober, 2007), in addition to drought and other climatic conditions that affect water supplies (Balling & Gober, 2006). Meanwhile, a variety of strategies have been employed throughout the region to manage water resources, from incentives and information that encourage conservation to technologies and infra structure that store or treat water for future uses (Jacobs & Holway, 2004). Nevertheless, water prices are still fairly low in the region, and despite

Larson et al. 425

a decade-long drought, residential watering restrictions have not yet been imp lemented to conserve water (Kunzig, 2008).

Implementing the SurveyConducted in 2006, the Phoenix Area Social Survey (PASS) evaluated a vari-ety of human-environmental issues among a broad residential sample from the entire metropolitan region. A stratified sampling approach involved surveying a random sample of households within 40 representative neighborhoods. Co-located with long-term ecological monitoring sites for the other research purposes, the neighborhoods (defined by census block groups) represent a vari-ety of socioeconomic and demogra phic characteristics, as well as locations in the central urban areas of Phoenix and suburban and fringe areas of the Valley.

With multiple contacts and incentives to encourage participation, respon-dents completed the survey online, in-person, or by phone. The adult in the sampled households with the most recent birthday was invited to partici-pate in the survey. Participants could choose to respond in English or Spanish. A 51% response rate was achieved, with a total of 808 respondents (Harlan et al., 2006). The sample represents a range of education and income levels, ages and years of residence in the Valley, and political orientations. Of the valid sample (N = 801), 58% were women and 42% were men. Three survey questions examined the constructs defined in this research (see appendix for verbatim items).

Analyzing the Three ConstructsBefore conducting the final analysis, the data were statistically weighted to adjust the sample statistic so that it accurately reflects the known population parameter for gender at the neighborhood level. In other words, the data were weighted so that the gender distribution for each sample neighborhood was equal to the gender distribution for the corresponding census block group. This procedure corrects for potential gender-based sampling bias and is appropri-ate for recalibrating data collected through a stratified sampling design (Lohr, 1999). Once weighted, composite variables were created and the data were analyzed to evaluate the three constructs representing affective, cognitive, and conative judgments.

A total of 18 survey items gauged respondents’ perspectives about water scarcity (see appendix). Guided by the tripartite theoretical framework, we examined three groups of individual judgments and three composite


variables for each construct. Affective concern was assessed by four items (Cronbach’s a was .72) with a 4-point scale ranging from (not to very con-cerned). Cognitive perceptions were measured by seven items (a = .82) on a 10-point scale, with one signifying that a factor does not contribute at all to water scarcity and 10 meaning it contributes a lot. Conative attitudes toward water management approaches were likewise examined on a 10-point scale for seven variables (a = .67) measuring the level of policy support, wherein one indicated strong opposition and 10 indicated strong support. To determine gender, residents were asked to indicate whether they were male or female. Refus-als to answer any items were coded as missing variables. As indicated by the reliability (alpha) tests, all three measures for each construct exhibited internal consistency based on standard criterion. The reliability test for the conative attitudinal items is below the ideal alpha value of .7, but it still meets the mini-mum alpha value of .5 or higher (Nunnally, 1967).

To identify statistical differences between men and women, we employed one-way ANOVA tests for both the 18 individual variables and the three composite indices measuring affective, cognitive, and conative judgments. The findings are presented in the following section.

ResultsThe patterns for each realm of human-ecological perspectives are described in relation to gender and in general. Statistical differences in the individual and composite judgments are reported at the standard p < .05 significance level, with numeric details provided in Tables (1-3). In total, men and women differed primarily for affective dimensions of judgment, with some interest-ing findings regarding the diversity of judgments examined.

Affective Concern About Water RisksWith respect to affective judgments about water scarcity risks, women exp-ressed substantially higher concern than men (Figure 1). At the regional scale, concern about the effects of drought as well as the amount of water consumed was high and significantly greater for women than men (Table 1). Concern about the safety of drinking water at the local, neighborhood scale was lower compared to the regional risks evaluated, but women still exhibited more concern than men. Respondents were least concerned about neighbor-hood water consumption, which was the only affective judgment that did not differ by gender. Thus, although both men and women appear to distance problems away from their local environments through attenuated concern,

Larson et al. 427

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Affective Concern and Tests of Differences by Gender

ANOVA Descriptive Statistics: M (SD) ResultsAffective Judgments N = 807 (a = .720) Overall Female Male F p

Overall concern 3.21 (0.596) 3.28 (0.340) 3.14 (0.363) 10.872 .001Drinking water in 3.06 (0.985) 3.13 (0.967) 3.00 (0.998) 3.96 .047

neighborhoodWater use in 2.76 (0.902) 2.81 (0.907) 2.72 (0.896) 1.84 .175

neighborhoodWater use in Valley 3.47 (0.674) 3.54 (0.667) 3.40 (0.674) 8.57 .004Drought in Valley 3.54 (0.614) 3.63 (0.569) 3.45 (0.645) 16.66 .000

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Cognitive Perceptions and Tests of Differences by Gender

ANOVA Descriptive Statistics: M (SD) ResultsCognitive Judgments N = 800 (a =.823) Overall Female Male F p

Overall contributions 7.57 (1.698) 7.64 (2.846) 7.49 (2.915) 1.64 .201People watering yards 6.74 (2.422) 6.85 (2.377) 6.64 (2.466) 1.44 .231People with pools 6.78 (2.48) 6.89 (2.517) 6.67 (2.442) 1.52 .217Human-made lakes & ponds 7.24 (2.508) 7.27 (2.508) 7.21 (2.51) 0.13 .715Tourism & recreation 7.48 (2.441) 7.52 (2.44) 7.44 (2.444) 0.17 .681People moving to Valley 8.13 (2.198) 8.15 (2.157) 8.11 (2.242) 0.17 .681Climate change 7.79 (2.38) 7.96 (2.304) 7.62 (2.445) 4.08 .044Long-term drought 8.81 (2.05) 8.79 (2.08) 8.83 (2.021) 0.06 .800

the effect was stronger among women in our study. As discussed further in the concluding section, this result is somewhat contradictory to past findings illustrating heightened concern among women for local-scale risks.

Cognitive Perceptions About the Causes of RisksRegarding the perceived causes of water scarcity, women’s mean responses were higher than men’s judgments for all factors except drought (Figure 2).


Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Conative Attitudes and Tests of Differences by Gender

ANOVA Descriptive Statistics: M (SD) ResultsConative Judgments N = 795 (a = .667) Overall Female Male F p

Overall support 7.54 (1.459) 7.56 (2.303) 7.52 (1.960) 0.179 .672Increase price of water 4.95 (3.042) 4.89 (3.076) 5.01 (3.01) 0.30 .584Restrict residential uses 6.55 (2.816) 6.53 (2.834) 6.57 (2.801) 0.04 .844Limit golf courses 7.47 (2.765) 7.46 (2.739) 7.48 (2.795) 0.01 .940Find new water sources 7.8 (2.439) 7.86 (2.468) 7.75 (2.412) 0.39 .531Investing in technology 8.71 (2.056) 8.74 (1.94) 8.67 (2.169) 0.23 .630Improve management 8.66 (2.083) 8.68 (2.101) 8.64 (2.068) 0.10 .759Educate public 8.75 (2.068) 8.87 (2.062) 8.64 (2.07) 2.39 .122

Figure 1. Gender differences for affective concern about water scarcity issues

Larson et al. 429

However, these differences were largely insignificant (Table 2). The one judgment that differed significantly by gender pertained to climatic change, which women believe to be more critical than men. Generally, climatic change was seen as a less critical contributor to water scarcity than drought (as a natural cause) and growth (as an anthropogenic cause). Cognitive judgments about climatic change likely reflect the perception that these dynamics are

Figure 2. Gender differences for cognitive perceptions about the causes of water scarcity


human-induced (as with global warming), rather than attributable to natural processes, but additional research should more fully examine gendered per-spectives on complex climatic dynamics and risks. Finally, and not surprisingly, residents were least likely to blame themselves for water scarcity—that is, in terms of household uses of water. When considering perceptions about the potential causes of water scarcity altogether, we found no differences in the degree to which men versus women think assorted factors contribute sub-stantially to water risks.

Conative Attitudes About Mitigation ApproachesIn terms of conative judgments, water pricing was the most opposed policy tool, with stronger support among men than women (Figure 3). Although not statistically significant, male respondents were interestingly more supportive of relatively stringent measures, such as increasing the price of water and restricting uses to reduce consumption, compared to women (Table 3). In general, respondents expressed substantial attitudinal support for voluntary approaches that do not (necessarily) impact residents and their behaviors, such as educating the public about conservation and improving resource manage-ment. Yet substantial opposition exists toward regulatory strategies that directly affect people. Regardless of these interesting patterns, no significant differ-ences were detected between genders for the individual or composite conative judgments about risk mitigation approaches.

Discussion and ConclusionOur study supported the first hypothesis regarding gendered concern about water scarcity issues, whereas the second and third hypotheses per-taining to cognitive and conative judgments were mostly unsubstantiated (Figure 4). In particular, we found that women differed significantly from men in terms of their emotional concern about water scarcity. Differences in affective judgments applied to water risks at the relatively distal (regional) scale, and to a lesser extent, the local (neighborhood) scale. For risks that pose direct threats to the health of residents and their families (the safety of drinking water), human-ecological concerns were heightened generally and specifically for women at the local scale. This finding supports the safety-concern thesis put forth by previous scholars. However, relatively low concerns about local water consumption rates, which were similarly moderate among both men and women, pose a potential challenge for encouraging behavior change through emotional appeals for conservation in residential areas.

Larson et al. 431

Given that these findings are somewhat counter to previous research, which has found heightened concern among women at local compared to broader scales, future studies should focus on the degree to which affective judg-ments vary based on both personal characteristics (such as gender) as well as the nature and scale of the risks involved. This entails considering the impacts associated with various risks at multiple scales, including the effects on

Figure 3. Gender differences for conative attitudes about water management approaches


personal health or economic welfare and the implications for individual action or social change. Attention to the proximate scales at which human-environment interactions occur on an everyday basis is especially imperative for developing effective and socially acceptable strategies for environmental governance. Although much of the previous research has focused on general ecological concerns or perceptions about risks broadly, future work should go further in addressing a variety of judgments about problems at scales ranging from individual households and neighborhoods through to municipal and regional (e.g., metropolitan-wide) levels. These relatively proximate geo-graphic scales are critical not only for addressing individual decisions and collective actions for risk mitigation, but also for determining the degree to which the hyperopia effect plays out beyond the local to global scales that have been commonly examined in the past—that is, at the level of towns through to broader national and international scales.

In addition to gender differences for affective judgments, which appear to depend on the nature and scale of the risk involved, our study indicates par-tial support for our second hypothesis. Specifically, men and women differed slightly in their perceptions about the causes of water scarcity risks. This is true for at least some factors, which in our study primarily involved climatic

Figure 4. Gender differences for affective, cognitive, and conative judgments

Larson et al. 433

change. Perhaps, then, gendered differences in the perceived causes of risks depend on their complex and controversial character. As a whole, delving more deeply into perceptions about climatic variability is essential given the multifarious and often uncertain processes involved with drought, global warming, the urban heat island, and other climatic dynamics, which are major drivers of environmental change and future water scarcity worldwide.

Even though statistically significant differences between men and women were weak for cognitive perceptions and nonexistent for conative attitudes, the patterns in individual judgments within and across the three constructs (including affective concern) warrant additional attention. Given our findings, research on human understanding of climatic risks is especially warranted, along with attitudinal support for regulatory versus alternative policy approaches. The direction of differences for stringent regulations and economic-based strategies, toward which men were slightly more supportive than women, is noteworthy compared to the opposite pattern across all other judgments examined. Although these differences were not statistically sig-nificant in our study, this distinctive trend should be considered in light of the past research that has found men exhibit stronger proecological orientations than women in certain behavioral realms while also expressing greater con-cern about the economic effects of regulations.

Employing these same constructs, along with similar and perhaps additional types of judgments and risks, future studies could reveal clearer patterns. For example, one hypothesis to explore is that women are more affectively con-cerned about local or regional risks that affect their families, but not for local-scale risks that affect other people or have implications for changing per-sonal lifestyles or behaviors. Another claim to be tested by future research is that perceptions about the factors contributing to environmental risks vary by gender more so for anthropogenic causes than natural ones. Finally, men may be more atti-tudinally or behaviorally supportive of hierarchical policy options than women, due to heightened trust and gendered socialization in public institutions.

In conclusion, this study confirms the results of previous research by iso-lating gender differences for affective concern, as distinct from the perceived causes of risks and attitudinal support for mitigation measures, which we found to be largely similar across men and women. Through the consistent use of the tripartite model, future studies can further enhance understanding of people’s multifaceted perspectives on environmental matters and the atten-dant ability to generalize research findings by broadly comparing the results of operationally discrete but conceptually clear studies. In doing so, the importance of explicitly defining and rigorously conceptualizing key constructs, in con-junction with developing reliable and valid measures for examining them, cannot be overstated. Ultimately, such approaches will improve knowledge


about how and why human-ecological judgments diverge based on the char-acteristics of ecological problems, the people who affect and are affected by them, and the places in which they pose serious risks, thereby advancing multidisciplinary social theory while informing decisions about risk mitiga-tion and the sustainable use and management of critical natural resources.

AppendixVerbatim Survey Questions

GenderAre you. . . (1) Male (2) FemaleAffective JudgmentsThinking only about the Valley, are you very, somewhat, not too or not at all concerned about. . .

[This verbatim question asked for each of the following] a. The effects of drought? b. The amount of water being used by people who live here?Now, thinking only about your neighborhood, are you very, somewhat, not too or not at all concerned about. . .

[This verbatim question asked for each of the following in a randomized order] a. The amount of water being used by your neighbors? b. Safety of the drinking water?Response Scale: (1) Very concerned (2) Somewhat concerned (3) Not too concerned (4) Not at all concerned

Cognitive JudgmentsIn your judgment, how much could each of the following items contribute to a future water shortage in the Valley? Use a scale of 1 to 10 with one meaning it would not contribute at all to a water shortage and 10 meaning it could contribute a great deal to a water shortage.

[This verbatim question asked for each of the following in a randomized order] a. Human-made lakes and ponds b. Climatic change c. People who water grass and plants in their yards d. A long-term drought in the West e. People who own swimming pools f. Tourism and recreation such as golf courses and vacation resorts g. People moving to the ValleyResponse Scale: (1) Not at all. . . (10) A great dealConative JudgmentsNext, do you support or oppose each of the following policies that some people have suggested to ensure the Valley has enough water in the future? Use a scale of 1 to 10 where one means you strongly oppose it and 10 means you strongly support it.

(continued)

Larson et al. 435

Acknowledgments

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Thanks to Patricia Gober, Nancy Grimm, Chuck Redman, and Sharon Harlan for their support of this research, in addition to Barbara Trapido-Lurie for her assis-tance with graphics.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. SES-0345945 Decision Center for a Desert City (DCDC) and DEB-0423704 Central Arizona—Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER).

References

Arcury, T., Scollay, S., & Johnson, T. (1987). Sex differences in environmental con-cern and knowledge: The case of acid rain. Sex Roles, 16, 463-472.

Askew, L., & McGuirk, P. (2004). Watering the suburbs: Distinction, conformity and the suburban garden. Australian Geographer, 35, 17-37.

Balling, R., & Gober, P. (2006). Climate variability and residential water use in the city of Phoenix, Arizona. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 46, 1130.

Blocker, T., & Eckberg, D. (1989). Environmental issues as women’s issues: General concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 596-593.

Appendix (continued)

[This verbatim question asked for each of the following in a randomized order] a. Investing in new technology to use water more efficiently b. Increasing the price of water c. Restricting water for residential outdoor uses, such as lawns and fountains d. Educating the public about how to conserve water e. Limiting new development of golf courses f. Improving the management of our water resources g. Finding and purchasing new sources of waterResponse Scale: (1) Strongly oppose. . . (10) Strong support

Note: Refusals to answer and “don’t know” responses were also coded for the survey.


Bogozzi, R., Tybout, A., Craig, C., & Sternthal, B. (1979). The construct validity of the tripartite classification of attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 88-95.

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2003). Why world’s taps are running dry, by Alex Kirby. Retrieved November 16, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/ 2943946.stm

Davidson, D. J., & Freudenberg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk con-cerns. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302-339.

Dunlap, R. E., & Jones, R. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and mea-surement issues. In R. E. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environ-mental sociology (pp. 482-524). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm.” Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.

Dutcher, D., Finley, J., Luloff, A., & Johnson, J. (2004). Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing Riparian Forests: A qualitative analysis. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 319-332.

Ellis, A.W., Hawkins, T. W., Balling, Jr., R. C., & Gober, P. (2008). Estimating future runoff levels for a semi-arid fluvial system in Central Arizona. Climate Research, 35, 227-239.

Faulkner, H., Green, A., Pellaumail, K., & Weaver, T. (2001). Residents’ percep-tions of water quality improvements following remediation work in the Pymme’s Brook catchment, northern London, UK. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 239-254.

Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environ-mental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.

Garcia-Mira, R., Real, E., & Romay, J. (2005). Temporal and spatial dimensions in the perception of environmental problems: An investigation of the concept of environmental hyperopia. International Journal of Psychology, 40, 5-10.

Gober, P. (2006). Metropolitan Phoenix: Place making and community building in the desert. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Guhathakurta, G., & Gober, P. (2007). The impact of the Phoenix urban heat island on residential water use. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73, 317.

Hamilton, L. (1985). Concern about toxic wastes: Three demographic predictors. Sociological Perspectives, 28, 463-486.

Harlan, S., Budruk, M., Gustafson, A., Larson, K., Ruddell, D., Smith, V. K., et al. (2006). Highlights of the Phoenix area social survey: Community and environment in a Desert Metropolis (Contribution No. 4). Central Arizona—Long-Term Ecological Research Project, Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Larson et al. 437

Hirt, P., Gustafson, A., & Larson, K. L. (2008). The mirage in the Valley of the Sun. Environmental History, 13,482-514.

Hunter, L., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in envi-ronmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 677.

Jacobs, K., & Holway, J. (2004). Managing for sustainability in an arid climate: Lessons learned from 20 years of groundwater management in Arizona, USA. Hydrology Journal, 12, 52-65.

Johnson, C., Bowker, J., & Cordell, H. (2004). Ethnic variation in environmental belief and behavior: An examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 36, 157-186.

Kunzig, R. (2008, November). Drying of the West. National Geographic, p. 97.Larson, K. L., & Santelmann, M. V. (2007). An analysis of the relationship between

residents’ proximity to water and attitudes about resource protection. Professional Geographer, 59, 316-333.

Leach, M. (2007). Earth mother myths and other Ecofeminist fables: How a strategic notion rose and fell. Development and Change, 38, 67-85.

Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25, 1433-1442.

Lohr, S. L. (1999). Sampling: Design and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

Lyons, E., & Breakwell, G. (1994). Factors predicting environmental concern and indifference in 13-to 16-year-olds. Environment and behavior, 26, 223.

Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women, and the environment. Society and Natural Resources, 5, 1-19.

Monroe, R. (2008). Welcome to the new normal. Scripts Institution of Oceanography News Release. Retrieved November 25, 2008, http://explorations.ucsd.edu/Features/ 2008/New_Normal

Mostafa, M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers green purchase behav-iour: The effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 220-229.

Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Schahn, J., & Holzer, E., (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: The

role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22, 767-786.

Sjoberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 1-11.Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment

battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689.Sonnett, J., Morehouse, B., Finger, T., Garfin, G., & Rattray, N. (2006). Drought and

declining reservoirs: Comparing media discourse in Arizona and New Mexico, 2002-2004. Global Environmental Change, 16, 95-113.


Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Power, nature, and the city: The conquest of water and the political ecology of urbanization in Guayaquil, Ecuador: 1880-1990. Environment and Planning A, 29, 311-332.

Tindall, D. B., Davies, S., & Mauboulés, C. (2003). Activism and conservation behav-ior in an environmental movement: The contradictory effects of gender. Society & Natural Resources, 16, 909.

United Nations (UN). (2008). UN Water for Life. Retrieved November 12, 2008, http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/ UN 2008

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). American Factfinder. Retrieved December 1, 2008, http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en (accessed)

USGS. (2008, March 20). Water availability: A matter of quantity, quality and use. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Media advisory.

Uzzell, D. (2000). The psycho-spatial dimension of global environmental problems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 307-318.

Van Liere, K., & Dunlap, R. (1980). A review of studies that measured environmental attitudes and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 11, 22-38.

Van Liere, K., & Dunlap, R. (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a differ-ence how it’s measured? Environment and Behavior, 13, 651-676.

Vörösmarty, C. (2000). Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science, 289, 284-288.

Wentz, E., & Gober, P. (2005). Determinants of small-area water consumption for the City of Phoenix, Arizona. Water Resources Management, 21, 1849-1863.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2008). 10 facts about water scarcity. Retrieved November 18, 2008, http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/water/en

Zelezny, L. C., Chua P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443-457.

Bios

Kelli L. Larson is an assistant professor at the Schools of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and Sustainability at Arizona State University (ASU), where she is an investigator with the Decision Center for a Dessert City (DCDC) and the Central Arizona–Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) projects. Her research focuses on human-environment interactions in the context of water resource geography and governance.

Dorothy C. Ibes is a doctoral student in the School of Geographical Sciences & Urban Plan-ning at ASU. Her research focuses on urban planning and socio-ecological sustainability.

Dave D. White is an associate professor in the School of Community Resources and Development at ASU and Co-PI for the Decision Center for a Desert City. His research addresses the coproduction of science and policy for environmental decision making.

Documents

Larson, Ibes, and White 2011 Gender Perspectives about Water Risk and Policy