Gender Differences in Environmental Perspectives among Urban Design Professionals

Abstract

Urban design professionals are key actors in early design phases and have the possibility to influence urban development and direct it in a more sustainable direction. Therefore, gender differences in environmental perspectives among urban design professionals may have a marked effect on urban development and the environment. This study identified gender differences in environment-related attitudes among urban design professionals involved in the international architectural competition 'A New City Centre for Kiruna' in northern Sweden. Participants' self-rated possibility to influence environmental aspects was higher for males than for females. Conversely, the importance placed on environmental aspects had higher ratings among females, although the differences regarding the rating of personal responsibility were small. The gap between the participants' self-rated belief in their ability to influence and rated importance of environmental aspects was larger among female participants. Females placed great importance on environmental aspects even though they felt that their possibility to influence these was rather low. Conversely, male participants felt that they had the greatest possibility to influence, although some males rated the importance of environmental aspects thelowest. The gender differences identified are important from an equality and environmental perspective as they may influence pro-environmental behavior among urban design professionals and ultimately influence the environmental performance of the built environment.

Engaging More Effectively With Visitors to Coastal Regions for Improved Management Outcomes: Insights From the Ningaloo Coast, Australia

“…Since the origin of environmental behavior literature, there has been much observational evidence to suggest that women are more worried about the environment than men, and that this is reflected in their greater levels of proenvironmental behavior (e.g., Stern et al, 1993;Davidson and Freudenburg, 1996;Ramstetter and Habersack, 2019). However, females in our study self-rated their own environmental behavior as lower (i.e., less environmentally friendly) than men -which would be counter to the observational evidence (e.g., Lam and Cheng, 2002;Wallhagen et al, 2018). Given that our study was not specifically designed to test for such gender differences we do not have adequate evidence to explain these findings, however, we posit that females may under-report the adequacy of their own behavior for gender related reasons.…”

Impact of biological education and gender on students’ connection to nature and relational values

“…Females show a significantly higher RV score than males, even if the effect according to the common interpretation [ 90 ] is small (d = .273). It is reported that females consider environmental aspects to be more important [ 91 ]. Zhang et al [ 69 ] discovered that females are more connected to nature and appreciate the beauty of nature more.…”

Seeking elsewhere: a systematic review of literature surrounding attrition and retention of female architects in the profession post-registration

“…This positions architecture as an anomaly of women's progression at student level and beyond (Sánchez De Madariaga, 2010). With multidisciplinary collaboration as an accepted requirement of the architectural skillset (Wallhagen et al , 2018), there are also negative findings on the workplace experience of women when liaising with other professions. On-site consultant liaison, particularly in areas of construction, becomes a major disconnect where gender bias is exasperated by stereotypical perceptions (Lim et al, 2018; Pickerill, 2015).…”

“…The attrition of women in the workforce is a well-established topic across various professions, where long-term retention often serves as an indicator of progressive societal change. This issue is further exacerbated in more male-dominated workforces, or workforces that are perceived as such, including for example, engineering, medicine and architecture (Goris, 2020; Lim et al , 2018; Smitheram et al , 2012; Wallhagen et al, 2018).…”