Data and sample

The 2016 national survey was conducted with a probabilistic, geographically stratified and multi-stage sample (n=2170; four stages: suburb, square, house and person) including adults over 18 years of age, Chileans or foreigners living in the country for at least five years, distributed over the 111 urban municipal areas of the 15 regions of Chile. The sample was weighted using a raking technique, adjusting to sex, age and region, using demographic data from the National Statistics Institute ^{(INE, 2005)} and educational level data from the National Employment Survey [NENE] ^{(INE, 2016)}. The survey’s structured questionnaire consisted of 210 variables and 13 scales. Items were designed on the basis of previous studies ^{(Leviston et al., 2014)} and an analysis of the Chilean context on this issue. The survey was conducted at the respondents’ households between June and July 2016 with a +/- 2.1% margin of error and a 95% confidence interval.

Variables and measures

We identified the most relevant variables available in the database to explain the complex interactions between attitudes, values, beliefs, norms and behaviors toward the environment, following the theories and models generally used in the literature on these issues ^{(Hornsey et al., 2016}; ^{Ajzen, 1991}; ^{Stern et al., 1999}; ^{Schwartz, 1977)} , and those used in the audience segmentation studies mentioned above. We selected independent variables that theoretically provide specific information for each of these dimensions. These variables present low statistical associations between them, which confirms their particular contribution to the model.

Both the size of the sample and the assumptions of the model allowed working with this wide set of variables. To validate and complement the description of each group, we resorted to a set of dependent variables that did not participate in the construction of the clusters. Both the independent and dependent variables are categorical. This is because these types of variables allow more adequate and clearer operationalizations. This was considered when choosing the distance measure that we used to construct the cluster. The variables included in the analysis and their operationalization are shown in Table 1.²

Beliefs about climate change: The overwhelming scientific consensus that indicate climate change is actually occurring does not necessarily ensures the acceptance of this fact by society. Therefore, a core component of this type of study is to identify core beliefs about the existence of climate change ^{(Leiserowitz et al., 2015}; ^{Hine et al., 2013}; ^{Metag, 2015)} . Similarly important is the perception on what causes climate change. However, due to methodological restrictions, this aspect is integrated into the second part of the study.

Climate change concern: Concern about environmental deterioration and its multiple impacts has frequently been studied in environmental psychology and sociology ^{(Dunlap et al., 2000)} and included in numerous surveys on climate change ^{(Leviston et al., 2014}; ^{Pew Research Center, 2015)}, as well as in audience segmentation studies ^{(Leiserowitz et al., 2015}; ^{Hine et al., 2013}; ^{Metag, 2015)} .

Environmental worldviews: The complex interaction between people and the environment has been the focus of diverse studies to identify the relative importance of protecting nature within a context of major technological development, a global social system built upon the idea of unlimited economic progress, and a growing environmental awareness associated with the ongoing environmental crisis ^{(Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978}; ^{Dunlap et al., 2000; Stern et al., 1995}; ^{Stern et al., 1999; Kahan et al., 2012}; ^{Heath and Gifford, 2006)} .

Perception of efforts to protect the environment: How people perceive their own performance compared to others is relevant considering that psychological phenomena such as the “better than average effect” ^{(Bergquist, 2020)} or the “self-serving bias” ^{(Kriss et al., 2011}; ^{Hansman and Steimer, 2017)} have been identified as psychological barriers to adaptation ^{(Gifford, 2011)} .

Climate change-related behaviors: Belief in climate change or the degree of concern in facing the problem, which in spite of being important do not guarantee behavioral responses. Therefore, asking about specific climate actions is important in this type of studies. Actions can be related to either mitigation (aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses or enhancing carbon sinks) or adaption (i.e., the process of adjusting to actual or expected climate changes and its effects) ^{(IPCC, 2014)}.

Perception of control: Another component of environmental psychology studies is how people perceive the possibility of tackling climate change ^{(Hornsey et al., 2016}; ^{Ajzen, 1991}; ^{Stern et al., 1999)} .

For the second part of our study, we tested the following dependent variables (operationalization in Table 2):

Socio-economic level (SEL): Participants were grouped in three segments based on Chile’s criteria considering family income, household head’s occupation and schooling level (C1-2: highest level; C3: Middle-level; D-E: lowest level).

Age: Participants were organized into four age groups (18-30; 31-45; 46-60; 61+).

Level of education: Participants were organized into three categories (Less than secondary completed; complete secondary; incomplete university degree, graduate, postgraduate).

Climate change causes: One of the most salient dimensions of climate change beliefs is related to its causes. As previously noted, the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is not clearly reflected in public opinion with an important proportion of people in countries such as the US and Australia thinking climate change is either a natural process or not happening at all.

Consumer buying behavior: We included questions related to the importance of the environment on specific consumption-related behaviors.

Climate change-related emotions: Complementary to environmental concern, emotional responses to climate change were included.

Climate change impacts: This factor includes questions about social dimensions that climate change might affect and also its potential positive impacts.

Data analysis

An agglomerative hierarchical classification model was used; it is an exploratory technique to identify groups that present differentiated behaviors from a set of independent variables. A typology with 32 variables was constructed to represent the dimensions addressed in the survey and Ward's method was applied to generate internally homogeneous groups ^{(Hair et al., 2013}; ^{King, 2015}; ^{Mirkin, 2013)} . Since the variables were categorical, chi² was used as a measure of distance. It should be noted that initially, we worked with a Latent Class Analysis that resulted in a typology of three groups, similar to that obtained with the hierarchical classification model. The results of the latent class analysis, however, showed two groups with similar behaviors in a wide set of variables. Because of that, and following ^{Metag et al. (2015)} , we opted to use Ward's method and the elbow criterion to find the best solution.

We notice 3 clearly different groups in their opinions and behaviors. To describe the typology, we used cross-tables, analyzing the distribution of the 33 variables within each group, comparing the results and using measures of association. We then analyzed how the dependent variables, including socioeconomic status, age, education level, and sex were distributed within each group. The only variable that did not present a statistical association with the typology was sex; all the other dependent variables show different results in each group. This helps to validate the identified model and to complement the description of the particularities of each group.

Typology

Three groups were identified as G1: Pragmatists (people who think or act giving priority to practical considerations associated with a combination of economic, social and environmental worldviews); G2: Neoliberals (people who think or act giving priority to economic progress and individual freedom); and G3: Environmentalists (people who think or act giving priority to the environment over any other consideration and express traditional environmental worldviews). Notably, although each group has its own characteristics, the three groups’ opinions on key climate change aspects did not vary significantly. Overall, participants are likely to believe that climate change is occurring (G1: 88.3%, G2: 86.1%, G3: 98.6%) and report high levels of concern, although the Neoliberals showed a lower percentage regarding the latter (74.3% compared to 82% for Pragmatists and 100% for Environmentalists). The three groups identified climate change as a very important issue; nevertheless, among Neoliberals just 63.9% identified it as such, while Pragmatics and Environmentalists 77.7% and 95.1% did so, respectively.

These results show consensus among the general population on key aspects of climate change, which aligns with perceptions found in many other developing and developed countries ^{(Newman et al., 2020)} . Similarly, most people within each group agree that consumerism threatens nature, that protecting the environment safeguards the wellbeing of human beings, that climate change is an opportunity to collectively build a fairer society, that the balance of nature is fragile, and that it is our duty to preserve it (Table 3) . Therefore, it seems clear that climate change is not a bipartisan political issue in Chile as it is in the US or Australia. This is also relevant considering that Chileans have been historically divided between traditional right- and left-wing positions on many other social problems such as abortion, same-sex marriage and gender identity ^{(CADEM, 2019; Criteria, 2018)}.

Along the same lines, only a small proportion of people believes technology will solve the environmental crisis, suggesting that techno-optimism does not have much support in Chile at least to deal with climate change. However, a very high proportion in all groups believe schools are making their best effort to care for the environment and doing much better than the government, companies, people in general, and even themselves (Table 3) . This might indicate that environmental education in Chile is having a positive impact on children and through them on their families, or that children are educating their parents on environmental issues and increasing climate change awareness as shown by ^{Lawson et al. (2019)} in the US. Albeit, more research is needed.

Below, common beliefs among the three groups identified (Pragmatists, Neoliberals, and Environmentalists) are described in detail.

Group 1: Pragmatists

This group represents 66.5% of the sample. Most people in this group believes climate change is occurring or will happen sometime in the future. This group contains the smallest proportion of individuals who agree that other people are doing their best to take care of the environment (31.2%) while having a far more positive view of themselves (71.3%). These results indicate that the majority of the country's population behaves and thinks in a similar way; which is consistent with the results of a research on the perception of climate change in Latin America, in which it is verified that the majority of the population believes in the existence of climate change, but only take some actions to face it ^{(Azócar et al., 2020)}. Similarly, they evaluate the government and companies poorly, suggesting a “better than average effect” in the assessment of their own performance ^{(Bergquist, 2020)} or some kind of self-serving bias as environmental problems might be attributed to the weak efforts made by the others and not by themselves ^{(Kriss et al., 2011}; ^{Hansman and Steimer, 2017)}. In both cases, these effects are important as they might become psychological barriers for the implementation of more ambitious adaptation actions ^{(Gifford, 2011)} . Also, this low evaluation of what other people, companies and the government are doing to protect the environment compared with their own performance might make them believe they are doing enough or implementing the best responses without actually being aware of the effects of their behaviors − beliefs that could generate an asymmetry between their intentions and the ultimate and cumulative impact of their actions ^{(Whitmarsh, 2009)} .

Pragmatists seek to contribute personally to face climate change mainly through energy-saving behaviors that are generally simple to implement and, although important, not necessarily associated with deeper lifestyle changes ^{(Gifford et al., 2011}; ^{Whitmarsh, 2009)} . Saving energy generally means saving money; then, the main driver of these actions might be economic gain ^{(Howell et al., 2016}; ^{Scannell and Gifford, 2013}; ^{Bain et al., 2012)} . Moreover, considering that nearly 62% believe climate change is beyond their control and 40.1% that nothing they can do will solve the problem, this suggests that many people within this group implement these actions for reasons other than contributing to tackling climate change. A much lower, but still important proportion of Pragmatists (19.4%) indicate they have a vegetable garden, an activity that is more demanding and has mid or long term benefits. Implementing this type of action might seem contradictory with the above suggesting a greater commitment to the environment. It also raises the question of a potential spillover effect ^{(Nash et al., 2019)} ; that is to say, engaging in one activity can, under certain circumstances, make it more likely to engage in other actions conducing to the same goal. Some people within this group might have a growing interest in improving their own environmental contribution as they implement more day-to-day actions. Future studies might explore this possibility along with an analysis of lifestyle changes on a more comprehensive range of climate-related actions and measures.

Pragmatists indicate they are against prioritizing economic goals over environmental goals, including the creation of jobs. They consider that caring for the environment will help to build a fairer society. The vast majority in this group agree that protecting the environment should be the main priority of the country as nature is fragile and vulnerable to industrialization. Also, a smaller though significant proportion within this group agrees that protecting the environment will help to defeat inequality and overcome poverty. Overall, these results suggest that people in this group do care for the environment, probably because of a combination of economic, social and environmental values.

Group 2: Neoliberals

This group represents 26.5% of the sample. As the Pragmatics, Neoliberals are likely to believe climate change is occurring or will happen sometime in the future. This group presents the largest proportion of participants who positively evaluate the efforts made by both the government and companies, although that proportion is only 38.4% and 30.6% respectively. They are likely to believe they are doing better than other people, but in a smaller proportion than in the other two groups. They more frequently agree that climate change is beyond their control (64.6%) and that nothing they can do will solve the problem (51.8%). Consistently, Neoliberals are less likely to implement climate-related actions, despite almost half of them states they take short showers, uses low-energy lightbulbs, buys products in returnable or reusable packaging, and avoids leaving lights on in unoccupied environments: actions that are not too disruptive for traditional lifestyles and, generally, have an immediate economic benefit. On the contrary, a very small proportion of individuals in this group uses low-energy appliances, has a vegetable garden at home, or participates in community gardens.

This group presents the largest proportion of people who thinks economic and development goals are more important than the environment; however, this belief represents just between 50%-60% of the segment, which suggests that the environment is not totally secondary to the economy for them. Besides, more than a half agree that protecting the environment will help defeat inequality and overcome poverty. Similarly, a very high proportion (over 80%) believes the main reason to protect the environment is to safeguard the wellbeing of human beings, that caring for the environment is an opportunity for people to work together for a fairer world, and that the environmental balance is fragile and it is our duty to preserve it. As well, most people within this group believes consumerism threatens nature and that taking care of nature should be the main priority for the country. Only 38.8% agrees that the government should not place environmental barriers on industrial development, while nearly 38% expresses some techno-optimism in the face of climate change. Finally, 61.3% believes people should be free to choose the lifestyle they want regardless of its consequences for the environment.

Overall, this group holds more economy-oriented and individualistic values than the other two groups: economic progress and freedom to choose are generally more important than environmental regulations. However, the small proportion of people with a good evaluation of companies and government’s efforts to protect the environment along with the low support for the elimination of environmental barriers for industrial development, among other results, suggest the existence of fundamental contradictions within this group. In advancing an interpretation for this, the Chilean context should be considered. Since the 70s, the country has been built upon extractivism and radical neoliberalism, first imposed by the military dictatorship and then consolidated by both the progressivist and right-wing governments that have alternated in power since the early 90s ^{(Ruiz, 2019}; ^{Moulian, 1997)} . As such, Chilean environmental regulations are not as strict as in most OECD countries ^{(OECD and UN ECLAC, 2016)}, and there are numerous socio-environmental conflicts throughout the territory straining economic, social and environmental initiatives ^{(Bolados, 2016}; ^{INDH, 2018; Maillet and Albala, 2018}). In this scenario, the relatively low proportion of people opposing more “green tape” in this group might reflect the fact that in Chile such regulations are so weak that they are perceived as seriously jeopardizing the environment, increasing social tensions and/or making the country less competitive in the global market.

Group 3: Environmentalists

This group represents 7% of the sample. Virtually, all Environmentalists (98.6%) believe climate change is occurring or will happen sometime in the future. They have the most negative evaluation of what the government and companies are doing to protect the environment, at once they have the most positive perception of other people and themselves (being them better than the others). They are likely to have a high perception of control, just 13% believes climate change is beyond their control while 11.5% says nothing they can do will solve the problem; this is one of the most important differences with the other two groups. Consistently, they present the highest percentages implementing climate-related actions, even though just 41.2% has a vegetable garden and 52.3% buys products in returnable or reusable packaging.

Overall, this group represents a more traditional ecocentric view or green perspective strongly opposing neoliberalism, or at least the Neoliberalism that prevails in Chile. For them, the environment is consistently more important than the economy, and its protection should be a national priority (100%). They strongly believe nature’s balance is fragile, and it is our duty to protect it. As they do not believe in nature's ability to recover from industrialization, they strongly disagree with eliminating environmental barriers to regulate industry.

They do not believe in technological development as a solution to climate change, and they are very likely to disagree with the freedom to choose any lifestyle without considering its environmental consequences. This group also associates environmental protection with people's wellbeing, although the vast majority do not believe that caring for the environment will contribute to reducing inequality and overcoming poverty. This decoupling of the environment from equality and poverty might be explained by the growing awareness of structural problems in Chilean society that are behind massive social inequality, where the distribution of wealth is one of the main factors. In this sense, in the long-term and from a more global perspective, they are likely to believe that protecting the environment is an opportunity to build a fairer society, but specifically in Chile, defeating inequality and poverty would demand far more than environmental transformations alone.

The typology and other climate change-related dimensions

In the second part of this study, we analyzed how other variables behave in relation to the typology. Below, we present the results for each segment (Tables 4 and 5).

Pragmatics

Respondents in this group are widespread in all socio-economic groups, with a higher proportion of people over 46 than the other two groups, and with a level of education lower than Environmentalists, but slightly higher than Neoliberals. Most believe that climate change is caused totally or partially by human activities (93.7%). The majority is concerned about the impact of their consumer-buying behaviors: slightly over a half knows the environmental impacts of some or all of the products they consume daily, and 33.8% would like to know more about those impacts. Also, a third affirms they know information about the environmental impact is labeled on some or all the products they buy, whereas another third has not noticed it, and the other third states they would like it to appear.

Furthermore, the majority (87.2%) states that if a product is shown to harm the environment, they would stop buying it. In a similar vein, most would like to install solar panels in their homes, but have not done so mainly because they cannot afford it. More than a half believes climate change will bring no positive consequences, whereas 29% believes it will bring greater environmental protection. Finally, Pragmatics mention concern, fear and sadness as the most salient emotional associations with climate change. Overall, these results confirm the main characteristics of this segment, showing that this group does care for the environment and would likely be keen on doing more if there were more opportunities or the conditions were more accessible.

Neoliberals

The largest proportion of this group is in the lowest socio-economic segment in the youngest interval (though they are widespread throughout the age groups), and overall they have the lowest level of education. They are likely to believe climate change is caused totally or partially by human activities (92%). Only 33% know the environmental impacts of the products they consume daily, or about the environmental information on the labels of the products they buy; however, most show a willingness to implement more environmentally aware behaviors and 75% affirms that they would stop buying a product if it is shown to be harmful to the environment. As the Pragmatists, they have not installed solar panels in their homes because they do not have the money to. Nearly 60% does not see positive consequences in climate change, while 18.5% mentions greater national unity, and 16.3% greater protection of the environment. Finally, they associate climate change mainly with concern, fear and anger. As mentioned in the description of this group, despite their focus on the economy and individual freedom, this segment does show interest in environmental issues.

Environmentalists

Overall, the lower proportion of people in this group (7%) might be explained by its strong association with the highest education and socioeconomic levels, which in turn, is linked to the high levels of inequality and social segregation in Chile. In point of fact, a larger proportion of Environmentalists is in the highest socioeconomic groups, as well as in the 31-45 age range (overall it includes the youngest people), and the ones with the highest education level. Although they account for the largest proportion of people who agree human action alone is the main cause of climate change (70.6%), they also have the largest proportion of individuals who believe climate change is explained by natural processes (19.5%).

Overall, 80.5% believes it is caused totally or partially by human activities, which is surprisingly lower than in the other two groups. In terms of consumer behavior, they have not installed solar panels mainly because they cannot afford it (as the other groups, though at a higher proportion, 80.6%). Similarly, this group shows the largest proportion of people who see no positive consequences from climate change (90.9%). Finally, this group associates climate change mainly with concern, fear and sadness.

The significant proportion of people in this group who believes climate change is caused by natural processes is puzzling, especially considering the consistent ecocentric views in all the other items. One possible interpretation is that for this group the natural cycles of the Earth are considered central in their worldviews and interpret climate change as such. This is not denying the problem, but the capacity of humans to generate changes of such magnitude. Regardless the causes, people in this group agree that more has to be done in order to protect the environment; in practical terms, this means that believing climate change is either a natural phenomenon or caused by human action does not seem to limit their pro-environmental behaviors. Also, this is only a subgroup within the 7% of the total sample, which shows the importance of understanding in-depth the perspectives of this segment in future studies with a wider sample of environmentalists.

Pragmatists

Given that this segment does care for the environment and would likely be keen on doing more were there more opportunities or the conditions more accessible, the communication strategies that might be most useful for this group should consider making the efforts of other actors (government, companies and people in general) on climate change visible, as well publicizing their actions and highlighting the most effective. In this way, Pragmatists will be able to appreciate that more people are committed to the challenge of facing climate change and protecting the environment. At the same time, they will learn about new actions they could incorporate into their repertoire. Furthermore, it is important to consider that any recommendations to increase the participation of Pragmatists in tackling climate change will be more convincing within an adaption plan that considers all the stakeholders, with clear collective objectives and strategies in order to achieve them.

Neoliberals

For most Neoliberals, the environment is important and cannot be ignored; this in turn might lead to an open discussion and support for stricter environmental regulations and more ambitious climate change responses. For a significant proportion within this group, environmental issues, in general, and climate change, in particular, are starting to have a positive impact on how nature is perceived. This is consistent with the diverse and sometimes antagonist approaches to the climate crisis that Chilean and foreign companies are demonstrating in Chile. While some are making effective changes in their productive processes, interacting with the scientific community, organizing themselves to reach the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and implementing adaptation strategies (www.accionempresas.cl; www.clgchile.cl),³ others are still involved in multiple socio-environmental conflicts due to non-environmentally friendly practices, especially extractivist activities with serious environmental and social impacts ^{(INDH, 2018)}.

These results suggest that the view of those showing growing environmental engagement might be starting to prevail. Thus, rather than trying to convince Neoliberals about the importance of climate change, further communication strategies should integrate the experiences and views of the economic groups that are already transforming their understanding of the relation between economy and environment with a view to a more sustainable future. Furthermore, for this group it would be important to highlight that actions implemented in this line do not seek to limit individual freedoms, but rather to build a safer and more resilient environment. Also, although the majority within this group do not perceive potential positive consequences from climate change, there is a segment that does (i.e., greater national unity and greater protection of the environment) and highlighting positive consequences might be useful when designing communication strategies targeting this group.

Finally, by recognizing the importance of environmental and climate change education in public schools, this sector would probably be receptive to the message that children can disseminate to their parents on how to face climate change at home.

Environmentalists

The size of this group (only 7% of the sample) demonstrates that this viewpoint has not filtered evenly throughout the community but remains encapsulated in a small group with the highest socioeconomic and education levels. This group represents those already convinced that climate change needs to be addressed and who are apparently taking actions to do so. Communication strategies for this group might focus on harnessing their energies into those actions that are more effective, providing adequate feedback and avoiding green consumerism. Finally, as this group presents the highest income, more might be done to encourage personal financial contributions to support environmental education especially for public schools in low-income suburbs.

This could be a powerful use of the Environmentalists’ enthusiasm as recent studies conducted in Chile with children and adolescents ^{(Defensoría de la Niñez, 2020)} showed that protecting the environment and taking care of animals are their main priorities; which also reinforces the idea that schools are doing a great job in environmental education becoming drivers of a generational change toward more responsible relationships between people and the environment and potentially increasing the proportion of population that will fall into this group in the future, something that should be appealing for this group.