3 KN TYPES | PL-AC ECOTYPES | 2023-24 DATA | NEXT STEPS
A new approach to EcoTypes
Since its inception in 2017, the EcoTypes survey has helped participants explore environmental ideas; and since 2021, participants have been assigned an EcoType based on their responses to dozens of survey questions. But the way we have assigned you an EcoType has changed over time—and we will follow a new procedure starting summer 2024. Below is a brief background on how we have determined EcoTypes to date, then details on why we are developing a new approach and what you can expect in future.
Assigning one EcoType based on all of your survey responses requires thoughtful choice! We have always used factor analysis to condense your many axis scores into Place, Knowledge, and Action theme scores, and we have always used these theme scores to derive your EcoType. But the way we have done this has changed over time!
We initially worked with normalized factor scores and applied k-means cluster analysis to determine EcoTypes. This resulted in, for instance, five EcoTypes among those who completed the survey: Ecoscience, Ecospirituality, Indigenous Justice, Science for Humanity, and Small is Beautiful. But this method had two limitations: (a) it was based only on those who completed the survey, so other possible EcoTypes were not included; and (b) there was no way for participants to calculate their own EcoType.
So, starting in 2023, we addressed the above via EcoTypes that expressed the full potential range of Place, Knowledge, and Action themes, and calculated your theme scores as a simple mean you could do yourself. To express the three themes in two dimensions, EcoTypes included a Place/Knowledge phrase (Earth Spirit, Ecoscience, Technoprogress, Traditional Ways), with a (S)mall or (B)ig Action suffix.
Why change how we assign EcoTypes again? The answer lies in something interesting we have discovered in Knowledge theme results: a new Knowledge type! Read on for details.
Three Knowledge types
Recall that, following factor analysis, the three EcoTypes themes describe the greatest differences among survey respondents. For the Knowledge theme, these differences were summarized by examining poles of the four related axes: Science, Spirituality, Technology, and Time. This resulted in the old vs. new Knowledge attractors summarized in the theme narrative for each—in many ways resonating with longstanding discussions and debates over the role of religion and spirituality (old) vs. science (new) in providing guidance to our lives.
But, upon analysis of over 3000 EcoTypes survey responses in 2023-24 (below), an interesting correlation pattern emerged, as in the diagram above. The strongest bivariate correlations were between Spirituality and Time, and Science and Technology, with some correlation between Time and Technology. At a finer scale, then, the Knowledge theme consists of two sub-themes, one associated with Spirituality and the other with Science.
There are indeed responses that follow the old or new Knowledge pattern with all four axes. But, among fully three of five respondents, a different pattern emerges, as summarized in the chart at right. We might call this pattern Integral vs. Old or New Knowledge, following an integral ecology philosophy in which both religion and science—both old and new Knowledge—offer important environmental guidance. Technically, responses that follow integral Knowledge scored toward old Knowledge (–) on Spirituality and Time, and toward new Knowledge (+) on Science and Technology.
The demographics of 2023-24 respondents can be compared via ANOVA with these three Knowledge types to yield interesting patterns as well, as shown on the figure at right. In this figure, all demographic variables significant at p = .001 are asterisked. In some cases (e.g., ethnicity) differences are relatively, minor, but in others they are larger, including:
- Gender—perhaps the biggest demographic difference. Those who identify as male lean much more toward new Knowledge, whereas those who identify as female or nonbinary (grouped given other similarities in EcoTypes data) lean much more toward old or integral Knowledge.
- Location. Though the majority of respondents reside in the US, others from non-US locations completed the survey too, and they tend to lean more toward new Knowledge than US respondents.
- Politics, Religion, Environmental self-IDs. Those who lean toward new Knowledge are unique among a number of other variables as well: they are less left-leaning politically, less likely to self-identify as “religious” or “spiritual,” and are less likely to identify as “environmentalist” or say they worry about environmental issues.
So, as with EcoTypes demographics below, these 2023-24 results offer an interesting basis for comparison and discussion as to why some prefer old, integral, or new Knowledge.
[You may have your own opinion as to which of these three Knowledge types is best! But before jumping to conclusions, do look into the EcoTypes followup reflection form, which approaches difference with a preferred method other than simple disagreement (old vs. new Knowledge, or “counting to two”), or agreement (integral Knowledge, or “counting to one”). You may also wonder whether this Integral pattern applies to Place and Action as well: statistically speaking, the answer is no, this is unique to Knowledge data.]
Place-Action EcoTypes
What to do with this new Knowledge information? You can see that our most recent method of assigning an EcoTypes phrase based on Place and Knowledge scores fails to capture the majority of Knowledge responses, which are more Integral than Old or New. So, a simple alternative is to switch Knowledge and Action, i.e., determine the EcoTypes phrase based on Place and Action, adding a Knowledge (O, I, or N) suffix. This is the approach we will take.
The four new EcoTypes phrases are at right. They may arguably be more intuitive than our recent four phrases! This is because nonhuman/human Place and small/big Action are often more readily understandable than old/new Knowledge. Some (e.g., Small Green Steps) have been used with success in earlier typologies; yet this typology maintains the full possible spectrum, thus Land Stewardship is present as an alternative we might discover more in our Many Care, Just Differently dialogues than among the students who routinely complete this survey.
So, following this new approach, the EcoType for a respondent leaning toward nonhuman Place, small Action, and integral Knowledge would be Small Green Steps (I), whereas one for human Place, big Action, and new Knowledge would be Social Justice (N).
This new approach will also place the respondent location on the Place-Action chart differently. Since theme scores are averages of averages (i.e., each axis score is the average of two statements, and the theme score an average of four axes), they tend to be in the range of -0.2 – 0.2 on a scale of -1 to 1, which does not produce a very interesting chart, nor afford much comparison among respondents. On the new chart, respondent scores will be placed according to their percentile relative to that portion of the 2023-24 data also in that sector, with a summary chart description to aid interpretation.
Application to 2023-24 data
This new approach to EcoTypes yields some provocative insights from our 2023-24 academic year data (n = 3372). These data are by no means representative!: the most common respondent is an undergraduate student from the U.S. enrolled in an environmental course. Yet, even among this population, some interesting patterns emerge, as summarized below.
What is the distribution of the four main EcoTypes phrases among 2023-24 respondents? The chart at right suggests two predominant EcoTypes: Earth Action and Small Green Steps. These two EcoTypes both lean toward nonhuman Place, but differ in their emphasis on small vs. big Action. This distribution alone leads to some questions: what is the basis for this important difference in Action? Why are there so few EcoTypes representing human Place (Land Stewardship; Social Justice) among respondents, and who else beyond these respondents might we expect to embrace these EcoTypes? These are important questions, certainly worthy of classroom discussion.
Demographic patterns among these four main EcoType phrases offer interesting clues as to who might lean toward which and why. As with the above chart, variables with ANOVA significance at p = .001 are asterisked. We see in some cases (Location, Economic ID, Environmental Solutions) the differences are not great enough to be statistically significant, but in all others they are. The following are particularly noteworthy:
- Gender (again!…see above, and cf. cross-national Gen Z data). Earth Action and Small Green Steps, both nonhuman Place EcoTypes, are more common among female/nonbinary respondents, while Land Stewardship is more common among those who identify as male, with Social Justice in between. Indeed, mean Place scores (-1 nonhuman to +1 human) for male are -0.16 vs. -0.24 for female/nonbinary (p < .001); though this difference seems small, remember that theme scores are averages of averages (see above), so there is an important difference between male and non-male gender identification in Place, and thus in Place-Action EcoTypes.
- Politics, Religion. Another highly significant difference involves respondent political identification, with Earth Action respondents far to the political left relative to others, and Land Stewardship slightly to the political right. This pattern is reproduced in religious identification as well, here focusing on those who called themselves “spiritual” vs. “religious,” with Earth Action respondents far more likely to call themselves spiritual than others, and Land Stewardship far more likely to call themselves religious. One intentional reason, in fact, for this EcoType name is that stewardship has a long theological tradition in land management, and thus can be expected to be somewhat associated with those who call themselves religious.
- Environmental self-IDs. Earth Action respondents are most comfortable calling themselves environmentalists, and worry the most about environmental problems, while Land Stewardship respondents are the least so for both, with Social Justice and Small Green Steps in between.
Remember that Earth Action and Land Stewardship are complementary EcoTypes, meaning they are conceptually the most distant from each other. These demographic results from 2023-24 drive home the important differences between these two EcoTypes, while possibly revealing other patterns among adherents of Small is Beautiful and Social Justice.
Next steps for summer 2024
This new approach to EcoTypes necessitates significant changes to the programming of the EcoTypes survey, programming and formatting of the EcoTypes survey report, and content and graphics of related web resources. We anticipate these changes to be finalized by the end of July, in time for 2024-25 classes using EcoTypes.
One web resource to be updated will be the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which apply slightly differently to Place-Action EcoTypes; and while the EcoTypes personae have proved useful to help imagine the current set of EcoTypes, we anticipate this will be less needed with these new, more intuitive EcoTypes and will not continue using them. [Update: we *will* continue using personae, following multiple requests!]
While the EcoTypes survey is being updated, we will move the brief EcoTypes survey, successfully piloted online in spring 2024 and used successfully in a number of in-person “Many Care, Just Differently” community interactions, to its own online survey separate from the full survey, as an option for visitors to the EcoTypes site. We will revise the Knowledge theme narrative section of this brief survey in accordance with the above, to include two related narratives, one for Spirituality/Time and the other for Science/Technology.
The EcoTypes book is moving forward this summer as well. We plan to incorporate the above into its final version, so that participants and students have a reading resource to better understand the rationale behind EcoTypes, more deeply appreciate its axes, themes, and EcoTypes, and ultimately move toward engagement across difference as the practical consequence of EcoTypes, in line with “Many Care, Just Differently.”
We are always interested in your questions or comments on these EcoTypes changes; please do so via the feedback form, and thank you in advance.