Women tend to feel more fearful in nature, especially when social threats are present

Women are more likely than men to feel unsafe in nature, particularly in areas with dense vegetation or when social threats are implied, according to a new study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology. Across three experiments involving hundreds of adults in the United Kingdom, women consistently expressed more fear, perceived higher risk, and were less inclined to explore wooded environments when potential dangers were present.

The study was partially inspired by a viral social media trend that captured public attention in 2024. The “Man or bear” debate asked users whether they would rather encounter a man or a bear while alone in the woods. Many women chose the bear, suggesting that they perceived a greater threat from an unknown man than from a wild animal. This phenomenon sparked a broader discussion about women’s experiences of safety in natural environments and highlighted how social fears can shape engagement with nature.

Although earlier studies have shown that environmental features like vegetation density can influence feelings of safety, relatively few had examined how those effects may vary by gender, especially when different types of threats — such as social, animal, or physical dangers — are involved. The researchers sought to fill this gap using experimental methods that allowed them to systematically vary environmental cues and measure psychological responses.

“I became interested in women’s experiences in forests and greenspaces because I had a few experiences in nature myself when I didn’t feel entirely safe, and as a consequence the visit was not as enjoyable as I hoped,” explained study author Anna Bornioli, a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health and an associate researcher at the Environmental Psychology Research Group at the University of Surrey, where this study was conducted.

“When chatting with my friends about this, I realised that many female friends empathized, having had similarly bad experiences. On the other hand, many male friends had no idea of what we were talking about. So I started to wonder if gender has anything to do with how we experience nature, and reflected on how gender stereotypes, the way we are brought up, and safety concerns can affect nature experiences. This specific study focuses on safety perceptions.”

Free daily newsletter

The research involved three separate studies, each using online simulations to present participants with images or videos of natural settings. These settings varied in the density of vegetation and the presence of different types of danger signals. In all three studies, participants were asked to imagine walking through the environment and to report their levels of fear, perceived risk, perceived danger (such as social or physical threats), aesthetic appraisal of the setting, and intention to engage with it.

In the first study, 269 university students viewed slideshows depicting nature settings categorized as open, medium, or dense. Participants imagined taking a walk through these environments after a stressful day and then completed a series of rating scales. The researchers found that women reported significantly more fear and perceived risk than men. They were also more likely to anticipate social dangers, such as being followed or assaulted. Men, by contrast, did not report significantly different levels of fear across the different settings.

“I was surprised that men’s experiences were largely unaffected by danger threats,” Bornioli told PsyPost. “The possible presence of wild animals or of a dangerous attacker did not trigger fear among men, compared to the control scenario that had no dangers at all. This could mean that men are less affected by possible threats, or that they are reluctant to express fear and concerns.”

In terms of how vegetation density affected perceptions, both men and women viewed dense environments as more dangerous and less aesthetically appealing than open settings. However, the effect of density on fear and behavioral intentions — such as wanting to explore or leave the area quickly — tended to be stronger for women.

The second study replicated the first with a larger and more balanced sample of 414 adults, including both students and participants recruited online. This replication largely confirmed the previous findings. Again, women expressed more fear, rated the risk of encountering danger as higher, and were especially concerned about social threats. The effect of vegetation density was once more more pronounced for women, with denser settings amplifying their perceptions of risk and decreasing their willingness to engage with the environment.

The third study added a new layer by directly manipulating the type of danger sign participants saw before watching a video of a nature setting. These signs warned of different dangers: social threats (such as an assault warning), physical threats (like tripping hazards), animal threats (such as wild boars), getting lost, or no danger at all. This allowed the researchers to examine how specific threat types influenced fear and behavioral responses.

Across the board, women again reported higher levels of fear and lower willingness to explore the environments. This was especially true when the danger was social in nature. In fact, the presence of a social threat produced the strongest gender differences. Women’s fear scores spiked significantly in these conditions, while men’s responses remained largely unaffected. This pattern was not seen when the danger was physical or animal-related.

“There are three important takeaways,” Bornioli explained. “1). Women consistently reported higher levels of fear and felt more at risk in natural environments than men. This was always the case, independently from the type of greenspace and from the presence or absence of danger threats. 2). ‎Gender differences were particularly pronounced in dense, heavily vegetated areas. There, women felt especially scared and unsafe. 3). Social threats were a key concern for women. When shown scenarios involving social dangers (a potential assaulter spotted in the same greenspace), women’s feelings of fear increased significantly. This concern was much more impactful than other dangers, including wild animal threats (which is somehow in line with the social media trend “man or bear”).

“All of this is problematic because spending time in natural spaces can offer important benefits for health and wellbeing, such as conducting exercise or restoring from stress. But a poor sense of safety can discourage people to visit greenspaces. If women don’t feel safe in nature, this can perpetuate a form of gender inequality in nature access and enjoyment.”

As with all research, there are some limitations. The experimental stimuli were videos and slideshows rather than real-world nature experiences. While these formats allowed for better experimental control, they could not fully replicate the sensory experience of being outdoors.

“The studies are based on virtual experiments rather than on actual nature visits,” Bornioli noted. “Participants watched videos filmed in nature and were asked to image being there. In addition, when showing the videos we did not give instructions to participants on whether they were alone or in company. This is a factor that is likely to affect perceptions of safety.”

Despite these limitations, the study offers consistent evidence across multiple experiments that women tend to perceive nature settings as more dangerous than men do, particularly when social dangers are implied. These findings have important implications for environmental design, public safety messaging, and efforts to promote equitable access to nature. Parks and natural reserves may benefit from interventions aimed at improving perceived safety, such as clear signage, regular maintenance to reduce dense overgrowth, or community programming that fosters a stronger sense of collective presence and care.

“I am interested in understanding the reason behind these gender differences, and what can be done to improve perception of safety among women,” Bornioli said. “Are these concerns entirely due to the fact that women are more likely to be sexually harassed in public spaces? Or are they also related to cultural ideas on nature, and how girls and boys are brought up (other studies indicate that boys are generally encouraged to “be brave” and explore the outdoor, while girls get discouraged to be independent and are often warned about the dangers of nature)?”

“There could be several elements playing a role – for example, dense vegetation did contribute to fear perceptions among women. However, it is clear that in order to improve women’s (and everyone else’s) sense of safety in nature, the solution is not cutting down trees. The key is to address crime in natural and public spaces – and gender-based violence.”

The study, “Gender differences in safety perceptions and experiences of natural environments: The role of vegetation density and danger threats,” was authored by Anna Bornioli and Birgitta Gatersleben.