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

This study reports on an investigation of 1,109 Swedish and French female and male pre- and in-service teachers’ pro-environmental behaviour, conceptions and attitudes towards nature and the environment. The aim of the study was to investigate if female and male pre- and in-service teachers’ responses were significantly different on these issues. If this was the case, it might have implications for environmental education in schools, as sustainable development, where the environmental dimension is important, is recognised by the United Nations, as a superior principle for the work in schools (United Nations, 2002).

As pointed out above, there are different perspectives and views within ecofeminism. Our test of ecofeminism relates to one of its main ideas, specifically, that women have special connection to nature, and that this connection leads to assumption that women have positive attitudes towards environment and environmental conservation (Braidotti et al., 2004; Besthorn & Pearson McMillen, 2002). Ecofeminism also points to personal moral responsibility and responsible practice (Kronlid, 2003), in which women are believed to show increased pro-environmental behaviour, compared to men. If these claims are correct, then the results of a survey testing pro-environmental behaviour, conceptions and attitudes towards nature and the environment ought to indicate this. We have studied if female teachers, pre- and in-service, are more engaged in issues of nature and environmental concern than pre- and in-service male teachers, and if the results correspond to ecofeminism claims. There were hardly any significant differences in responses from women and men indicating differences in conceptions, attitudes and behaviour. From the responses for the four questions that showed significant differences, only responses to two questions could be interpreted as supporting ecofeminism, while responses to the other two could be interpreted as challenging it (Table 1). The main conclusion is that our results challenge ecofeminism, at least for a group of 1,109 Swedish and French pre- and in-service teachers.

Tested categories of ecofeminism

The results are discussed below from an ecofeminism perspective for each category.

In summary, the results of thirteen questions about Attitudes towards nature and our environment indicate no support for ecofeminism, while the results of one question can be interpreted as supporting it (Table 1). From an ecofeminism perspective, women’s natural closeness to nature makes women more aware of environmental issues then men (Besthorn & Pearson McMillen, 2002). As no significant differences emerged between women and men, the results of these thirteen questions about attitudes indicate no support for ecofeminism.

The results of question A80 (Table 1) shows, albeit from univariate analyses, that women to a significantly greater extent than men thought that nature was pleasant, which could be interpreted as support for ecofeminism.

In summary, the results of sixteen questions about women’s and men’s Ecocentric and anthropocentric views could be interpreted as not supporting ecofeminism, while one question (A78; Table 1) could be interpreted as doing so. Question A78 shows significant difference between women and men, however, only in the multivariate analyses, where women to a higher degree than men consider ‘Nature’ to be ‘Preserved’. Ecofeminism embraces the ecocentric view (Braidotti et al., 2004); thus, the results of this question could be interpreted as supporting ecofeminism.

In summary, the results of three questions about Personal standpoints can be interpreted as not supporting ecofeminism. Questions P6-P8 (Table 1) deal with personal engagement with environmental conservation and/or sustainable development. Respondents were asked to estimate how often they are involved in environmental conservation and/or sustainable development activities. Personal moral responsibility is important in ecofeminism (Kronlid, 2003). As responses to these questions yielded no significant difference between women and men, it could be interpreted that ecofeminism is not supported by this result.

In summary, the results of one question about Environmental education can be interpreted as not supporting ecofeminism. Question A61 (Table 1) investigated respondents’ views on the main goal of environmental education in schools, that is, providing knowledge or developing responsible behaviour. The question about responsibility is dealt with in ecofeminism, as responsible practice is one of the ecofeminist principles (Kronlid, 2003). As there was no significant difference between responses from women and men, question A61 cannot be interpreted as supporting ecofeminism.

In summary, the results of four questions on Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) indicate no support for ecofeminism (Table 1). On the contrary, the results of one of these (A12) could be interpreted as challenging it. The results of questions A13, A39 and A47 do not show any significant difference between women and men. Question A13 is about respondents’ views on GMOs as contrary to nature, A39 is about reduction of chemical pesticides, and A47 about contamination of other crop plants. Ecofeminists challenge the use of GMOs (Croeser, 2011; Forsey, 2002; Loots, 2011; Orias & Caputi, 2013), and as there were no differences between responses from women and men, the results of these three questions about GMOs indicate no support for ecofeminism.

The results of question A12 (Table 1) show a significant difference between women and men, both with multivariate and univariate analyses, but contrary to the expected one from an ecofeminism perspective. In the Swedish sample, women agreed that genetically modified plants could help reduce famine in the world, to a greater extent than men. Ecofeminists do not agree that increasing productivity due to GMOs will reduce famine in the world (The Bonn Declaration on GMOs, as cited in Loots, 2011). This result can be interpreted as challenging ecofeminism.

In summary, the results of two questions about Trust in authorities indicate no support for ecofeminism. For one of the questions, significance can be interpreted as challenging it, as both multivariate and univariate analyses show significant differences between women and men. The results of question A56a (Table 1) show that women relied on scientists compared to members of parliament, to a significantly higher degree than men. As ecofeminism challenges Western science (Besthorn & Pearson McMillen, 2002; Salleh, 2006) and its thoughts on having total control of the truth of reality (Braidotti et al., 2004; Kumar D’Souza, 1989), it is difficult to support the female teachers’ responses from an ecofeminism perspective. The results of question A56a about trust in authorities can thus be interpreted as challenging ecofeminism.

Question A56b (Table 1) refers to degree of trust respondents have in different science experts, whose science fields include ethics or not. As ethical behaviour is important to ecofeminists (Kheel, 2007), to indicate support of ecofeminism, women should give more trust to experts in fields where ethics is included, compared to fields where it is not. As responses did not yield any significant difference, ecofeminism is not supported by the results of this question.

Evaluation of ecofeminism

To our knowledge, this is the first time an empirical investigation is performed on women and men’s allegedly different concerns and responsibilities for nature and the environment from ecofeminism perspective. Ecofeminism is one of the most prominent movements that link gender to an environmental action agenda (Braidotti et al., 2004; Kronlid, 2003), and consequently an interesting perspective when discussing female and male teachers’ behaviour, conceptions and attitudes towards nature and the environment. A higher degree of pro-environmental behaviour for women could have implications for environmental education. The results display very few significant differences between teachers’ pro-environmental behaviour, conceptions and attitudes towards nature and the environment. For the few significant differences found, it could be interpreted that only two out of four support ecofeminism, while the other two could be interpreted as challenging it. Given the very low number of questions yielding significant differences, combined with the fact that significances could be interpreted as both supporting and challenging ecofeminism, the results indicate no support for ecofeminism. To summarise, our study challenges ecofeminism.

The questions that yielded significant differences were scattered among categories, as they were found in four out of six categories (Table 1). There is thus no special field that emerged as having a significant difference between women and men. Items that yielded possible significance in support of ecofeminism were in the categories Attitudes and Ecocentric and anthropocentric views (Table 1). Although this result could be interpreted as support for ecofeminist principles, when all data were taken together, there was hardly any support for ecofeminism. The conclusion is robust: our study challenges ecofeminism.

Ecofeminism could be regarded as both social movement and theoretical discourse, and it contains different variants and forms (Kronlid, 2003; Warren, 1996). This is also evident on the ecofeminism website eve online (eve online, 2014), where different perspectives are discussed. The website stresses that ecofeminism ought to be constantly evolving, and different perspectives are welcome. This vouches for ecofeminism trying to keep up with social development. Also, authors from within the ecofeminism movement try to revisit ecofeminism (Gaard, 2011; Li, 2007; Salleh, 2009).

Not all perspectives of ecofeminism have been evaluated in this study, only the most prominent ones. Suggestions for further studies could be to consider the south-north perspective and new social movements. The website eve online (eve online, 2014) invites discussions within the framework of ecofeminism and gives the impression of following up-to-date issues. New techniques, such as mobile phones, and the fact that far more girls than before attend schools, have in some respects changed the conditions for the gender debate.

Comparisons with other studies

Teachers’ environmental attitudes have rarely been investigated (Oerke & Bogner, 2010). However, Oerke and Bogner (2010) presented a study with 367 German pre- and in-service teachers’ environmental attitudes within the BIOHEAD-Citizen Project. They used the 2-MEV Model of Bogner and Wiseman (2006) and identified two independent dimensions P and U, reflecting ecocentric and anthropocentric concerns, respectively (Thompson & Barton, 1994). A few significant results appeared, among others that scores for U were significantly higher for men than for women. Our study does not confirm this result, as only one question out of seventeen testing dimensions P, ecocentric, and U, anthropocentric, yielded significant differences between women and men. One disparity between our study and that of Oerke and Bogner (2010) is that the same analyses were not performed.

Environmental attitudes and behaviours have been investigated from a gender perspective by Zelezny et al. (2000). The study was performed among 2,160 undergraduate students participating in social and behavioural courses. The authors found that women showed significantly stronger New Environmental Paradigm (NEW) scores (Dunlap et al., 2000) than men, indicating that women showed stronger ecocentric environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour than men. However, it was argued that use of traditional one-dimensional analysis using variance technique could blur the results and fail to reveal nuances that are evident in two-dimensional analysis (Boeve-de Pauw, Jacobs, & Van Petegem, 2014). Boeve-de Pauw et al. (2014) claimed that one-dimensional analysis showed greater score differences between women and men, indicating a more ecocentric perspective for women, compared to two-dimensional analysis. Thus, gender differences could be blurred with one-dimensional analyses, and the use of two-dimensional analyses might nuance the picture and show lesser difference between genders. Our study does not confirm the results of Zelezny et al. (2000). However, the samples of the two studies are not fully compatible, as not only students (pre-service teachers) but also in-service teachers were included in our study.

Momsen (2000) reported on a study from fieldworks in the so-called South, where only small differences in environmental concern between the genders were presented. When differences appeared, they did not show any consistent pattern. Sometimes men showed higher concern for environmental issues and sometimes women. The author speculated that changing gender roles, wider access to education, and contemporary economic development pressures on natural resources have undermined the long-established notions of women’s special care for nature and environment, which is one of the cornerstones of ecofeminism. Momsen (2000) even argued that differences have perhaps not existed, and pointed to the fact that women’s allegedly higher degree of concern for the environment has not been validated by empirical studies. One of the goals of our study was to try to answer this question.

Limitations of the study

It should be pointed out that ecofeminism is an umbrella term and cannot be reduced to one perspective or view (Warren, 1994). However, we have tried to provide a broader view of ecofeminism and have focused on its main characteristics, which we have evaluated. Thus, there are perspectives of ecofeminism we have not touched upon.

The results should be interpreted in light of only pre- and in-service teachers participating in the study. They all came from two European countries with rather high standard of living and cultural similarities. Despite the fact that over 1,100 teachers participated, it is still a limited sample. The BIOHEAD questionnaire is rather comprehensive, and it could be argued that participants did not answer properly, as it demanded rather great effort. However, the questionnaire has been tested for validity and reliability in France as well as in other countries (Clément et al., 2007; Carvalho et al., 2008; Munoz et al., 2009).