The EcoTypes survey was completed nearly 2500 times in 2022. This page offers a summary of EcoTypes scores, plus key demographics of respondents; feel free to compare your survey results alongside others via this page.
EcoTypes | Themes | Axes | Climate | Demographics
EcoTypes
The 2479 responses from 2022 group into six predominant EcoTypes, based on Place, Knowledge, and Action theme scores. These scores are the average of four main contributing axes for each—a simplified approach relative to recent years. There is also a seventh EcoType, Neutral, for those whose theme scores are close to zero.
The most prevalent EcoType, Earth Action, stresses nonhuman Place and big Action, as summarized in the attractors table below along with other EcoTypes. It’s important to bear in mind that the relative proportions of EcoTypes found above are not necessarily representative of any population; the chart simply summarizes patterns among all 2022 survey responses.
EcoTypes are derived from K-means cluster analysis performed on earlier iterations of survey data, which revealed common patterns among responses. Though every response is unique, many fit among these EcoTypes patterns, which can be simplified into attractors as follows:
| EcoType | Place | Knowledge | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earth Action | Nonhuman | – | Big |
| Ecoscience | Nonhuman | New | – |
| Ecospirituality | Nonhuman | Old | – |
| Indigenous Justice | – | Old | Big |
| Science for Change | – | New | Big |
| Small Green Steps | Nonhuman | – | Small |
| Neutral | – | – | – |
You can tell from the above that there may well be other EcoTypes; as one example, those based on human Place are uncommon among responses. But these are the most common among those who completed the EcoTypes survey in recent years.
The mean Place, Knowledge, and Action values of each EcoType offer empirical substantiation of the above attractors, where negative values tend toward the left theme pole and vice versa.
| EcoType | Place | Knowledge | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earth Action | -0.39 | -0.05 | +0.47 |
| Ecoscience | -0.27 | +0.31 | -0.03 |
| Ecospirituality | -0.36 | -0.35 | -0.04 |
| Indigenous Justice | -0.02 | -0.32 | +0.48 |
| Science for Change | +0.06 | +0.37 | +0.42 |
| Small Green Steps | -0.22 | -0.05 | -0.34 |
| Neutral | -0.02 | +0.00 | -0.01 |
Another way to summarize and compare 2022 EcoTypes is via the below dynamic 3D chart,* where each survey response is located via its Place, Knowledge, and Action coordinates. Spin it to rotate around each theme, zoom in/out to see pattern details, or click to limit to a particular EcoType. Or, click here to view the chart in its own (bigger) tab.
*Many thanks to Jeremy McWilliams of Lewis & Clark’s Watzek Library for assistance on the 3D chart code.
Themes
The three EcoTypes themes of Place, Knowledge, and Action are derived from factor analysis of axis data. Factor analysis is a data reduction technique that identifies underlying common factors (here, themes) reflecting the greatest statistical variance, or differences among responses.
In past, up to eighteen axes have been included in factor analysis, and themes calculated based on weighted axis contributions. The theme scores summarized below are, however, an unweighted mean of just the four most significant axes for each theme. This approach was found to highly correlate (r > 0.93 to 0.96) with themes derived from a weighted combination of all axes, and is much simpler so that you can readily calculate your theme scores.
A summary of theme statistics from 2022 is below; the median is included for you to interpret your theme scores, which are presented in your survey report as relative to the median.
| Theme | Mean* | Median | SD** |
|---|---|---|---|
| Place | -0.22 | -0.19 | 0.27 |
| Knowledge | -0.05 | -0.06 | 0.30 |
| Action | +0.20 | +0.19 | 0.38 |
*Theme scores are calculated similar to axes, with (-1) representing the left pole and (+1) the right pole; thus a theme mean < tends toward the left pole and vice versa. **SD = standard deviation. Bigger standard deviations imply greater differences among responses.
Do you see the following in these summary theme statistics?
- The average Place score strongly tended toward nonhuman Place. Similarly, the mean Action score strongly tended toward big Action. The average Knowledge score, however, was mixed.
- The biggest differences (as summarized in standard deviation) among responses was with the Action theme. There were differences among responses in all three themes, as factor analysis identifies themes based on difference; but in comparison to Action, Knowledge and Place had relatively less differences.
The Place, Knowledge, and Action histograms below offer you a visual way to grasp the summary statistics above.
Axes
Though eighteen axes were included in the 2022 survey, we’ll focus here on the twelve axes that contributed to the above theme scores, and ultimately EcoTypes.
They are summarized here in three groups, following each theme, with left axis poles corresponding to the left theme pole and vice versa. For instance, nonhuman Place axis poles include wild Aesthetics, stable Ecosystems, biocentric Ethics, and pure Nature. Please refer to axis links for information on left and right poles.
The Place axes include Aesthetics, Ecosystems, Ethics, and Nature.
| Axis | Left Pole | Mean | Right Pole | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aesthetics | Wild | -0.26 | Crafted | 0.43 |
| Ecosystems | Stable | -0.17 | Dynamic | 0.41 |
| Ethics | Biocentric | -0.42 | Anthropocentric | 0.42 |
| Nature | Pure | -0.01 | Hybrid | 0.46 |
Place axis survey responses tended strongly toward biocentric Ethics, and toward wild Aesthetics and stable Ecosystems. Responses were more mixed as to pure vs. hybrid Nature. Standard deviations of all four Place axes suggest considerable difference among responses.
The Knowledge axes include Science, Spirituality, Technology, and Time.
| Axis | Left Pole | Mean | Right Pole | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Science | Heterodox | +0.14 | Orthodox | 0.44 |
| Spirituality | Sacred | -0.33 | Secular | 0.47 |
| Technology | Technophobic | +0.18 | Technophilic | 0.39 |
| Time | Past | -0.19 | Future | 0.44 |
Knowledge axis survey responses tended strongly toward sacred Spirituality, and toward orthodox Science, philic Technology, and past Time. Difference (suggested in standard deviation) was more marked for Spirituality, and less so for Technology.
The Action axes include Change, Economies, Social Scale, and Society.
| Axis | Left Pole | Mean | Right Pole | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change | Incremental | +0.10 | Radical | 0.53 |
| Economies | Market | +0.30 | Planned | 0.44 |
| Social Scale | Individual | +0.30 | Institutional | 0.52 |
| Society | Consensus | +0.10 | Conflict | 0.56 |
Action axis responses tended strongly toward planned Economies and institutional Social Scale, and toward radical Change and conflict Society. Standard deviation results suggest more difference among Action axes than other theme axes (consistent with the factor-analyzed Action theme), and especially concerning Change, Social Scale, and Society.
Climate Priorities
Starting late fall 2022, the EcoTypes survey included an applied question on climate solution priorities, where respondents were asked to choose their top three of twelve options.
Results are below, from a smaller number of responses than other 2022 results (n = 357). Can you imagine how certain EcoTypes may correspond more or less with certain of these solutions? We hope to do a more detailed analysis in 2023, with additional responses.
Demographics
The EcoTypes survey results above follow from nearly 2500 responses in 2022. But who were those who responded to the survey? The survey is anonymous, but we can get clues via those who shared demographic information about themselves. What you will see in the below is that EcoTypes patterns are not representative of any general population, but do possibly illuminate patterns among young adults passionate about environmental issues.
Below are summary charts of some key demographics, including age, gender, country, and ethnicity. As you can see, many respondents were 25 and under, resided in the USA, and identified as part of their country’s ethnic majority; respondents were also predominantly female. This demographic information is consistent with the use of the EcoTypes survey in undergraduate environmental courses in the USA, though roughly one-quarter of responses came from outside the US.
We can also gain valuable information from self-identification data supplied by respondents, as in the below charts. In general, respondents identified as middle and upper middle income; as politically liberal to very liberal; and as highly concerned about environmental issues. Again, these demographics align closely with students in undergraduate environmental courses.
