Female and male teachers’ pro-environmental behaviour, conceptions and attitudes towards nature and the environment do not differ: Ecofeminism put to the test

Participants

The study sample consisted of pre- and in-service female and male teachers from Sweden and France. The participants were primary school teachers and secondary school subject teachers of biology and language, respectively. Approximately half of the participants were pre-service and half in-service teachers. Within each country, there were about the same number of participants in each of the six groups described above. The Swedish pre-service teachers were recruited from five different universities in Sweden, while the Swedish in-service teachers were participating in teacher professional development programmes at two of these universities, or worked in or in the vicinity of these university cities. Furthermore, in-service teachers from all over Sweden participating in two national Swedish networks of biology and Swedish language teaching, respectively, answered the questionnaire. In France, the sample consisted of pre-service teachers attending training courses, and in-service teachers in schools or in training workshops on topics different from those of the BIOHEAD-Citizen Project (Castéra & Clément, 2014). Participants came from mixture of rural, regional and urban areas, and were chosen on the basis of convenience and not just randomly.

A total of 1,109 individuals participated: 732 from France and 377 from Sweden. The proportion of women was 74.8% in Sweden, 76.1% in France, and 75.7% in Sweden plus France. When the term ‘teachers’ is used in this study, it includes both pre- and in-service teachers.

Materials

Questionnaire

A questionnaire developed for the BIOHEAD-Citizen Project (Carvalho et al., 2008) was used. Out of the 173 questions in the questionnaire, responses to 47 questions dealing with pro-environmental behaviour, attitudes towards and conceptions of nature and the environment, were selected and analysed. Of the 47 questions, only 41 were further analysed in terms of an ecofeminist perspective, as six questions were considered as being ambiguous from ecofeminism's views. The forty-one questions were each analysed within the Swedish sample, the French sample and the Swedish plus French sample.

Answers to most questions were given on a Likert-scale (four or five options; Table 1; Likert, 1932). In Sweden, the questionnaire was made available in electronic version (Survey&Report, Artologik) that was distributed by e-mail to participants, and answers were collected automatically. In France, questionnaires were filled in by teachers, anonymously and in the presence of the researcher. Validity and reliability were piloted and tested in the original BIOHEAD-Citizen questionnaire, in France as well as in other countries (Clément, Laurent, & Carvalho, 2007; Carvalho et al., 2008; Munoz et al., 2009). Translations into Swedish were done twice by two different translators from an English reference questionnaire. These two versions were then compared and adjusted to one version. To check for validity, the questionnaire was translated back into English. Swedish participants were told that the study followed ethical guidelines of the Swedish Research Council throughout the project and that participation was voluntary.

Categories

The 41 questions were grouped according to different categories in the field of nature and the environment to catch different conceptions, attitudes and behaviour. Sometimes a question could be regarded as belonging to two categories, but was placed in the most appropriate one. The six categories were Attitudes, Ecocentric and anthropocentric views, Personal standpoints, Environmental education, Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and Trust in authorities (Table 1). The first four are all linked to ecofeminist principles, while other arguments are given for the last two categories to show that these also could evaluate ecofeminism.

Table 1. Questions testing female and male pre- and in-service teachers' pro-environmental behaviour, conceptions and attitudes towards nature and environment, from an ecofeminism perspective

Questions in categories	Rating scale	Significant difference (p-value<0.005)		Supporting or challenging ecofeminism
Questions in categories	Rating scale	Mulitvariate analyses	Univariate analyses	Supporting or challenging ecofeminism
Attitudes
A69, A71-A76 (How do you perceive the notion of 'Environment')
A69 ('Beautiful' - 'Ugly')	Likert-scale 1-5
A71 ('Wild' - 'Artificial')	Likert-scale 1-5
A72 ('Pleasant' - 'Unpleasant')	Likert-scale 1-5
A73 ('Terrifying' - 'Reassuring')	Likert-scale 1-5
A74 ('Pure' - 'Impure')	Likert-scale 1-5
A75 ('Constructed' - 'Given')	Likert-scale 1-5
A76 ('Good' - 'Bad')	Likert-scale 1-5
A77, A79-A84 (How do you perceive the notion of 'Nature')
A77 ('Beautiful' - 'Ugly')	Likert-scale 1-5
A79 ('Wild' - 'Artificial')	Likert-scale 1-5
A80 ('Pleasant' to 'Unpleasant')	Likert-scale 1-5		*	Supporting
A81 ('Terrifying' - 'Reassuring')	Likert-scale 1-5
A82 ('Pure' - 'Impure')	Likert-scale 1-5
A83 ('Constructed' - 'Given')	Likert-scale 1-5
A84 ('Good' - 'Bad')	Likert-scale 1-5

Ecocentric and anthropocentric views
A1 (We must set aside areas to protect endangered species)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A4 (Nature is always able to restore itself)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A7 (Humans will die out if we don't live in harmony with nature)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A8 (People worry too much about pollution)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A11 (Industrial smoke from chimneys makes me angry)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A16 (Our planet has unlimited natural resources)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A17 (Society will continue to solve even the biggest environmental problems)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A18 (Human beings are more important than other living beings)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A22 (I enjoy trips to the countryside)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A23 (We need to clear forests to increase agricultural areas)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A28 (It makes me sad to see the countryside taken over by building sites)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A32 (Humans have the right to change nature as they see fit)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A40 (It is interesting to know what kinds of animals live in ponds or rivers)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A50 (All contemporary plant species should be preserved because they may help in the discovery of new medicines)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A54 (Only plants and animals of economic importance need to be protected)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A70 (How do you perceive the notions of 'Environment'. Tick the box nearest the word you find the most appropriate to characterise ‘Environment')	Likert-scale; ‘To be used’ - ‘To be preserved’
A78 (How do you perceive the notion of ‘Nature’. Tick the box nearest the word you find the most appropriate to characterise ‘Nature’)	Likert-scale; ‘To be used’ - ‘To be preserved’	*		Supporting

Personal standpoints
P6-P8 (Are you involved in activities pertaining to environmental conservation and/or sustainable development?)
P6 (At home, in your family, in your local community)	Often - Sometimes - Never
P7 (In an organisation - formal and informal)	Often - Sometimes - Never
P8 (Professionally)	Often - Sometimes - Never

Environmental education
A61 (In your opinion, the main goal of environmental education in schools should be)	Likert-scale 1-4; ‘Providing knowledge’ - ‘Developing responsible behaviour’

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
A12 (Genetically modified plants will help to reduce famine in the world)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'	*	*	Challenging
A13 (Genetically modified organisms are contrary to nature)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A39 (Genetically modified plants are good for the environment because their cultivation will reduce the use of chemical pesticides, e.g. insecticides, herbicides)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'
A47 (Genetically modified plants are harmful to the environment because they will contaminate other crop plants, menacing their survival)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'I agree' - 'I don't agree'

Trust in authorities
A56a (There is a decision-making process in the implementation of science applications related to environment and biotechnology. Indicate your degree of confidence in different actors to make such decisions)	Likert-scale 1-4; ‘Scientist’ - ‘Members of Parliament’	*	*	Challenging
A56b (There is a decision-making process in the implementation of science applications related to environment and biotechnology. Indicate your degree of confidence in different actors to make such decisions - tick only one case)	Likert-scale 1-4; 'Science experts of this specific field' - 'Science experts of diverse fields including ethics'

Attitudes

The view that there is special relationship between women and nature is a key concept of ecofeminism (Goldstein, 2006; Leach, 2007), and one of the main ecofeminist principles. This special connection to nature leads to the assumption that women have positive attitudes towards the environment and environmental conservation (Jackson, 1993), and women are considered to be more environmentally sensitive because of their traditional caring and nurturing role (Merchant, 1990). Of the 41 questions, 14 were grouped in the category Attitudes (A69, A71-A77, A79-A84; Table 1) and could be used to test the ecofeminism perspective.

Ecocentric and anthropocentric views

Ecofeminists have an ecocentric view, in which all living organisms are important for their own sake and have values of their own beyond their potential for humans (Besthorn & Pearson McMillen, 2002; Braidotti et al., 2004; Kronlid, 2003; Loots, 2011). To have an ecocentric view could thus be regarded as embracing one of the ecofeminist principles. Life is regarded as an interconnected web and thus human life is of no greater value than non-human life (Jackson, 1993). The opposite standpoint denotes an anthropocentric view. Thus, answers to the 17 questions about ecocentric (A1, A7, A11, A22, A28 and A40; Table 1) and anthropocentric (A4, A8, A16-A18, A23, A32, A50 and A54; Table 1) views, respectively, could be used to test ecofeminism. Questions A70 and A78 (Table 1) deal with both ecocentric and anthropocentric views.

Personal standpoints

Ecofeminism points to the close connection between theory and practice, and the view of personal moral responsibility (Kronlid, 2003). Social movements have great impact on protecting local nature and environment (Jain, 1984; Mallory, 2006). In recent times, ecofeminists have put greater effort into ethical and political issues (Li, 2007). Personal responsibility is thus an important part of ecofeminism and one of the ecofeminist principles, in which women are believed to show increased responsibility compared to men. This can be tested in following three questions P6-P8 (Table 1), and consequently be used to evaluate ecofeminism.

Environmental education

Responsible practice is one of the main themes that characterise ecofeminism, and thus one of the ecofeminist principles, and is seen in terms of personal moral responsibility (Kronlid, 2003). Ecofeminism sees women as political activists and moral agents (Li, 2007). Question A61 (Table 1) investigates respondents’ views of the main goal of environmental education in schools, providing knowledge or developing responsible behaviour, and is thus possible to use in the evaluation of ecofeminism. The prediction in favour of ecofeminism would be that women acknowledge responsible behaviour to a greater extent than men.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Ecofeminism challenges the use of GMOs (Croeser, 2011; Forsey, 2002; Loots, 2011; Orias & Caputi, 2013). The four questions about GMOs were about reducing famine in the world thanks to GMOs (A12; Table 1): if GMOs are contrary to nature (A13; Table 1), if GMOs could reduce usage of pesticides (A39; Table 1), and if GMOs could contaminate other crop plants (A47; Table 1). Ecofeminism does not agree that increasing productivity based on GMOs will reduce famine in the world (The Bonn Declaration on GMOs, as cited in Loots, 2011). Ecofeminists see GMOs as contrary to nature (Croeser, 2011; Forsey, 2002), that GMOs will not reduce amounts of herbicides used in agriculture (Loots, 2011) and that genetically modified plants could contaminate related plants in neighbouring fields (Loots, 2011). Thus, responses to the above four questions about GMOs could evaluate ecofeminism.

Trust in authorities

Ecofeminism challenges Western science (Besthorn & Pearson McMillen, 2002; Braidotti et al., 2004; Salleh, 2006). Two questions in the questionnaire (A56a and A56b; Table 1) are about degree of confidence in different actors: the first about scientists or members of parliament and the second about science experts in diverse fields including ethics or not. As ecofeminism challenges Western science (Braidotti et al., 2004; Salleh, 2006), women ought to place more trust in members of parliament than scientists for indicating support for ecofeminism. Ethical behaviour is important to ecofeminists (Kheel, 2007); thus, to indicate support for ecofeminism, women ought to trust experts in diverse fields where ethics is included, more than experts in fields without ethics perspectives. Reponses to these two questions could thus evaluate ecofeminism.

Analyses

Different multivariate analyses were used, validated for this kind of data (Munoz et al., 2009). All computations were performed using the statistical software ‘R’ (Ihaka & Gentleman, 1996). In the present work, we mainly used ‘Between analyses’ (Dolédec & Chessel, 1989) to discriminate between groups of individuals, e.g. between gender or between countries, in order to analyse which of the teachers’ conceptions differed most between groups. Nevertheless, differences between groups can be a single consequence of another significant difference. For instance, gender difference can result from the greater number of biology teachers where there are more men. By using the principal component analysis of the orthogonal instrumental variables (PCAIV), it is possible to suppress the effect of one or several variables (Sabatier, Lebreton, & Chessel, 1989). This analysis, PCAIV, was performed to determine if gender effect was still significant after suppression of other significant effects (countries, groups of teachers, levels of qualification and religions).

A ‘Monte-Carlo permutation test’ (Romesburg, 1985) was used to test statistical significance of the instrumental variable analyses, to ascertain whether a difference between groups was significant or not. To complete results and to examine differences between groups for one precise question, we also used univariate test (‘Pearson’s Chi-square test’).