Forestry professionalism overrides gender: A case study of nature perception in Germany

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 171-175

  Storch, Sabine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cultural Theory; Forestry professionalism; Gender; Germany; Nature perception

Indexed keywords

CULTURAL BIAS; CULTURAL THEORY; EMPIRICAL FINDINGS; GENDER; GENDER EFFECTS; GENERAL PUBLICS; GERMANY; NATURE PERCEPTION; PUBLIC FORESTS;

POPULATION STATISTICS; SURVEYS; TIMBER;

FORESTRY;

BIOLOGICAL POPULATIONS; FORESTRY; GERMANY; PROFESSIONAL SERVICES; SURVEYS;

EID: 79952485000     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bayerische Staatsforsten AöR Das Unternehmen Wald - Bayerische Staatsforsten 2008, RL (accessed 10.08.2009): http://www.baysf.de/de/home/unternehmen_wald/aktuelles/publikation/artic le/50/das-neue-unternehmensportraet-der-bayerischen-staatsforsten.html.
2. Brandt B., Haugen M.S. Breaking into a masculine discourse, women and farm forestry. Sociologia Ruralis 1998, 38(3):427-442.
3. Brown G., Harris C.C. The Implications of work force diversification in the U.S. Forest Service. Adm. Soc. 1993, 25(1):85-113.
4. Brown G., Harris C.C. Professional foresters and the land ethic, Revisited. J. Forest. 1998, 96(1):4-12.
5. Brown G., Harris C.C. A longitudinal study of environmental attitudes of women and gender diversification in the U.S. Forest Service 1990-1996. For. Sci. 2001, 47(2):246-257.
6. Cornwall A., Harrison E., Whitehead A. Gender myths and feminist fables: the struggle for interpretative power in gender and development. Dev. Change 2007, 38(1):1-20.
7. Douglas M., Wildavsky A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers 1982, University of California Press, Berkeley.
8. Durkheim E., Mauss M. Über einige primitive Formen von Klassifikation. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der kollektiven Vorstellungen. Schriften zur Soziologie der Erkenntnis 1987, 161-256. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. E. Durkheim (Ed.).
9. Time for action. Changing the gender situation in forestry. Report of the team of specialists on gender and forestry 2006, FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, URL (accessed 20.01.2009): ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0549e/a0549e00.pdf.
10. Flynn J., Slovic P., Mertz C.K. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 1994, 14(6):1101-1108.
11. Grendstad G., Sundback S. Socio-demographic effects on cultural biases: a Nordic study of grid-group theory. Acta Sociologica 2003, 46(4):289-306.
12. Holling C.S. Resilience of Ecosystems; local surprise and global change. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere 1986, 292-317. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. W.C.R.E. Clark (Ed.).
13. Hoogstra M.A., Schanz H. The future orientation of foresters: an exploratory research among Dutch foresters into the prerequisite for strategic planning in forestry. For. Policy Econ. 2008, 10:220-229.
14. Kanter Rosabeth Moss Men and Women of the Corporation 1993, Basic Books, New York. 2nd ed.
15. Kuckartz U., Rädiker S., Rheingans-Heintze A. Repräsentativumfrage zu Umweltbewusstsein und Umweltverhalten im Jahr 2006. Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Förderkennzeichen 205 17 102. Marburg 2006.
16. Meier, A., Erdmann, K.-H., 2003. Zur Konstruktion von Natur. Naturbilder in der Gesellschaft. In: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Ed.), Zukunftsfaktor Natur - Blickpunkt Mensch. Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH, Münster-Hiltrup, pp. 27-52.
17. Reed M.G. Reproducing the gender order in Canadian Forestry: the role of statistical representation. Scand. J. For. Res. 2008, 23(1):78-91.
18. Schanz H. Forstliche Nachhaltigkeit. Sozialwissenschaftliche Analyse der Begriffsinhalte und -funktionen. Schriften aus dem Institut für Forstökonomie der Universität Freiburg, Band 4 1996.
19. Schultz I. Gender-Perspektiven in der deutschen Umweltforschung. Ein Blick zurück. Politische Ökologie 2001, 70:18-20.
20. Schwarz M., Thompson M. Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology, and Social Choice 1990, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
21. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk assessment battle-field 1997, URL (accessed 25.01.2009): http://www.oregonstate.edu/dept/iifet/2000/papers/slovic.pdf.
22. Spickard J.V. A guide to Mary Douglas's three versions of grid/group theory. Sociol. Anal. 1989, 50(2):151-170.
23. Thompson M. A three-dimensional model. Essays in the Sociology of Perception 1982, 31-63. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston, Henley. M. Douglas (Ed.).
24. Thompson M., Ellis R., Wildavsky A. Cultural Theory 1990, Westview Press, Boulder, Oxford.
25. Timmerman P. Mythology and surprise in the sustainable development of the biosphere. Sustainable Development of the Biosphere 1986, 436-453. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. W.C.R.E. Clark (Ed.).
26. Wonneberger E., Westermayer T., Lewark S. Traditional and new occupation in rural areas based on forestry and forests - gender aspects. News For. Hist. 2007, IV/(38:47-55.