Gender and Environmental Concern in the Middle East

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/156914911X555170

PGDT 10 (2011) 156-170 brill.nl/pgdt

P E R S P E C T I V E SO N G L O B A L

D E V E L O P M E N TA N D

T E C H N O L O G Y

Gender and Environmental Concerns in the Middle East

Dr. Madalla A. Alibelia, and Dr. Neil R. Whiteb

a) Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Louisiana Monroe, 700 University Avenue, Monroe, LA 71209, (318) 914-9689

E-mail: [email protected]) Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Louisiana Monroe, 700 University

Avenue, Monroe, LA 71209, (318) 342-1448E-mail: [email protected]

AbstractThe effect of gender on environmental concern among samples of college students in the Mid-dle East is examined in this article. The current study investigates gender’s influence on envi-ronmental awareness, degree of support for efforts to solve environmental problems, and willingness to make personal contribution to solve environmental problems. Data were obtained from the Unit for Community and Environmental Studies in the SSRC at Mississippi State University. To achieve the objectives of this study, Factor Analysis and multiple regressions were used. In line with the literature, the results indicate inconsistent and unclear effect of gen-der on levels of concern about the environment in the Middle East.

Keywordsenvironmental concern, Middle East, gender, country, social class, education

Introduction

The politics of gender in the Middle East has been researched since the 1970s (Nelson 1974; Kandiyoti 1991). Most of the important works on the subject derive from Marxist or feminist critiques of either western capitalism or a male-dominated power structure (Moghadam 2003). The results, in many ways, have been used to lay a foundation for a natural progression for women in the Middle East towards an awareness of environmental politics. The effect of gender on environmental concern is examined in this study. We will focus on the levels of awareness about the environment, the degree of support for efforts to solve environmental problems and people’s willingness to make a personal contribution to solve these problems (Dunlap and Jones 2002).

M. A. Alibeli, N. R. White / PGDT 10 (2011) 156-170 157

Literature on levels of environmental concern is extensive (See Arbuthnot 1977; McStay and Dunlap 1983; Brody 1984; Arcury and Johnson 1987; Blocker and Eckberg 1989; Arcury 1990; Stern et al. 1993; Davidson and Freudenberg 1996; Bord and O’Conner 1997; Zelezny et al. 2000; Uyeki and Holland 2000; Hayes 2001; Dietz et al. 2002; and Olofsson and Ohman 2006). North America and Europe have been the main focus of such litera-ture. With few exceptions (See Alibeli and Johnson 2009), environmental concern in the Middle East is overlooked and still lacking. To bridge a gap in the literature, the effect of gender on environmental concern among samples of college students across Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar is explored in this study.

Although the literature on environmental concern is extensive, “actual studies of gender differences in environmental concern have been relatively few, especially ones national in scope and / or of countries in the global South” (Momsen 2000:50). Additionally, the literature has been less clear and lacks consensus as different studies provide different outcomes (Arbuthnot 1977; Blocker and Eckberg 1989; Arcury and Johnson 1987; and Arcury 1990). Studies on gender and environmental concern examine not only the direct effect of gender, but also the way gender affects environmental concern, and the reasons behind such effect on environmental concern (See Chodorow 1978; Griffin 1978; Keller 1985; Hochschild 1989; Horrigan 1989; Gilligan 1982; Agarwal 1992; Merchant 1992; Jackson 1993; Momsen 1993; Miller et al. 1996; Davidson and Freudenberg 1996; Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997; Westl-Walter 1996; Campbell et al. 1996; Momsen 2000; Dietz et al. 2001; Bell 2009).

First, ‘eco-feminists’ argue that a special relationship exists between women and nature. They believe that women enjoy more natural closeness to nature than men (Momsen 2000). This argument is well portrayed by Griffin (1978) who indicates that women are “nature seeing nature, nature with a concept of nature, nature weeping, [and] nature speaking to nature about nature.” (p. 40) In addition, not only nature is viewed as a female—Mother Earth or Mother Nature—but also women are depicted as far more natural than males (Jackson 1993; Bell 2009). It is believed that this makes women more nature-sensitive, more environmentally conscious, and more motivated than men to work for the sustainability of the environment (Momsen 2000). To support such claims, eco-feminists refer to a number of women’s grassroots movements including the movement against local toxic waste disposal (Miller et al. 1996), the movement against the destruction of forests (Westl-Walter 1996; Campbell et al. 1996), the Kenyan Greenbelt Movement (Momsen 1993), and the Chipko movement in India as “proof that women’s natural

158 M. A. Alibeli, N. R. White / PGDT 10 (2011) 156-170

closeness makes them more aware of environmental issues than men” (Mom-sen 2000). Still, Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart (1997) dismiss the argument of the special relationship between women and nature because it is not sup-ported by empirical tests. They also believe that the claim that women’s chil-drearing and nurturing roles impel women toward environmentalism could not be sustained. Moreover, the eco-feminists argument of the special rela-tionship fails to consider class, race, occupation and geographical differences (Agarwal 1992).

A number of other studies attribute gender’s effect on environmental con-cern to gender roles and socialization rather than to nature or biological influence (See Chodorow 1978; Keller 1985; Hochschild 1989; Horigan 1989; Gilligan 1982; Zelezny et al. 2000; Bell 2009). Traditionally, women are socialized to be more expressive, interdependent, companionate, nurtur-ing, cooperative, and helpful in care-giving roles (Chodorow 1978; Keller 1985; Horigan 1989; Zelezny et al. 2000). Practically from the time they are born, girls are socialized to be family nurturers and caregivers (Momsen 2000). This nurturing perspective is thought to influence women’s attitudes toward social issues like poverty, racial discrimination, and environmental protection (Momsen 2000). On the contrary, men are socialized to under-take task-oriented, risk-taking, and leadership roles. Theoretically, this will lead them to provide and protect their families (Bell 2009; Zelezny et al. 2000). According to this line of thinking, gendered socialization shapes the way the two sexes think, feel, and behave. It also affects the way that they see the world around them and influences their moral judgment in terms of what is right or wrong and what is good or bad (Gilligan 1982). Women, there-fore, are found to be more inclined to see themselves as part of the social and natural world around them than men. Men, on the other hand, see them-selves as more separate and independent entities (Hochschild 1989; David-son and Freudenberg 1996).

Further empirical studies on gender and environmental concern reveal unclear and inconclusive results. For instance, a number of studies like Arbuthnot (1977), Blocker and Eckberg (1989), Arcury and Johnson (1987), and Arcury (1990) indicate that men are more active, more knowledgeable, and more concerned about the environment than are women. On the con-trary, several studies such as McStay and Dunlap (1983), Zelezny et al. (2000), Uyeki and Holland (2000), Dietz et al. (2002), Hunter et al. (2004), Olofsson and Ohman (2006), and Xia and Dunlap (2007) state that women tend to be more concerned about the environment than are men. In particular, Uyeki and Holland (2000) report that women are more concerned about the envi-ronment, nature, and animals than are men. Other studies like Brody (1984),


Blocker and Eckberg (1989), Stern et al. (1993), Mohai (1992), and Bord and O’Conner (1997) argue that the differences, if any, in environmental concern are related to the divergences in the perceptions of the harmful consequences of environmental problems rather than to gender per se. In line with this argu-ment, Davidson and Freudenberg (1996) contend that women express higher levels of concern about site-specific and local environmental problems, such as nuclear facilities, nuclear wastes, and water and air pollution, than do men. However, broader issues like preserving the wilderness and biodiversity gener-ate no or weak gender differences. Arcury and Johnson (1987) and Kanagy et al. (1994) played down the effect of gender on environmental concern not-ing that such an effect is weak and inconclusive and no definite conclusion could be drawn about the relationship between gender and environmental concern. Hayes (2001) takes it a little further by indicating that gender does not influence environmental concern and women “are not more concerned about the environment than men.” (p. 657) However, more recent studies like Xiao and McCright (2007) and Marquart-Pyatt (2007) argue that genders inconsistent effect on environmental concern is due to statistical issues or to “variations in measurement strategies.” (Freymeyer and Johnson 2010:187).

As it relates to this study, some have found that gender’s effect on environ-mental concern is influenced by an individuals’ country’s wealth and devel-opment [or lack of wealth and lack of development] (Inglehart 1995; Hunter 2000; Marquart-Pyatt 2007). In addition, several others indicate that the effect of gender on environmental concern is shaped by an individual’s social class and educational attainment (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980; Mohai 1985; Morrison and Dunlap 1986; Arcury, Johnson and Scollay 1986; Arcury and Johnson 1987; Buttel and Flinn 1974; 1978a; 1978b; Barkan 2004; Alibeli and Johnson 2009; Freymeyer and Johnson 2010).

Given the prior research on gender and environmental concern, there still needs to be an understanding of how environmental concern translates into political action and success. Even if there is a ‘gender-gap’ (Mohai 1992) between concern and action, the literature supports that environmental con-cern is but a first step towards action regardless of gender.

The Objective of this Study

This study aims at examining the effect of gender on environmental concern among samples of college students from Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar (EJKBQ), which represent five Arab countries in the Middle East. There is support within the literature for linking these countries for political


analysis (Ross 2001). This support includes using analysis from international entities (El-Erian 1996) and, more specifically, for conducting policy analysis on international entities within the context of gender politics (Obermeyer 1992). In addition, this study attempts to uncover the trends, if any, of the effect of gender on environmental concern in the Arab Middle East. The study will also explore whether gender and environmental concern in the Middle East follows similar trends found in the West. The current study is expected to shed a light on the effect of gender on environmental concern in traditional, conservative, and very patriarchal societies where issues like the environment is mainly discussed in public by men.

Data and Methodology

Data were obtained from the Unit for Community and Environmental Stud-ies (UCES) in the Social Science Research Center at Mississippi State Uni-versity. The data set about environmental concern for 1750 students (58 percent females) was extracted from the Environmental Attitude Survey (2000-2004) conducted at the American University in Cairo (Egypt), Mu’tah University in Jordan, Kuwait University, University of Bahrain, and Qatar University. These five different data sets were combined and merged into one file to achieve the objective of the current study. Depending on individual instructors, students either completed the survey during class time or com-pleted the survey outside the class, returning it to the instructor later. About 86 percent of the students who participated in the survey completed and returned their surveys. Confidentiality was obtained by asking students not to write their names on the survey.

The survey investigated several areas of environmental concerns including the role of science in creating and solving environmental problems, the rela-tionship between the environment and development; economic growth, envi-ronmental regulations, attitudes toward government environmental policies, and their government’s role and function to protect the environment. Atti-tudes towards deep ecological issues such as animal rights and the intrinsic value of nature were also explored.

It is worth noting that while the five countries under study have much in common, differences do remain. For example, Egypt is one of the largest and most populated countries in the region whereas Bahrain is among the small-est. Qatar enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in the world whereas Egypt has one of the lowest. Jordan is a non-oil producer country whereas Qatar and Kuwait are among the largest oil and natural gas producers. In


addition, whereas Egypt relies on The Nile River as the major freshwater resource, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain lack any renewable surface water resources and instead depend on desalination and underground water to meet their freshwater needs (CIA Fact Book 2009).

Variables

To examine the effect of gender, the independent variable, on respondents’ levels of environmental concern in EJKBQ, 10 statements that are in line with Dunlap and Jones (2002) definition of environmental concern were selected. According to Dunlap and Jones (2002), environmental concern refers to, “the degree to which people are aware of problems regarding the environment and support efforts to solve them and or indicate the willing-ness to contribute personally to their solution.” (p. 485). Below are the selected 10 statements. The abbreviation at the end of each statement refers to the number of the statements in the survey. For example, (Q15U) refers to item U in question number 15.

1. Live in harmony with nature to survive (Q15U). 2. Save the environment for future generations (Q15V). 3. Balance of nature is easily destroyed (Q15T). 4. Culture and technology can provide for human needs (Q16C). 5. Science and technology are alternatives to nature (Q16D). 6. Earth is like a spaceship (Q16V). 7. It is too difficult for me to help the environment (Q15N). 8. Pay higher prices to help the environment (Q28). 9. Pay higher taxes to help the environment (Q29).10. Cut living standards to help the environment (Q30).

Respondents were asked to agree with, disagree, or to indicate no opinion toward each of the 10 statements. Agree was coded (3), no opinion (2), and disagree (1). To reduce the 10 statements to smaller sets that fit together they were reduced to three factors: willingness to sacrifice for the environment, coexist with nature, and master nature. Willingness to sacrifice (WTS) factor loaded high on Q28 (0.849), Q29 (0.848), and Q30 (0.748). Coexist (COEXIST) with nature factor loaded high on Q15V (0.929), Q15U (0.927), and Q16 V (0.503). Master (MASTER) nature factor loaded high on Q16D (0.814), Q16C (0.776), Q15N (0.664) and Q15T (0.574). For more details about the process of constructing the three scales, please see Appendix.


Finally, the three constructed scales: willingness to sacrifice, coexist with nature, and master nature were used as the dependent variables for this study. To examine the effect of gender on the dependent variables, the impact of social class, parents’ education, and country were used as controls in the regression. Social class, education, and country are among the most impor-tant predictors of environmental concern (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980; Mohai 1985; Morrison and Dunlap 1986; Arcury, Johnson and Scollay 1986; Arcury and Johnson 1987; Buttel and Flinn 1974; 1978a; 1978b; Barkan 2004; Alibeli and Johnson 2009; Freymeyer and Johnson 2010).

Table 1

Rotated Factor Matrix

WTS COEXIST MASTER

Pay higher prices to help the environment (Q28) 0.849 –0.068 –0.099Pay higher taxes to help the environment (Q29) 0.848 –0.033 –0.126Cut living standards to help the environment (Q30) 0.748 0.096 –0.024Save the environment for future generation (Q15V) –0.118 0.929 –0.005Live in harmony with nature to survive (Q15U) –0.098 0.927 –0.083Earth is like a spaceship (Q16V) 0.097 0.503 –0.049Science and technology are alternative to nature (Q16D)

–0.007 –0.070 0.814

Culture and technology can provide for human needs (Q16C)

0.001 –0.087 0.776

Too difficult for me to help the environment (Q15N)

–0.107 0.110 0.664

Balance of nature easily destroyed (Q15T) 0.096 0.118 0.574

Hypothesis

Based on the previously discussed literature, it is hypothesized that:

1. Gender has no significant effect on respondents’ willingness to sacrifice the environment.

2. Gender has no significant influence on respondents’ coexistence with nature attitudes.

3. Gender has no significant impact on respondents’ orientations toward mastering nature.

These hypotheses will be tested using multiple regression analysis.


Results

To examine the effect of gender on environmental concern, three regression models were developed. Model 1 provides an analysis of the effect of gender on willingness to sacrifice for the environment, coexist with nature, and mas-ter nature, the three dependent variables in the study. Model 2 considers social class and parents’ education. Model 3 accounts for the respondents country. By controlling for the effect of social class, parents’ education, and country, the regression models are expected to pinpoint the effect of gender on the dependent variables while holding constant the effect of other inde-pendent variables in the regression equation.

Table 2 displays the results concerning the effect of gender on the willing-ness to sacrifice for the environment. According to Model 1 (M1), women are found to be more willing to make financial and life style sacrifices to help the environment compared to men. On average, females’ willingness to sacri-fice for the environment is about 0.524 units higher than their male counter-parts. Model 2 (M2) provides similar outcomes. Holding constant the effect of social class and parents’ education in Model 2 reduces slightly the effect of gender on willingness to sacrifice for the environment, however. Despite the slight reduction in gender’s effect, women continue to reveal higher levels of willingness to sacrifice for the environment than men. On average, women score about 0.493 points higher than men on their willingness to sacrifice for the environment.

However, when country is introduced to the regression model (Model 3), gender’s significant effect on the willingness to sacrifice for the environment is diminished; its impact is weakened, and its direction is reversed. Thus, it seems that the relationship between gender and willingness to sacrifice for the

Table 2

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients for the Effect of Gender on Willingness to Sacrifice for the Environment

M1 M2 M3

Constant 5.163*** 3.957*** 4.570***Gender (Female = 1) 0.524*** 0.493*** –0.015Social Class 0.467*** 0.256*Father Education 0.028* –0.011Mother Education 0.063*** 0.019Country 0.173***R Square 0.133 0.244 0.211


environment in Models 1 and 2 is largely due to country differences rather than to gender per se. With country in the analysis, gender loses its influence. As a result, the research hypothesis indicating that gender has no significant effect on willingness to sacrifice for the environment is supported.

It is expected that willingness to sacrifice for the environment will be influ-enced, in part, by individuals’ ability to make such sacrifices, financial ones in particular. On the other hand, willingness to sacrifice is also influenced by individuals’ perception of the risk posed by environmental problems.

Moreover, it is worth noting that the five countries in the study greatly vary in terms of their economic development, income, and poverty levels. These countries range from the very rich and moderately developed like Qatar and Kuwait to relatively rich like Bahrain and relatively poor like Jordan to the very poor like Egypt. Therefore, it has yet to be determined if the disparity in wealth and economic development plays a major role in shap-ing respondents’ willingness to sacrifice for environment in the region of the study.

Table 3 reveals the results of the analyses of the effect of gender on atti-tudes toward coexisting with nature. In surprising and unexpected outcomes, women are found to be at odds with the coexistence with nature argument. As seen in Model 1, women show a lower level of support for coexisting with nature than men. On average, females score about 0.713 point lower on their attitudes toward coexisting with nature than their male counterparts. Hold-ing constant the effect of social class and parents’ education in Model 2 changed the outcome only slightly to 0.631. Likewise, introducing country to the equation (Model 3) only reduces gender’s effect on coexisting with nature to 0.432. The introduction of country in Model 3 does not change

Table 3

Regression Coefficients for the Effect of Gender on Coexistence with Nature Scale

M1 M2 M3

Constant 7.812*** 7.465*** 8.263***Gender (Female = 1) –0.713*** –0.631*** –0.432***Social Class 0.189* 0.509***Father Education –0.044*** 0.019Mother Education –0.066*** –0.006Country –0.620***R Square 0.191 0.234 0.315


the relationship, its significance, or its direction as was the case for the will-ingness to sacrifice for the environment. Consequently, it seems as if women are either less concerned about broad environmental issues or less aware and lack the necessary knowledge about such problems. Therefore, the research hypothesis suggesting no relationship between gender and coexisting with nature is rejected.

Finally, Table 4 reveals the results of the analysis of the effect of gender on mastering nature scale. As for Model 1, women are found to be more inclined toward the environment than men are. In other words, women indicate much lower support for mastering and controlling nature than men do. On average, females’ support for mastering and controlling the environment is about 0.554 units lower than that of males. Furthermore, controlling for the effect of social class and parents’ education (Model 2) does not change the outcomes very much, only to 0.528. However, when controlling for the effects of country (Model 3), the outcomes vary drastically. Entering country into the regression equation weakens gender’s effect and diminishes its signif-icance. As it was mentioned earlier, country plays a significant role in shaping individuals’ environmental concern in the area of the study. Consequently, the research hypothesis indicating no significant effect of gender on attitudes toward mastering nature is supported.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study examined the effect of gender on environmental concern in terms of willingness to sacrifice for the environment, attitudes pertaining to coexis-tence with nature, and orientations toward mastering and controlling the

Table 4

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients for the Effect of Gender on Master Nature Scale

M1 M2 M3

Constant 4.762*** 5.108*** 3.968***Gender (Female = 1) –0.554*** –0.528*** –0.088Social Class –0.074 –0.060Father Education –0.007 0.007Mother Education –0.016 –0.001Country 0.124***R Square 0.163 0.181 0.154


natural environment in the Middle East. Contrary to the findings of Griffin (1978), Gilligan (1982), Bell (2009), and Zelezny et al. (2000), gender was found to have inconsistent, incoherent, and unexpected effects on respon-dents’ environmental concern. Therefore, the argument associating women with higher levels of environmental concern was not fully supported by the evidence in this study. In fact, the only consistent theme indicates the oppo-site. In other words, women were found to be less concerned about coexist-ing with nature than men.

The strength and consistency of women’s opposition to coexisting with nature raises a number of problems. For example, women’s low concern for coexistence with nature might be attributed to the lack of necessary knowl-edge about the environment as it was suggested by Arbuthnot (1977), Blocker and Eckberg (1989), Arcury and Johnson (1987), and Arcury (1990). In addition, such opposition might be attributed to research that indicates that women are more concerned about local, site-specific environmental issues rather than those broad and global ones (Davidson and Freudenberg 1996; and Bord and O’Connor 1997). Moreover, women’s confinement to homes and private matters in the Middle East might be responsible for alienating them from nature and estranging them from the environment and environmental problems. In addition, the findings might be seen as another sign supporting the argument of gender’s inconsistent effect on environmental concern as it was suggested by Arcury and Johnson (1987).

Finally, gender’s effect on environmental concern was found to be greatly shaped by respondents’ country. It seems as if concern about the environ-ment is influenced by country and country’s socioeconomic and demographic factors as was indicated by Inglehart 1995; Hunter 2000; and Marquart-Pyatt 2007. For example, environmental concern might be influenced by a country’s wealth and development, democracy, reliance on natural resources, freedom of expression and assembly, religiosity, and media freedom to name a few. For example, wealth and development in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain may differently affect levels of environmental concern than those in poor countries like Egypt and to some degree Jordan. Also, relatively democratic societies like in Kuwait or Jordan may enhance individual responsibility toward protecting the environment in comparison with more authoritarian societies in the region. In addition, economic dependency on natural resources such as oil, natural gas, and underground water may influence the way people view the relationship between humans and the natural resources. For example, controlling and mastering nature does not seem to be a bad idea for those whose life relies on controlling natural forces in order to sur-vive in a harsh climate and their livelihood may depend on extracting natural


resources like oil, natural gas, and underground water. In this regard, Kuwaitis, Bahrainis, and Qataris live in the Arabian Peninsula, which is one of the driest, harshest, and hardest to live in deserts in the world. Under such circumstances, controlling the environment is perceived to be a critical sur-vival mechanism. In addition, Kuwaiti, Bahraini, and Qatari economies rely heavily on the extraction of oil, gas, and underground water. Consequently, over-concern about the environment and restrictions over the use of natural resources might be seen as a direct threat to their economic survival and their affluent lifestyles.

Future studies are recommended to investigate gender’s effect on environ-mental concern using national representative samples as they become avail-able. In addition, future studies are recommended to examine the differences in environmental knowledge, levels of awareness and beliefs about environ-mental problems for both men and women in the Middle East. Such studies may investigate sources of knowledge and information about the environ-ment in that region. Finally, future studies may pay specific attention to a country’s effect on concern about the environment. A countries’ socioeco-nomic, demographic, and cultural factors may also shift public opinion in one way or another and sometimes in unexpected ways as is often the case, especially in the Middle East.

References

Agarwal, B. 1992. “The Gender and Environmental Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Stud-ies 18:119-158.

Alibeli, M. and Johnson, C. 2009. “Environmental Concern: A Cross National Analysis.” Journal of International and Cross Cultural Studies 3(1):1-10.

Arbuthnot, Jack. 1977. “The Rules of Attitudinal and Personality Variables in the Prediction of Environmental Behavior and Knowledge.” Environment and Behavior 9(2):217-231.

Arcury, T. A. 1990. “Environmental Attitudes and Environmental Knowledge.” Human Orga-nization 49 (4):300-304.

Arcury, T. A. and Johnson, T. P. 1987. “Public Environmental Knowledge: A Statewide Survey.” The Journal of Environmental Knowledge 18(4):31-37.

Arcury, T. A., Johnson, T. P. and Scollay S. J. 1986. “Ecological Worldview and Environ-mental Knowledge: The New Environmental Paradigm.” The Journal of Environmental Edu-cation 17(4):35-40.

Barkan, Steven E. 2004. “Explaining Public Support for the Environmental Movement: A Civic Voluntarism Model.” Social Science Quarterly 85:913-937.

Bell, M. 2009. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press.Blocker, J. T., and Eckberg, D. L. 1989. Environmental Issues as Women’s Issues: General

Concerns and Local hazards.” Social Science Quarterly 70:586-593.Bord, R. J., and O’Connor, R. E. 1997. “The Gender Gap in Environmental Attitudes: The

Case of Perceived Vulnerability to Risk.” Social Science Quarterly 78(4):830-840.


Brody, C. J. 1984. “Sex differences in support for nuclear power.” Social Forces 63:209-228.Buttel, F. H. and Flinn, W. L. 1974. “The Structure of Support for the Environmental Move-

ment 1968-1970.” Rural Sociology 39:56-59.Buttel, F. H. and Flinn, W. L. 1978a. “The Politics of Environmental Concern: the Impacts of

Party Identification and Political Ideology on Environmental Attitudes.” Environment and Behavior 10(1):17-36.

Buttel, F. H. and Flinn, W. L. 1978b. “Social Class and Mass Environmental Beliefs: A Recon-sideration.” Environment and Behavior 10:433-50.

Campbell, C. and Women’s Group of Xapuri, 1996. “Out on the Front Lines but still Strug-gling for Voice: Women in the Rubber Tappers’ Defense of the Forest in Xapuri, Acre, Bra-zil.” In Feminists Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences, eds. D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari. Pp. 27-61. London and New York: Routledge.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Accessed on December 27, 2009. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html).

Chodorow, N. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press.Davidson, D. J., and Freudenberg, W. R. 1996. “Gender and Environmental Risk Concern: A

Review and Analysis of Available Research.” Environment and Behavior 28(3):302-339.Dietz, H., Kalof, L., and Stern, P. 2002. “Gender, Values, and Environmentalism.” Social Sci-

ence Quarterly 83(1): 353-364. Dunlap, R. E. and Jones, R. 2002. “Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues.” In Dunlap and Michelson (eds.) Handbook of Envi-ronmental Sociology, Pp. 482-542. London: Greenwood Press.

El-Erian, M. E. 1996. “Is MENA a Region?: The Scope for Regional Integration.” IMF Work-ing Paper No. 96/30.

Freymeyer, R. H., and Barbara E. Johnson. 2010. “A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Factors Influencing Environmental Actions.” Sociological Spectrum 30:184-195.

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Griffin, S. 1978. Woman and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her. New York: Harper and Row.Hayes, C. B. 2001. “Gender, Scientific Knowledge, and Attitudes toward the Environment: A

Cross-National Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 54(3):657-671.Hochschild, A. R. 1989. The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. New

York: Viking.Horrigan, A. 1989. “As Class Meets Ecofeminism.” Environment, Technology, and Society 55:

7-10.Hunter, Lori M. 2000. “A Comparison of the Environmental Attitudes, Concern, and Behav-

iors of Native-born and Foreign-born U.S. Residents.” Population and Environment: A Jour-nal of Interdisciplinary Studies 21:565-580.

Hunter, Lori M., Alison Hatch, and Aaron Johnson. 2004. “Cross-national Gender Variation in Environmental Behaviors.” Social Science Quarterly 85:677-694.

Inglehart, R. 1995. “Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28(1):57-72.

Jackson, C. 1993. “Women/Nature or Gender/History? A Critique of Ecofeminists Develop-ment.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 20(3):389-419.

Kanagy, Conrad L., Craig R. Humphrey, and Glen Firebaugh. 1994. “Surging Environmental-ism: Changing Public Opinion or Changing Publics?” Social Science Quarterly 75:804-819.

Kandiyoti, D. 1991. “Women, Islam and the State.” Middle East Report, No. 173: Gender and Politics: 9-14.

Keller, E. F. 1985. Reflection on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra T. 2007. “Concern for the Environment among General Publics: A

Cross-national Study.” Society and Natural Resources 20:883-898.


McStay, J. R. and Dunlap, R. E. 1983. “Male-Female Differences in Concern for Environmen-tal Quality.” International Journal of Women’s Studies 6:291-301.

Miller, V., M. Hallstein, and S. Quass. 1996. “Feminist Politics and Environmental Justice: Women’s Community Activism in West Harlem, New York.” In D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari(eds.), Feminists Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences, Pp. 62-85. London and New York: Routledge.

Moghadam, V. M. 2003. Modernizing Women: Gender and Social Change in the Middle East, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Mohai, P. 1992. “Men, Women, and the Environment: An Examination of the Gender Gap in Environmental Concern and Activism.” Society and Natural Resources 5(1):1-19.

Mohai, P. 1985. “Public Concern and Elite Involvement in Environmental-Conservation Issues.” Social Science Quarterly 66:820-38.

Momsen, J. H. 2000. “Gender Differences in Environmental Concern and Perception.” The Journal of Geography 99(2):47-56.

Momsen, J. H. 1993. “Gender and Environmental Protection in the Eastern Caribbean.” In D. G. Lockhart, D. Drakakis-Smith, and J. Schrembi (eds.), The Development Process in Small Island States, Pp. 57-70. London: Routledge.

Morrison, D. E. and Dunlap, R. E. 1986. “Environmental and Elitism: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis.” Environmental Management 10(5):581-589.

Nelson, C. 1974. “Public and Private Politics: Women in the Middle Eastern World.” America Ethnologist, Vol. 1 (3):551-563.

Obermeyer, C. M. 1992. “Islam, Women, and Politics: The Demography of Arab Countries.” Population and Development Review, Vol. 18 (1):33-60.

Olofsson, A. and Ohman, S. 2006. “General Beliefs and Environmental Concern: Transatlan-tic Comparison.” Environment and Behavior 38(6):768-790.

Ross, M. L. 2001. “Michael L. Does Oil Hinder Democracy?” World Politics, Vol. 53 (3):325-361.

Somma, Mark, and Sue Tolleson-Rinehart. 1997. “Tracking the Elusive Green Women: Sex, Environmentalism and Feminism in the United States and Europe.” Political Research Quar-terly 50:153-69.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental “Concern.” Environment and Behavior 25(3):322-348.

Uyeki, E. S. and Holland, L. J. 2000. “Diffusion of Pro-Environment Attitudes.” American Behavioral Scientist 43(4):646-662.

Van Liere, K. D. and Dunlap, E. R. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44(2):181-197.

Wastl-Walter, D. 1996. “Protecting the Environment against State Policy in Austria: From Women’s Participation in Protest to New Voices in Parliament.” In D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari (eds.), Feminists Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences. Pp. 86-104. London and New York: Routledge.

Xiao, Chenyang, and Aaron McCright. 2007. “Environmental Concern and Sociodemographic Variables: A Study of Statistical Models.” The Journal of Environmental Education 38: 3-13.

Xiao, C., and Dunlap, R. E. 2007. “Validating a Comprehensive Model of Environmental Concern Cross-Nationally: A U.S.-Canadian Comparison.” Social Science Quarterly 88(2): 471-494.

Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. and Aldrich, C. 2000. “Elaborating on Gender Differences in Envi-ronmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues 56(3):443-457.


Appendix

Analysis of reliability was undertaken for all the statements in the three factors (willingness to sacrifice for the environment, coexist with nature, and master nature) that loaded above (0.500). Each factor’s items were then merged together to establish the study’ three scales: willingness to sacrifice for the environment, coexist with nature, and master nature. For example, willingness to sacrifice factor (alpha = 0.762) included Q28 “pay higher prices to help the environment”, Q29 “pay higher taxes to help the environment”, and Q30 “cut living standards to help the environment”. To establish the ‘willingness to sacrifice’ scale, Q28, Q29, and Q30 were merged together. In addition, coexist with nature (alpha = 0.634) included (Q15V) “Save the environ-ment for future generation”, (Q15U) “Live in harmony with nature to survive” and (Q16V) “Earth is like a spaceship”. As was the case in the previous example, Q15V, Q15U, and Q16V were merged to develop the coexist with nature scale. Finally, master nature factor (alpha = 0.562) included Q16D “Science and technology are alternatives to nature”, Q16C “Culture and technology can provide for human need”, Q15N “Too difficult for me to help the environment” and Q15T “Balance of nature is easily destroyed”. Similar to the other two factors, Q16D, Q16C, Q15N, and Q15T were merged together to make the master nature scale.

Since the willingness to sacrifice, coexist with nature, and master nature scales ranged differ-ently, comparisons between and among them were difficult. To make them comparable, each scale was standardized to range from: (1) the lowest point to (3) the highest point on the scale. For example, willingness to sacrifice scale was constructed from Q28, Q29, and Q30. Sum-ming the three items created a scale that ranges from (3) the lowest point to (9) the highest point. To make the scale ranges from 1-3, it was recomputed by averaging among statements [willingness to sacrifice = (q28 + q29 + q30) / 3]. As a result, the range of the scale changed from its original 3-9 to a new 1-3 range. The same procedure was followed to construct coexist with nature and master nature scales.

Gender and Environmental Concern in the Middle East

Documents

Transcript of Gender and Environmental Concern in the Middle East