In this study, the authors investigated wildlife value orientations, gender, and concern about risks posed by a large, potentially dangerous predator—the mountain lion. A survey (58% response rate) was used to collect data from a random sample of adult residents (N = 2,469) in Colorado metropolitan areas. Both gender and parental role predicted concern about being attacked. Women expressed greater concern than men, and participants with children living at home expressed greater concern than participants without children at home. Participants with utilitarian values were more likely than those with protectionist ones to accept destroying a lion in a residential area, and men were more likely than women to accept destroying it. Additional research is needed to understand why women perceived more risk from a mountain lion but were less willing to accept destroying it, as well as to understand the relationships among gender, parental role, and environmental risk concern.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, J. B. , & Ferrand, J. L. (1999). Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and proenvironmental behavior: A test of Gellar’s actively caring hypothesis. Environment & Behavior, 31, 338-353.
2.
Blocker, T. J. , & Eckberg, D. L. (1989). Environmental issues as women’s issues: General concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 70(3), 586-593.
3.
Braus, P. (1994, December). Everyday fears. American Demographics, 16(12), 32-58.
4.
Brody, C. J. (1984). Differences by sex in support for nuclear power. Social Forces, 63(1), 209-228.
5.
Cotsgrove, S. (1982). Catastrophe or cornucopia: The environment, politics, and the future. New York: John Wiley.
6.
Davidson, D. J. , & Freudenberg, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment & Behavior, 28, 302-339.
7.
Dietz, T. , Stern, P. C., & Rycroft, R. W. (1989). Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk. Sociological Forum, 4, 47-70.
8.
Dunlap, R. E. , & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
9.
Dunlap, R. E. , & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013-1028.
10.
Flynn, J. , Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101-1108.
11.
Fulton, D. C. , Manfredo, M. J., & Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(2), 24-47.
12.
Gellar, E. S. (1995). Actively caring for the environment: An integration of behaviorism and humanism. Environment & Behavior, 27, 184-195.
13.
George, D. L. , & Southwell, P. L. (1986). Opinion on the Diablo Canyon nuclearpowerplant: The effects of situation and socialization. Social Science Quarterly, 67, 722-735.
14.
Green, K. A. (1991). Summary: Mountain lion-human interaction questionnaires, 1991. In C. E. Braun (Ed.), Proceedings: Mountain lion-human interaction, symposium and workshop (pp. 4-9). Denver: Colorado Division of Wildlife.
15.
Halfpenny, J. C. , Sanders, M. R., & McGrath, K. A. (1991). Human-lion interactions in Boulder County, Colorado: Past, present, and future. In C. E. Braun (Ed.), Proceedings: Mountain lion-human interaction, symposium and workshop (pp. 10-16). Denver: Colorado Division of Wildlife.
16.
Hamilton, L. C. (1985a). Concern about toxic wastes: Three demographic predictors. Sociological Perspectives, 28(4), 463-486.
17.
Hamilton, L. C. (1985b). Who cares about water pollution? Opinions in a small town crisis. Sociological Inquiry, 55(2), 170-181.
18.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
Kellert, S. R. , & Berry, J. K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 15, 363-371.
20.
Liu, J. H. , Bonzon-Liu, B., & Pierce-Guarino, M. (1997). Common fate between humans and animals? The dynamical systems theory of groups and environmental attitudes in the Florida Keys. Environment & Behavior, 29, 87-122.
21.
Manfredo, M. J. , Zinn, H. C., Sikorowski, L., & Jones, J. (1998). Public acceptance of mountain lion management: A case study of Denver, Colorado and nearby foothills areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26, 964-970.
22.
Milbrath, L. W. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguard for a new society. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
Miller, K. K. , & McGee, T. K. (2000). Sex differences in values and knowledge of wildlife in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5(2), 54-68.
24.
Mitchell, R. C. (1984). Rationality and irrationality in the public’s perception of nuclear power. In W. R. Freudenberg & E. A. Rosa (Eds.), Public reactions to nuclear power: Are there critical masses? (pp. 137-179). Boulder, CO: American Association for the Advancement of Science/Westview.
25.
Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women, and the environment: An examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources, 5, 1-19.
26.
Nelkin, D. (1981). Nuclear power as a feminist issue. Environment, 23(1), 14-39.
27.
Ozanne, L. K. , Humphrey, C. R., & Smith, P. M. (1999). Gender, environmentalism, and interest in forest certification: Mohai’s paradox revisited. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 613-622.
28.
Passino, E. M. , & Lounsbury, J. W. (1976). Sex differences in opposition to and support for construction of a proposed nuclear power plant. In L. M. Ward, S. Coren, A. Gruft, & J. B. Collins (Eds.), The behavioral basis of design, Book 1 (pp. 1-5). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, & Ross.
29.
Pijawka, K. D. , & Mushkatel, A. H. (1991). Public opposition to the siting of the high-level nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust. Tempe: Arizona State University, Office of Hazards Studies.
30.
Reed, J. H. , & Wilkes, J. M. (1980, August). Sex and attitudes toward nuclear power. Paperpre sented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York.
31.
Scott, D. , & Willits, F. K. (1994). Environmental attitudes and behavior: A Pennsylvania survey. Environment & Behavior, 26, 239-260.
32.
Slovic, P. (1992). Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In D. Golding & S. Krimsky (Eds.), Theories of risk (pp. 117-152). New York: Praeger.
33.
Steger, M. A. , & Witt, S. (1989). Gender differences in environmental orientations: A comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the U.S.Western Political Quarterly, 42, 627-650.
34.
Stern, P. C. , Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment & Behavior, 25, 322-348.
35.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
Vaske, J. J. , Donnelly, M. P., Williams, D. R., & Jonker, S. (in press). Attachment and demographic influences on environmental value orientations and norms. Society and Natural Resources.
