ZEMCH 2015 - International Conference Proceedings | Page 71
Table 2 Summary of responses of questions 8 to 15
Question
number
Transpersonal
Ecology
Deep
Ecology
Moderate
Ecology
Accommodating Cornucopian EnviEnvironmentalist ronmentalist
Don’t
know
8
97.70%
0%
2.30%
9
34.10%
54.40%
11.40%
10
5.70%
25.70%
25.70%
11
46.30%
17.10%
12
52.50%
13
14
15
42.90%
34.10%
23.10%
10%
0%
12.50%
0%
47.50%
87.50%
23.10%
0%
2.40%
5.10%
28.20%
70%
0%
5.10%
0%
20%
0%
Figure 2 Summary of responses to questions 8 to 15 showing type of environmentalism adopted
Question 16 looked at several statements, each of which reflected different standpoints. 81%
agreed with the inter-generational equity argument posited in the Bruntland definition of Sustainable Development (WCED, 1987) and an Accommodating Environmentalist view. However this
dropped to 52.4% who agreed with intra-generational equity, also part of the Bruntland definition
of Sustainable Development (WCED, 1987) and an Accommodating Environmentalist view. Only
47.5% of respondents agreed with the Moderate Ecology standpoint that the earth has ‘intrinsic
value’ and should be protected on this basis (Dobson, 1990). An even smaller percentage of 2.4%
agreed with the Cornucopian standpoint that humankind can look outside planet earth to grow
lettuces in space as a viable solution to the issue of climate change and population growth, and
11.9% felt the planet was humankinds to do as they wished with; another Cornucopian standpoint
(Washington, 2015). 21.9% adopted the Ecocentric standpoint that humankind is the problem,
and a small minority of 7.1% held the Anthropocentric / Technocentric view that a rational, scientific solution was the right course to follow.
For this section of the paper, each person’s answers to the questions in this section on the five environmental groups were ‘scored’ with one point towards that group’s viewpoint for every statement chosen that represents that group’s viewpoint. As the maximum possible points for each
of the five were different, the five scores were converted into a percentage of the total possible
(see table 3).
Table 3 Respondent scores by