Nuclear Families and Nuclear Risks: The Effects of Gender, Geography, and Progeny on Attitudes toward a Nuclear Waste Facility*

Abstract

Studies of reactions to nuclear facilities have found consistent male/female differences, but the underlying reasons have never been well‐clarified. The most common expectations involve traditional roles—with men focusing more on economic concerns and with women (especially mothers) being more concerned about family safety/health. Still, with changing gender roles, women are becoming economic providers as well as caregivers; past studies have not actually examined the interaction of employment and gender effects. This study examines a rural county where issues of risk and economic interest were both salient—a county where a nuclear waste site had been proposed but where an existing nuclear power plant was a major employer. Overall, concern levels expressed by employed mothers did not differ significantly from those in the rest of the sample, but further analyses revealed a sharp contrast: In the half of the county that was home to the existing nuclear power plant, where economic concerns could be expected to be more salient, over 90 percent of the employed mothers expressed low levels of concern; in the other half of the county, closer to the potential risks of the proposed nuclear waste site, almost 90 percent of the employed mothers expressed high levels of concern. No such differences are found for other sociodemographic groups. This county may or may not be unique; what the findings show is that the interplay of geography, gender roles and risks should receive more attention in other contexts, as well.

Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities

“…In such instances, evidence shows that proximity tends to be associated with lower levels of concern, and greater acceptance (e.g. Baxter & Lee, 2004;Bisconti Research, 2007a, 2007bBurningham & Thrush, 2004;Bush, Moffatt, & Dunn, 2001;Freudenberg & Davidson, 2007;Mah, 2009;Maderthaner, Guttman, Swaton, & Otway, 1978;Wakefield & Elliott, 2000;Williams, Brown, & Greenberg, 1999).…”

Gender and place influences on health risk perspectives in northern Canadian Aboriginal communities

“…They are also supported by the work of Freudenberg and Davidson (2007), who noted that gender differences in risk concerns did not manifest in communities currently living in proximity to an existing risk as opposed to communities posed with a potential new risk.…”

“…Observed differences between men and women in risk response have frequently been attributed to priorities shaped by traditional gender relations, particularly the predominance of economic concerns among men as opposed to the emphasis on children's safety and health among women (Freudenburg and Davidson 2007;Brody 1984;Stern, Dietz, and Kalof 1993;Roberts 1997;Gutteling and Wiedman 1993).…”

“…Indeed, Freudenburg and Davidson (2007) found that overall differences in risk attitudes between women and men were not always statistically significant, depending on whether risks are currently present or proposed for a specific location, and on the economic circumstances of those affected. Similarly, Greenberg and Schneider (1995) found that observed gender differences in risk perception varied by the degree of environmental distress, with no differences existing in populations stressed by multiple and simultaneous hazards.…”

Gender, Knowledge, Scientific Expertise, and Attitudes Toward Biotechnology: Technological Salience and the Use of Knowledge to Generate Attitudes

“…Whether asked about environmental issues (Stern et al, 1993;Hayes, 2001;McCright, 2010), nuclear power (Freudenburg & Davidson, 2007;Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996;Krannich & Albrecht, 1995), biotechnologies (Qin & Brown, 2007;Bryant & Pini, 2006;Simon 2010Simon , 2011 including reproductive technologies (Napolitano & Ogunseitan, 1999), or science in general (Trankina, 1993;Barke et al, 1997;von Roten, 2004;Mallow et al, 2010;Breakwell & Robertson 2001;Hayes & Tariq 2000), women express more skepticism toward science and technology than men do. Gender is an important determinant of people's attitudes toward science and technology, and the fact that there is some evidence that indicates that men and women use knowledge differently to form attitudes suggests this is of critical importance for understanding public attitudes toward science and technology.…”