↓ Skip to main content

Gender Differences in Resource Use and Evaluatuon of Attributes of Places of Resource Use by Native Americans and Caucasians from Western Idaho: Relevance to Risk Evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Gender Differences in Resource Use and Evaluatuon of Attributes of Places of Resource Use by Native Americans and Caucasians from Western Idaho: Relevance to Risk Evaluations
Published in
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, October 2010
DOI 10.1080/15287394.2010.516242
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A substantial body of literature deals with exposure differences between men and women, and how men and women perceive environmental risk, but far less attention has been devoted to how men and women use the environment and how they evaluate the features of natural environments. The objective of this study was to examine gender differences in the perceptions of environmental quality and resource use for Native Americans and Caucasians interviewed at an Indian festival in northwestern Idaho. More individuals engaged in fishing than any other consumptive activity, and more people engaged in camping and hiking than other nonconsumptive activities. For both ethnic groups, significantly more men hunted than women, although a higher percentage of Native Americans of both genders hunted than did Caucasians. Although significantly more Caucasian men fished than women (63 vs. 41%), there were no marked differences in fishing for Native Americans. Significantly more Native American women gathered herbs (57%) compared to men (37%). There were no significant gender differences in nonconsumptive activities (camping, hiking, biking, bird watching, or picnicking). For those who engaged in consumptive and nonconsumptive activities, however, there were few gender differences in the frequency of these activities, except for fishing, hunting, and crabbing by Caucasians (men had higher rates) and collecting berries and herbs for Native Americans (women had higher rates). When asked to evaluate environmental characteristics or attributes on a scale of 1 (less important) to 5 (very important), unpolluted water, clean air, no visible smog, unpolluted groundwater, and appears unspoiled were rated the highest. There were few significant gender differences in these evaluations for Native Americans, but there were significant gender differences for Caucasians: Women rated most features higher than did men (except for natural tidal flow). These data indicate a need to evaluate not only consumption rate differences between men and women, but also nonconsumptive activities, as well as resource values and perceptions, when managing environments and determining potential risk from exposure.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 15 48%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 15 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2011.
All research outputs
#18,869,989
of 27,369,606 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A
#2,023
of 2,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,068
of 117,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A
#29
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,369,606 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 117,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.