1. Survey results
Using graphics to communicate
environmental information
- From data to influence
June 2012
Hugo Ahlenius, Nordpil
Marianne Fernagut, Envalue
This report is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

2. 2
Abstract
A survey was set up to collect responses on the usage of and capacity needs for creating
graphics for the visual communication of environmental and sustainable development
information. A survey was posted on the internet for one month in the spring of 2010,
and 357 responses were received. The survey also included a few questions establishing
the profile of the respondents.
The respondents were active in the fields of research, policy and communications, and
represented a wide variety of institutions. Most of the responses were from professionals
in Western Europe and North America.
An analysis of the responses reveals:
• Most respondents use graphics for communication (91%).
• Most participants prepare the graphics themselves (82%), but a quarter have staff to
assist them in this task.
• When assessing their own abilities, half of the respondents indicated that their
skills were sufficient and half indicated that they were insufficient.
• Many areas were mentioned when participants noted the areas in which they
wanted to build capacity: analysis and data management, software tools, and design
principles.
This report is published at http://nordpil.com/survey
The authors can be contacted using the above link
Contents
Background 3
The survey 4
Data analysis 5
Respondents 5
Graphics and communication 11
Capacity and needs 13
Conclusion 15
Annex – Full survey I

3. 3
Background
In the field of research, data collection and statistics, vast amounts of numbers are col-
lected, analyzed and transformed. The goal is that these figures will be transformed from
mere numbers to information and knowledge. The target groups for the final products
may differ – research papers, policy implementation or public awareness – but the aim is
to communicate the results to target groups that will take home a deeper understanding
of the issues at hand.
On a daily basis, we encounter graphics – in the form of diagrams, charts and maps – as
a means to communicate complex issues. They either stand alone or present an over-
view of a topic in combination with explanatory text that provides context. Clear and
easily understood graphics represent a common language with increased access to the
research findings – a global language that breaks through cultural barriers. With the
ever-increasing flood of information around us and the resulting information overload,
powerfully designed visuals can effectively win over short attention spans and break
through the noise. Badly designed graphics are missed opportunities where we fail to
communicate our key messages.
Our environment and the way it intersects with human society represents a complex
web of parameters. Dimensions that have to be taken into account when visualizing this
information include not only three-dimensional space but also time – history and pro-
jections for future development and trends.
In the field of environment and sustainable development, gaps also exist between the sci-
ence and the implementation of policy. Clear and powerful communication helps bring
about public awareness and increased understanding among policymakers.
Objective
The hypothesis behind the survey, based on past experience, is that skills and capacity
must be improved in the field of visual communication to ensure a better understand-
ing of sustainable development issues, in particular for policymakers in this field. This
survey was designed to investigate the extent to which this hypothesis is accurate and
to define the needs for improved skills and capacity. By classifying the respondents by
region, profession and institutional affiliation, the survey was also designed to assess
whether these needs differ between the defined groups.
After preparing this survey, we – as independent consultants in the field of visual com-
munications – will use the results in our services. By presenting this report, we are also
giving something back to the wider community of professionals working with commu-
nications, environmental issues and sustainable development.

4. 4
The survey
The questionnaire used for the survey included eight questions designed to assess
respondents’ capacity and needs for graphics and visual communication and to define
respondents’ profiles. Google Docs was used to create the form and for data collection.
Some of the questions allowed multiple responses, while others allowed only one. Where
possible, the opportunity to give free-text responses was included to capture additional
possibilities. The complete form, including all questions and options, is presented in an
annex to this report.
The form was accessible online from April 23 to May 24, 2010. It was publicized in vari-
ous networks, primarily on the internet and by personal contact. In the announcements,
recipients were encouraged to share the link to the survey with their contacts.
In keeping with the objective of the survey, the requests for participation addressed
groups working with environmental issues and sustainable development.
Networks included:
• IISD UNCSD-L (International Institute for Sustainable Development UN Confer-
ence on Sustainable Development list)
• PCST (International Network on Public Communication of Science and Technol-
ogy)
• LinkedIn groups addressing environmental and sustainable development issues
• Eldis, a knowledge service focusing on development, policy, practice and research
• SCGIS (Society for Conservation GIS)
• WiserEarth, a social network for sustainability
• Zunia, a portal for knowledge exchange among development professionals world-
wide

5. 5
Data analysis
The data was exported from Google Docs to Microsoft Access for further analysis and
reclassification. The data collected from the options in the sur vey allowing free-text
responses was reclassified into the existing groups, or new groups were created when
possible.
The responses for city and country were reclassified by country code to facilitate joining
with tables on groups and for map preparation.
Respondents
The 357 responses received came from all over the globe, with a considerable majority
from North America and Europe. In the last question of the survey, respondents were
asked to identify the city and country where they were active (question 8). This data was
interpreted and classified as needed. The distribution of the participants is presented in
Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Number of
responses
125
11 - 25
6 - 10
3-5
1-2
Figure 1. Geographic distribution of respondents from question 8 (n=356).

6. 6
0 10 20 30 125
USA
UK
Canada
Belgium
Sweden
Germany
Australia
Netherlands
India
France
Nigeria
Pakistan
Norway
New Zealand
Italy
Figure 2. By country, from question 8. Countries with fewer than five responses have been
omitted from this chart, which thus represents 78% of the total survey population (n=276).
Further, the countries were grouped according to World Bank income class groups,
separating lower-income developing countries from the higher-income regions. This
classification shows that very few of the participants were from developing countries
(Figure 4).

7. 7
0 10 20 30 40 %
North America
Europe
Asia
Africa
Oceania
Latin America and the Caribbean
Figure 3. Responses grouped by continent/region (n=356).
0 20 40 60 80 100%
High income: OECD
High income: non-OECD
Upper middle income
Lower middle income
Low income
Figure 4. Distribution of survey participants, classified by World Bank income class for
countries, from question 8 (n=356).
Institutions and roles
Questions 6 and 7 were designed to establish the professional characteristics of the
survey participants by identifying the type of institution or company where they were
active, as well as in what role.
Q6: Which type of organization best describes your employer?
Q7: Which of the following best describes your position?
The results for institutions and companies show a considerable spread, with “Research
institution” representing a quarter of the responses (Figure 5). In hindsight, it is possible
that this term was defined ambiguously, as organizations in the other categories might
also be classified as research institutions.

8. 8
0 5 10 15 20 25 %
Research
institution
Non-governmental organization
Government administration
Consultants
Private company
International organization
Education
Figure 5. Type of organization where the respondent works, from question 6 (n=355).
Data reclassified, where needed. The responses “university” and “education” were
reclassified based on the response in question 7, and research-related responses (including
graduate student) were classified as “research institution”. The responses “student”
(unspecified) and “none” are not included above.
From question 7, the role and position of the respondents was determined. Research and
communications made up the majority of the responses (38% and 23%, respectively),
with “Policy development” and “Data and statistics” making up a lower proportion
(Figure 6). Again, the category “research” may be seen as overlapping somewhat with
policy development and with data and statistics, and together these groups accounted for
more than half of the responses.

9. 9
0 10 20 30 40 %
Research
Communications
Policy development
Data and statistics
Other
Web development
Teaching
Student
Figure 6. “Describe your position”, from question 6 (n=356). Data reclassified, where
needed. Education reclassified as “teaching”, and a few responses, such as “volunteer”,
were omitted. All responses related to communications were grouped together. GIS
responses were placed in the “data and statistics” group (n=356). “All of the above”
responses were classified as “communications”.
Respondents working in communications functions were represented in all types of
institutions. It is also worth noting that respondents working in government administra-
tions were represented in the whole range of functions (Figure 7 and Figure 8). This was
also the case for respondents working in “research institutions”.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Research institution
Government administration
Non-governmental organization
Consultants
Private company
Research, data and statistics
Communications
International organization
Policy development
Figure 7. Cross-tabulation of the responses in questions 6 and 7 (n=312) presented as
institutions (bars), and the roles and positions held by the respondents within these
institutions (colors). The values are the numbers of responses.

10. 10
0 40 80 120
Research
Communications
Research institution
NGO
Policy development
Government adm.
Consultants
Data and statistics
Private company
International org.
Figure 8. Cross-tabulation of the responses in questions 6 and 7 (n=312) presented as roles
(bars) and the institutions where these roles were present (classes). The values represent the
number of responses.
Cross-referencing roles with the geographical classification revealed that there were
slightly more respondents working in “communications” and “data and statistics” for
high-income countries, while more respondents were employed in the fields of “policy
development” and “research” in development countries.
The responses for questions 6 and 7 correspond very well with the intended target
groups for the survey, including the spread between different groups.

11. 11
Graphics and communication
To further define respondents’ profiles, the survey investigated the means and vehicles
for communication and the use of graphics by the participants, in questions 1, 2 and 3.
Question 1: How do you communicate your findings in your work?
Question 2: Do you use graphics to communicate in your work?
Question 3: How do you use graphics in your work?
Respondents communicate through a wide range of channels, with presentations and
various forms of reports being the largest groups. Websites, blogs and social media
ranked significantly lower, indicating that these are a secondary channel. The respon-
dents still communicate through more conventional methods (Figure 9).
0 25 50 75%
Presentations
Reports for policy
and decision-making
Scientific articles
and reports
Fact sheets
Press releases and newspaper articles
Overview/synthesis reports (wide audience)
Social media and blogs
I don't communicate any findings
Web
Other responses: Interactive media, graphics (maps/charts), classes/webinars, campaigns, exhibitions,
conferences, 3d prototypes, planning
Figure 9. The means that respondents use to communicate their findings, from question
1. Data from 357 respondents, where multiple choices could be selected. A total of 1,207
different uses were selected. Data has been reclassified where needed. The bars are
presented as percentages, but do not add up to 100% because multiple responses were
possible.
Question 2 investigated the current use of graphics. The vast majority of the respondents
(91%) indicated that they use graphics in this communication, while 6% did not but
indicated an interest in doing so (Figure 10). Respondents from the policy group (from
question 7) included a higher percentage of respondents who were interested in starting
to use graphics (14%).

12. 12
0 25 50 75 100%
Yes
No, but I am interested in doing so
No
Figure 10. Ratio of respondents using graphics in their profession (question 2, n=357)
Of those who use graphics in their work, most respondents create their own graphics
(82%), from question 3 (Figure 12). The responses indicate that graphics are also reused
and recycled from existing sources, while a quarter of the participants indicated that
they receive professional assistance for the preparation of graphics. Among the roles
identified in question 7, those who said they worked in communications roles were
slightly less likely to create their own graphics, preferring instead to reuse graphics or
have them prepared by dedicated staff.
0 25 50 75%
I create
graphics
I use existing sources
Graphics prepared by dedicated staff
Figure 11. Sources for respondents’ graphics – from question 3. Data from 319 respondents,
where multiple selections could be selected. In total, 491 alternatives were selected. Data
has been reclassified where needed. In all, 82% of respondents selected the first option.

13. 13
Capacity and needs
To investigate the existing skills and gaps, the survey included the following two ques-
tions:
Q4: Do you feel that you have sufficient skills in preparing graphics?
Q5: Which of the following skills would you like to develop further?
The latter question allowed multiple choices, while question 4 allowed only one response.
When assessing their skills, almost half of the respondents stated that they had sufficient
skills in preparing graphics, while a third stated that they were interested in learning
more about visual communication and the design of graphics (Figure 13). Very few re-
spondents had dedicated people preparing graphics for them. The results from question
4 were cross-tabulated with the different roles specified in question 7 and investigated.
Most of the groups shared a distribution similar to the whole population, but the group
of respondents who defined themselves as working in “policy development” stood out
(Figure 14). In this group, almost half of the 52 respondents stated that they were lacking
in skills and were interested in learning more.
In an analysis for responses from low- and middle-income countries (n=68), the group
that indicated an interest in learning more about visual communication and the design
of graphics was slightly larger. It is worth noting that these respondents were working
primarily in research and policy development roles, and few were from government
institutions and working in communications roles.
Question 5 was designed to identify the areas in which the professionals responding to
the survey wanted to build more capacity, to further narrow down their needs and gaps.
Participants were allowed to submit multiple responses. The needs listed received many
at almost the same frequencies, except for “integrating graphics in reports” (Figure 14).
The most popular alternative was one step removed from the actual design of graphics:
“Analysis, statistics and data management”. Very few chose the response “no needs”.
Cross-tabulation of the responses for question 5 over roles or country groups reveals a
distribution very similar to the entire survey population.
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
Yes
No, but I would like to learn
I don't know. I lack data, tools, time, etc.
Limited skills, could improve
Graphics by dedicated staff
Figure 12. Assessing the capacity of the participants. Do you feel that you have sufficient
skills in preparing graphics? (question 4: n=349).

14. 14
0 10 20 30 40 %
No, but
learn
Yes
I don't know. I lack data, tools, time, etc.
Limited skills, could improve
Figure 13. Assessing the capacity of the participants, respondents from “policy development
group”. Do you feel that you have sufficient skills in preparing graphics? (question 4: n=52).
0 20 40 60%
Analysis, statistics
and data management
Software tools
to create graphics
Design of graphics
Conceptualisation of graphics
Integrating graphics in reports
No needs, or not applicable
Figure 14. Skill needs from the survey participants, from question 5. Respondents
were allowed to indicate multiple skill needs. A total of 306 respondents selected 726
alternatives.

15. 15
Conclusion
The profile of the responses indicates that the participants were representative of the
intended target groups: professionals in research and communication working with
environmental issues and sustainable development. Through the channels used, we can
also infer that the respondents primarily work with – and monitor – international issues
and are skilled internet users.
An examination of the data indicates that some questions and options could have been
formulated more clearly or various groups could have been merged, but on the whole –
the responses provide good patterns.
Despite this, the sample is small and selective, and not necessarily representative of the
entire population of people active in this field. Above all, the geographical distribution is
skewed.
The questions that constitute the core of our investigation – questions 2 to 5 – confirm
our hypothesis about the use, capacity and need for working with graphics and visual
communication.
• An overwhelming majority (91%) of the respondents use graphics for communica-
tion.
• Most participants prepare the graphics themselves to some extent (82%), but a
quarter have staff to assist them in creating graphics.
• While half of the respondents indicated that they had sufficient skills, the other
half said their skills were insufficient. When analyzing the responses, it is also
important to keep in mind that the respondents’ own assessment of their skills may
differ from the way their target group would assess those skills.
• The points where the respondents highlighted that their skills were lacking and
that they could build capacity spanned the entire range of abilities related to visual
communications and graphics – from analysis and data management to software
tools and design principles. For question 5, very few responded that they had no
needs at all (contradicting the responses received for question 4).
• Based on the responses received for questions 4 and 5, and taking into account
that this is a self-assessment, some caution is necessary in relation to the 48% who
stated that they possess sufficient skills.
We, as principal investigators in this study, found these indications interesting and valu-
able, and we also hope that these results can be useful and relevant for the broader com-
munity in communication, environment and sustainable development.
Afterword
We wish to thank all participants for their time and for their responses. Teslin Seale gen-
erously donated her time to edit this report, for which we are immensely grateful.
In addition, we would like to thank the communities that enabled us to publicize the
survey – including the IISD UNCSD-L list, the PCST mailing list and many others.

16. I
Annex – Full survey
This survey was available online as a web form using Google Docs from April 23 to May
24, 2010, and announced on a selection of mailing lists and newsletters, including PCST
and IISD UNCSD-L. Participants were encouraged to share the link to the survey. Re-
sponses to all questions were required for form submission.
The full data from the survey, with all responses excluding the e-mail addresses of the
participants, is available on request from Nordpil by contacting
surveyresponses@nordpil.com.
The survey
A short survey that addresses the use of graphic material for environmental communica-
tion and dissemination of environmental data and information. The main focus of the
survey is the use of graphic material like charts, maps and diagrams.
About us
We are independent consultants interested in the art and science of environmental
reporting and its impact. We have developed this survey to gain an indication of the
current state of affairs in the use of graphical material to communicate and disseminate
information. The results of the survey will be shared on this website, and through other
channels.
How do you communicate your findings in your work? (1/8) *
Findings are data and information collected by you or your institution.
[Multiple selections were possible]
‰‰Scientific articles and reports
‰‰Reports for policy and decision-making (professional audience)
‰‰Fact sheets
‰‰Presentations (PowerPoint)
‰‰Overview/synthesis reports (wide audience)
‰‰Social media and blogs
‰‰Press releases and newspaper articles
‰‰I don’t communicate any findings
‰‰Other: [Text box, for other responses]
Do you use graphics to communicate in your work? (2/8) *
Visual material such as charts, maps and diagrams
[Only one response possible]
‰‰Yes
‰‰No, but I am interested in doing so
‰‰No

17. II
How do you use graphics in your work? (3/8) *
Visual material such as charts, maps and diagrams
[Multiple selections were possible]
‰‰I create graphics myself from primary or secondary data
‰‰I look for useful maps/graphics from other sources on the internet and copy and
paste them for my own use
‰‰I request custom illustrations from graphic designers or ask them to redesign
existing graphics
‰‰Other: [Text box, for other responses]
Do you feel that you have sufficient skills in preparing graphics? (4/8)
[Only one response possible]
‰‰Yes
‰‰No, but I would like to learn
‰‰I don’t know. I lack data, tools, time, etc.
‰‰Other: [Text box, for other responses]
Which of the following skills would you like to develop further? (5/8)
If you had the time/energy/money to further develop your skills and capacity in visual
communication.
[Multiple selections were possible]
‰‰Software tools to create graphics (Excel, Grapher...)
‰‰Design of graphics
‰‰Conceptualization of graphics
‰‰Integrating graphics in reports
‰‰Analysis, statistics and data management
‰‰Other: [Text box, for other responses]
Which type of organization best describes your employer? (6/8)
[Only one response possible]
‰‰Government administration
‰‰International organization
‰‰Non-governmental organization
‰‰Research institution
‰‰Private company
‰‰Consultancy
‰‰Other: [Text box, for other responses]

18. III
Which of the following best describes your position? (7/8)
[Only one response possible]
‰‰Communications
‰‰Research
‰‰Data and statistics
‰‰Web development
‰‰Policy development
‰‰Other: [Text box, for other responses]
Please provide the name of the city and country where you live/work. (8/8)
[Text box]
Thank you!