This article offers a set of methodological strategies for the inclusion of a gender perspective to promote research innovation. The description of these strategies is grounded here on arguments from the scientific output of environmental psychology; this allows us to reflect on gender blindness and biases in the discipline. The presence of these symptoms is evidenced by the exclusion of sex and gender as analytical categories in a recent review of the empirical research of the field and also in a commemorative bibliometric analysis of papers published during the period 1981–2011. This double exclusion is contrasted with the feminist perspective in the field of study of people-environment relationships in the broad sense. Beyond the underlying epistemological differences between distinct perspectives on disciplinary approach, the goal of equality in the analysis of urban design, planning for everyday life and mobility of care or in the study of pro-environmental concern and behaviour, disaster vulnerability and cooperation towards sustainable development is envisioned.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmanIChurchmanA. (Eds.). (1994). Women and the environment. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Manual de publicaciones de la American Psychological Association (3rd ed.). México: El Manual Moderno.
3.
BechtelR. B.ChurchmanA. (2002). Handbook of environmental psychology. London: Wiley.
4.
CaprileM.VallesN.PalmenR. (2012). Guía práctica para la inclusión de la perspectiva de género en los contenidos de la investigación. Barcelona: Fundación CIREM.
5.
ChurchmanA.AltmanI. (1994). Women and the environment. A perspective on research, design, and policy. In AltmanI.ChurchmanA. (Eds.), Women and the environment (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
6.
Corral-VerdugoV.BarrónM.CuenA.Tapia-FonllemC. (2011). Habitabilidad de la vivienda, estrés y violencia familiar. Psyecology, 2, 3–14. doi:10.1174/217119711794394644
7.
Corral-VerdugoV.Mireles-AcostaJ.Tapia-FonllemC.Fraijo-SingB. (2011). Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior. Human Ecology Review, 18, 95–104.
8.
Corral-VerdugoV.TapiaC.FríasM.FraijoB.GonzálezD. (2009). Orientación a la sostenibilidad como base para el comportamiento pro-social y pro-ecológico. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 10, 195–215.
9.
CortinaL. M.CurtinN.StewartA. J. (2012). Where is social structure in personality research?: A feminist analysis of publication trends. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 259–273. doi:10.1177/0361684312448056
10.
DayK. (2000). The ethic of care and women’s experiences of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 103–124. doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0152
11.
DayK.StumpCh.CarreonD. (2003). Confrontation and loss of control: Masculinity and men’s fear in public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 311–322. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00024-0
12.
European Commission. (2012). Meta-analysis of gender and science research. Synthesis report (EUR 25138). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
13.
ExpósitoF.MoyaM.GlickP. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: medición y correlatos. Revista de Psicología Social, 13, 159–169. doi:10.1174/021347498760350641
14.
Fernández-RamírezB. (2010). El medio urbano. In AragonésJ. I.AmérigoM. (Coords.) Psicología ambiental (3th ed.). (pp. 241–259). Madrid: Pirámide.
15.
FiskeS. (2010). Venus and Mars or down to Earth: Stereotypes and realities of gender differences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 688–692. doi:10.1177/1745691610388768
16.
FranckK. (2002). Women and the environment. In BechtelR. B.ChurchmanA. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 347–362). London: Wiley.
17.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12034
18.
GiulianiM. V.ScopellitiM. (2009). Empirical research in environmental psychology: Past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 375–386. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.008
19.
González GarcíaM. (2008). Habitando los espacios naturales en cuerpos sexuados: género y responsabilidad ambiental. Arbor. Ciencia, pensamiento y cultura, 729, 115–126.
HorelliL.VepsäK. (1994). In search of supportive structures for everyday life. In AltmanI.ChurchmanA. (Eds.), Women and the environment (pp. 201–226). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
22.
HowellS. C. (1994). Environment and the aging women. Domains of choice. In AltmanI.ChurchmanA. (Eds.), Women and the environment (pp. 105–131). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
23.
IzquierdoS. (December, 2012). Las mujeres en los equipos de primera intervención en catástrofes. Paper presented at the Conferencia Virtual Iberoamericana sobre la mujer en la reducción de desastres. Madrid: Dirección General de Protección Civil y Emergencias, España.
24.
KeddyK. (2012). Nursing activities: Embodied professionalism and spaces of work. In AhrentzenS.DesprésC.SchermerB. (Eds.), Building bridges, blurring boundaries (pp. 75–92). Blurb: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Villes Régions.
25.
KogerS.WinterD. (2010). The psychology of environmental problems (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
26.
KrenichynK. (2004). Women and physical activity in an urban park: Enrichment and support through an ethic of care. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 117–130. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00053-7
27.
MilfontT. L.PageE. (2013). A bibliometric review of the first thirty years of the Journal of Environmental Psychology. Psyecology, 4, 195–216. doi:10.1174/217119713806144366
28.
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (2011). Manual. El género en la investigación. Madrid: Unidad de Mujeres y Ciencia. Translation of Gender in research - Toolkit and Training, 2009, European Communities.
29.
PaludiM. A. (1990). Exploring/teaching the psychology of women: A manual of resources. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
30.
PetersonR. (1987). Gender issues in the home and urban environment. In ZubeE.MooreG. (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior and design Vol. 1, (pp. 187–218). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
31.
RitzdorfM. (1994). A feminist analysis of gender and residential zoning in the United States. In AltmanI.ChurchmanA. (Eds.), Women and the environment (pp. 255–279). New York: Plenum Press.
32.
Ruiz CanteroM. T. (April, 2012). Sesión 1: Perspectiva de género en medicina y biotecnología. Seminario Innovaciones científicas: la integración de la perspectiva de género. Madrid: CSIC.
SchiebingerLKlingeISánchez de MadariagaISchraudnerM. (Eds.). (2011–2013). Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, Engineering, and Environment. Retrieved from http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu
35.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002
36.
UzzellD.MoserG. (2009). Introduction: Environmental psychology on the move (Editorial). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 307–308. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.08.003
WinterD. D. N. (2002). (En)gendering sustainable development. In SchmuckP.SchultzW. (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 79–95). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39.
ZeleznyL.ChuaP.AldrichCh. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443–457. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00177
