Percepciones públicas, distancia psicológica y comunicación de riesgos frente al cambio climático: Una revisión contextualizada en Perú

Climate change represents a major threat to humanity and it is a matter of concern for the scientific community, society and politicians. The lack of contextual knowledge on risk perception generates a gap between developed and developing countries, being the last ones the most vulnerable to its effects. All this leads us to propose a review study on risk perception, psychological distance and risk communication in the face of climate change, contextualised in Peru. Efforts made by different public institutions and non-governmental organizations are intended for proposing solid programs in the face of climate change. In this context, the support of government policies contextualized in the Peruvian reality is fundamental to put a brake on the increase in temperature and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the paper concludes by indicating the need for interdisciplinary studies that allow for the identification of the importance of the role played by variables such as risk perception, psychological distance and communication strategies in the processes of adaptation and mitigation to climate change.El cambio climático representa una gran amenaza para la humanidad y es motivo de preocupación para la comunidad científica, la sociedad y los políticos. La escasez de conocimientos contextualizados sobre la percepción de riesgo genera una brecha entre los países desarrollados y en vías de desarrollo, siendo estos últimos los más vulnerables a sus efectos. Todo esto nos lleva a plantear un estudio de revisión sobre percepción de riesgo, distancia psicológica y comunicación de riesgo frente al cambio climático, contextualizado en Perú. Los esfuerzos que se realizan desde diferentes instituciones públicas y organizaciones no gubernamentales son para proponer programas sólidos frente al cambio climático. En este contexto, el apoyo de políticas de gobierno contextualizadas en la realidad peruana resulta fundamental para poner un freno al incremento de temperatura y al aumento de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Se concluye indicando la necesidad de estudios interdisciplinarios que permitan identificar la importancia del rol que juegan variables como la percepción de riesgo, distancia psicológica y las estrategias de comunicación en los procesos de adaptación y mitigación frente al cambio climático

Conocimientos e ideas erróneas sobre las causas del cambio climático: un estudio transversal

El conocimiento del cambio climático es una condición necesaria para la comprensión de este fenómeno y por ende para la generación de comportamientos ambientales, no obstante, el conocimiento de las causas aún es un área discutible respecto a las concepciones correctas y erróneas. La presente investigación tiene como objetivo analizar los conocimientos correctos e ideas erróneas sobre las causas de origen antropogénico que contribuyen al cambio climático. La muestra estuvo conformada por N= 250 sujetos de la ciudad Cusco, en Perú. Respecto a los conocimientos que causan el cambio climático, se observa que la mayoría de los participantes identifica la quema de combustibles fósiles, el aumento de dióxido de carbono, la deforestación, el hecho de conducir un coche, como lo más relevantes. Por otro lado, las concepciones erróneas relacionadas con el cambio climático fueron, los residuos tóxicos, las centrales nucleares, latas de aerosol, el agujero de la capa de ozono. En el análisis de grupo, se encontró diferencias significativas respecto a la ocupación (entre amas de casa y profesionales), y educación (nivel secundario y técnico). Sin embargo, el sexo, la edad, el ingreso económico no fueron significativos. Finalmente, se discute las implicancias de las concepciones correctas y erróneas, en el desarrollo de una conciencia sobre los riesgos del cambio climático, y los niveles de compromiso y participación en estrategias de adaptación y mitigación.Knowledge of climate change is a necessary condition for the understanding of this phenomenon and thus for the generation of environmental behaviors, however, the knowledge of the causes is still a debatable area regarding correct and erroneous conceptions. The present research aims to analyses the correct knowledge and misconceptions about the anthropogenic causes that contribute to climate change. The sample consisted of N= 250 subjects from the city of Cusco, Peru. Regarding the knowledge that causes climate change, it is observed that most of the participants identify the burning of fossil fuels, the increase of carbon dioxide, deforestation, and the fact of driving a car as the most relevant. On the other hand, misconceptions related to climate change were toxic waste, nuclear power plants, aerosol cans, ozone hole. In the group analysis, significant differences were found with respect to occupation (between housewives and professionals), and education (secondary and technical level). However, gender, age and income were not significant. Finally, the implications of misconceptions and misconceptions on the development of awareness of climate change risks, and levels of engagement and participation in adaptation and mitigation strategies are discussed

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: a global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors

Measures

Measures 1. Anxiety Gad-7 The generalized anxiety disorder scale consists of 7 questions scoring between 0 and 3, therefore, the minimum and maximum possible scores are 0 and 21 respectively. To evaluate the results obtained when answering the questionnaire, the authors suggest the following scores, and consultation with a health professional is recommended when obtaining a score of 10 or higher: Psychometric properties: For the Spanish version, a cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.93 was obtained. Taking into account the cut of 10 points, sensitivity values of 86.8% and specificity of 93.4% were found (Garcia et al, 2010). In the original version the internal consistency of the Gad-7 was excellent (cronbach = .92). Test-retest reliability was also good (intraclass correlation = 0.83). Comparison of the scores derived from the self-report scales with those derived from the versions administered by mhp from the same scales yielded similar results (intraclass correlation = 0.83), indicating good procedure validity (Spitzer et al. 2006). 2. Behaviors and perceptions (psychological responses to Covid-19) 2.1. Behaviors Participants will be asked three questions about recent avoidance behaviors (avoiding eating out, avoiding public transportation, and reducing visits to public places) and three more about recommended behaviors (reprogramming the travel plan, increasing surface cleanliness, and maintain better indoor ventilation) in response to the outbreak. All questions were asked as "during the past week, have you ever ... Due to the new coronavirus outbreak." The possible answers for each question were yes or no. Three sets of questions were asked to collect information on preventive behaviors on the typical days before March 6, 2020, when an unknown SARS-related outbreak of pneumonia was first reported, later identified as SARS cov-2 i, and then in the last week. The first two sets of questions regarding the frequency of wearing a face mask when leaving and the frequency of hand washing immediately upon returning home. The response options are scored never (such as 0), rare (1), sometimes (2), generally (3), always (4), or did not come out (5). The main reasons for using a face mask on the usual days and in the last week will be collected. The third set of questions on the duration of handwashing with five categories of answers from short to long (1 to 5), for less than 10 seconds, 10-19 seconds, 20-39 seconds, 40-59 seconds or 60 seconds and more, respectively. Respondents whose responses for behaviors in the last week obtained higher scores than those of the usual days were categorized as greater frequency or duration of the aforementioned behaviors. To capture the possible overreaction from the public, a follow-up question will be asked: "In the past week, have you ever bought or tried to buy glasses for the purpose of protecting yourself against SARS-cov-2 infection?" with two possible answers (yes or no). Baijam (2015), refers that encouraging the public to adopt specific hygiene-related behaviors has proven to be useful to contain previous outbreaks of infectious diseases. Motivating the public to adopt such behaviors can be difficult. Studies of how people responded to the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2002 suggest that perceptions or beliefs about an outbreak may be important in determining compliance with official advice. In particular, the literature on severe acute respiratory syndrome suggests that people may be more likely to comply with health-related recommendations if they believe that the recommended behaviors are effective, perceive a high probability that they may be affected by the outbreak, They perceive the disease as having serious consequences, they believe the disease is difficult to treat, and they believe that the government is providing clear and sufficient information about the outbreak and can be trusted to control the spread of the infection. Additionally, higher levels of anxiety or worry may be associated with increased behavioral changes. Lau (2010), conducted a study to investigate community behavioral and emotional responses in the early phase after the identification of the first few cases of H1N1 in Hong Kong. Some other studies have investigated community attitude and behavior responses to the early phase of the H1N1 pandemic in countries such as the United States, Australia, Malaysia, and Europe, France, Japan. Avoidance behaviors have been frequent in several countries or cities, such as Hong Kong and Malaysia, but not in the United States. Mild emotional distress was noted in Hong Kong, but the public in Japan felt overwhelming fear. Most respondents to the Hong Kong study washed their hands more frequently than usual, but only about 30% of those in the United States did the same. Variations in perceived susceptibility and perceived efficacy over preventive measures have also been reported in these studies. Therefore, community responses to the H1N1 pandemic are likely to be country-specific, possibly determined by previous experiences with epidemics such as SARS, but which serve as the basis for formulating such studies on COVID-19, of use in the health system, risk communication patterns and even culture. The importance of this type of research is that it allows us to develop accessible protocols that are not disruptive to human behavior, that are based on the variability of human nature and that allow us to effectively manage the disappearance of infectious outbreaks 2.2. Perception Five items will be used to assess whether participants believe that certain measures would reduce their risk of contracting covid-19, and the possible response options would be Ineffective (Not effective) (1), Considerable (Not effective) (2) and Effective (Effective) ) (3). The first three items (washing hands frequently, wearing a face mask, and avoiding going out) were consistent with the government-run ad campaign. The last two items (washing your mouth with salt water and taking vitamin C or a product of traditional medicine) were considered as misinformation by medical experts. Participants must respond that the first three items were effective and that the last two items were ineffective and classified as having the correct perceived efficacy of the behaviors. Four items evaluated the perceived threats of the new coronavirus. Participants are asked "How likely do you think you will get a new coronavirus infection in the next month"? With five responses from very unlikely (1) to very likely (5), and "how serious do you think the new coronavirus infection would be if you contracted it" with five options, from very mild (1) to very severe (5). Participants were also required to report relative transmissibility and severity compared to SARS in 2003, with five response categories of much lower (1), lower (2), similar (3), higher (4 ), much higher (5). Three items assess how well informed the public is. Participants are asked "if you received and read the informational brochure on the new coronavirus from the government and medical experts" with two response options (yes or no). They are then asked to respond to the statement "the information I received about the new coronavirus outbreak is sufficient" with five options, from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). To assess the impact of mixed information during the outbreak, participants should answer the frequency with which they felt confused or concerned about the reliability of the information they received. Response options ranged from never (1) to always (5). Public confidence is assessed by asking if they agreed with the statement "I think I can take steps to protect myself against the new coronavirus" with five response options from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Brug et al, 2004, after the SARS pandemic, reported that the perceived risk, not the actual risk, determines the reaction of the population, despite the fact that these perceptions are often biased. The public can be optimistic when family risks are perceived to be largely under volitional control; Pessimism, which sometimes leads to mass panic, is more likely as a result of perceiving that the risks are uncontrollable. People who perceive themselves to be at risk for SARS or in our covid-19 research may have preventive behavior, but may also stigmatize those who perceive themselves as potential sources of infection. To promote realistic risk perceptions and effective precautions, communication through various sources of information is essential, justifying our dimensions. Along the same lines, Ping Wu (2010) reported that the literature has documented that the levels of risk perceived in relation to an event such as SARS or in this case Covid-19 are currently affected by lack of familiarity. and the perceived uncontrollability of the dangers involved and that this can have a direct impact on mental health and the development of disorders, given the high level and ignorance and uncontrollability, for example by the continuous exposure of health workers to traumatic events such as deaths and critical condition of patients as happened in Beijing in 2002, despite this, people differ in their perceptions of the same situation. Understanding the role of specific perceptions in motivating people to engage in preventive behaviors can help health communicators improve their messages about outbreaks of new infectious diseases in general and specifically about Covid-19. 3. SA-45 It is a questionnaire that includes 45 items on a five-level Likert scale with items ranging from 0 ("not at all") to 4 ("very or extremely"). The questionnaire is derived from the original symptom checklist 90 (Scl-90; Derogatis, Lipman & Covi, 1973) and seeks to evaluate the following dimensions: somatization, obsessive compulsion, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, ideation paranoid and psychoticism. The questionnaire was developed mainly as a tool to evaluate the results obtained from different treatments applied to psychiatric patients (Davison et al., 1997), but studies with groups of non-clinical samples are being carried out as a means of determining the questionnaire and the potential usefulness of detecting the participants' general mental health level and / or the presence of any indication of psychological pathology or imbalance. Created at the time to deal with the problems related to the scl.90: high overlap between items, low discriminant validity, imbalance of the scales in number of items (the scales have between 6 to 13 items), high correlation between scales, lack factorial validity and excessive length (Alvarado, Blanca; Sandín, Bonifacio; Valdez-Medina, Jose; Gonzales-Arratia Norma and Rivera, Sofia, 2012), the SA-45 maintains the same scales as the scl-90, but improvement in the following aspects: • Significantly reduces the number of items (from 90 to 45 items) • Equalizes all scales to the same number of items (5), which increases the possibility that the scales have similar reliability. • Increases the ease and usefulness of the questionnaire. Psychometric properties: Despite still being much less in use than its predecessor, the SA-45 has shown its validity in various settings, such as clarification and prediction of psychiatric patients, evaluation of psychopathological changes in patients with health problems, studies on psychopathological screening (such as in epidemiological studies) and reflect effects of psychological treatment in psychiatric patients (Maruis, 2000, cited from Alvarado et al, 2012). In 2008, a Spanish version of the SA-45 was validated by Sandin, Valiente, Chorot, and Santed, using an extensive sample of college students. Exploratory factor analyzes were carried out. Regarding the extraction of the number of factors, the researchers took into account 5 theoretical / empirical criteria: 9 basic dimensions, other possible structures found in the scl-90 (from 1 to 10 factors), Kaiser's criterion, screening test, interpretation of different resulting factor structures: the main axis method was also performed. In both cases, a structure of 9 correlated factors was obtained that corresponded to the nine subscales of the original Davison version. Oblique rotation results (promax) were presented, where moderate correlations were found between factors. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the factor structure was replicated, where nine correlated factors were the structure that best fit the data, compared to single-factor structures (general factor of psychopathology), hierarchical model of nine primary factors, and two factors of higher order (neurosis and psychosis). It was concluded that SA-45 has scales that are separate, valid, and reliable, that are useful for various symptoms or psychopathological disorders. Compared with the scl-90, this test is abbreviated, and discriminates better, since the consistency of the dimensions and their validity has improved (Sandín et al., 2008). The cronbach's alpha of the total questionnaire is .95 (internal consistency) and, except for the psychoticism scale, all the subscales ranged from .71 to .85. The SA-45 has been used in several aspects: merino in 2010 (cited from Alvarado et al, 2012), verified the utility of the instrument in individuals with burnout syndrome or work stress; Delclaux (2011, quoted from Alvarado et al, 2012) used it in patients diagnosed with cancer in chemotherapy regimen, where he found significant alterations in the subscales, mainly in depression, anxiety, somatization and obsession-compulsion; and it has also been used to assess the psychopathological effects of traumatic situations on ex-combatants of the Falklands war (Grill, Posada and Castañeiras, 2009). 4. Intention to care patient with Covid-19 A self-administered questionnaire (34 items) was used to collect data on intentions, attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs were the study variables. All items were measured using a 7-point likert scale (-3 to +3). Kim et al, 2006, used the theory of planned behavior, which emerged through the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), at first Azjen and Fishbein (19880) argued that the mind, the motive or intention is a decisive factor that influences behaviors, so it was stated that the internal factor was the attitude towards a person's behavior (attitude), so this factor was accompanied by external factors, such as the opinions of others around them, that is, if their surroundings think they are important or invite them to do something they will eventually do so, however, research revealed that a person's intention does not necessarily lead to the practice of action, and they were plotted the limitations of TRA. Among the actions, there are actions that simply do not lead to the practice of the action by intention. For example, you want to exercise every day, but lack of time to exercise, the location of a distant gym, children who need attention, and housework. There are cases in which the act cannot be practiced although the intention is due to the surrounding conditions that interfere with the practice. So Azjen (1991) introduces the concept of perceived behavioral control, explained as the recognition of the ability to control behavior in the following way. Even if there are factors that interfere with the action, if you think you can adjust the obstacles to your own thoughts, you increase the intention to practice the action, and ultimately increase the degree of practice of the action. In conclusion, tpb affirms that human behavior is directly influenced by two factors: the intention of a person who wants to do it and the confidence that they can do it. According to the theory of planned behavior (TBP), human behavior is guided by three types of considerations: beliefs about the likely consequences and experiences associated with the behavior (behavioral beliefs), beliefs about normative expectations, and behaviors of other significant people (beliefs regulations) and beliefs about the presence of factors that can facilitate or impede the performance of the behavior (control beliefs). In their respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward behavior; normative beliefs result in perceived social pressure or subjective norm; and control beliefs lead to perceived behavioral control or self-efficacy. The effects of attitude toward behavior and subjective norm on intention are moderated by the perception of behavior control. As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived control, the stronger the person's intention should be to perform the behavior in question. Finally, given a sufficient degree of actual control over behavior, people are expected to carry out their intentions when the opportunity arises. Therefore, intention is assumed to be the immediate antecedent to the behavior. To the extent that perceived behavioral control is true, it can serve as a proxy for actual control and contribute to predicting the behavior in question (Fishbein & Azjen, 2010). Psychometric properties: Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, pearson's correlation method and multiple step regression methods. Kim et al, 2006, points out that the validity and reliability of the instrument were established through content validity, a pilot test, a reliability test and factor analysis. The result of the study is described elsewhere (Yoo, Kwon and Jang, 2005). In the research by Yoo et al, 2005, the psychometric analysis of the survey data provided empirical evidence of the construct validity and reliability of the instrument. The main component analysis verified the hypothetical solution of 6 factors, explaining 68.2% of the variance, and the alpha coefficients of .75 to .93 indicated a high internal consistency of the instrument. 5. Risk Perception Compared to other risk domains, such as environmental risks, much less is known about how the public perceives the risks associated with emerging infectious diseases (Zwart et al. 2009). Most of the evidence on risk perception comes from studies during previous pandemics, especially the H1N1 swine flu pandemic in 2009 (Fischhoff et al., 2018; Rudisill 2013; Prati, Pietrantoni and Zani 2011), the Ebola outbreak (Prati and Pietrantoni 2016; Yang and Chu 2018) and SARS and avian influenza (bird flu) epidemics (Leppin and Aro 2009). Although this research has been important and informative, reviews have noted that a common feature of rapid response studies is that many of them are exploratory and descriptive in nature and therefore a) are not based on established models of theory. risk perception, b) are based almost exclusively on single-element risk perception measures that selectively take advantage of cognitive or emotional dimensions, and c) do not include important international comparisons (de Zwart et al. 2009; Leppin and Aro 2009) . Van der Linden's instrument, in collaboration with his team, contains 6 items to assess the perception that the new coronavirus COvid-19 represents in terms of risk, consequently, here we adopt a theory-based approach to the study of the perception of risk. Van der Linden's (2015, 2017) risk perception model recommends the inclusion of groups of variables that correspond to the cognitive tradition (for example, people's knowledge and understanding of risks) experiential tradition (for example, personal experience), the sociocultural paradigm (for example, the social amplification of risk, cultural theory, trust and values) and the relevant individual differences (for example, gender, education, ideology). Psychometric Properties: Following Leiserowitz (2006), Van der Linden (2015) and Xie et al. (2019), our dependent measure "COVID-19 Risk Perception" was measured as an index, covering affective, cognitive and spatio-temporal dimensions to provide a holistic measure of risk perception. The index included items that captured the perceived severity of the COVID-19 pandemic participants, the perceived probability of contracting the virus themselves for the next 6 months, the perceived probability that their family and friends would contract the virus, and its level current concern about the virus (alpha grouped in all countries, a .72; alpha per country, such as .60 - .82

Summary Project

APPLICATION SHEET 1. GENERAL DATA PERCEPTION OF COVID-19 RISK AND IMPACT ON MENTAL HEALTH IN THE POPULATION OF CUSCO 1.1. THEMATIC RESEARCH AXIS: Social and economic studies of the effects of COVID-19. 1.2. SCHEMA: Adaptive research project 1.3. MODALITY: Adaptive research project 1.4. CONVOCATORY: First window 2. TECHNICAL INFORMATION Start and end of Activities: Project Start Date: 24/06/2020 Project End Date: 25/10/2020 3. Research Problem: Since the first case for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), in Wuhan City, China, in December 2019, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Zhu, 2019), to date, we note that the virus has spread rapidly around the world, so too cases are rising rapidly, until 03 April, the contagion rates are 823 626, and 40,598 deaths globally in Peru are 123,979 confirmed cases, and 3629 deaths (WHO, 2020). This scenario, which takes place in the midst of a pandemic, shows us unprecedented changes that affect our social systems, health, economic and political systems (Wu, et al. 2014, Vartti, et al. 2009). Actions in health systems, until now, have basically focused on the isolation of infected people, the quarantine of people who had contact with infected patients, social isolation and the promotion of healthy behaviors, in this context the psychological responses of the population play a fundamental role, therefore the behavioral sciences are called to propose solutions in the control of the pandemic. In addition, these behavioural changes and the level of perceptions of COVID-19 are linked to decision-makers (de Zwart, et al. 2009). In recent months, scientific evidence on COVID-19 has made significant, but not sufficient, progress, given that these researches have been more focused on aspects of physical health, and have paid less attention to impacts on people's mental health (Qiu, et al., 2020). In this sense, we can show that there are few studies on mental health topics, linked to epidemics and pandemics, the gap in lack of knowledge is widening more in developing countries such as Peru. Despite this, some publications show that life-threatening medical conditions can lead to symptoms such as anxiety, fear, depression, and post-traumatic stress, which alter mental health, (Makwana, 2019, Goldmann, 2014, Sim, 2004). Increased symptoms due to personal, work and social circumstances, such as uncertainty, social quarantines and isolation, health workers, family estrangement, misinformation and insecurity, could lead to the development of emotional and behavioral disorders (Sood, 2020). Therefore, analyzing such elements in a contextualized and differentiated way, for example, between health workers, in patients and the general population, is relevant, for the implementation of the design of intervention programs and public policy guidelines. Our study aims to analyze the risk perceptions and impacts of COVID-19 on mental health, in general public and health workers. 4. Project Idea: The main idea of our project is to assess the perceptions of risk, the impacts of COVID-19 on mental health in the general public and on health workers. Recommendations for risk communication are also developed. 5. Research Methodology: Research Methodology : During the development of this study that will have a period of 4 months, a cross-sectional survey will be implemented, which will be administered to a sample of 1200 people (over 18 years old) in the city of Cusco, between general public and health personnel, who will participate voluntarily. The data will be collected through anonymous structured questionnaires, online using the limesurvey software, through email and social networks. A battery of instruments will be implemented that will collect information on sociodemographic data, risk perception, emotional, social, cultural and mental health factors. For data analysis, descriptive and inferential statistics (correlations, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and linear regressions) will be used. Risk perception levels and mental health factors are compared according to sociodemographic elements and behaviors related to COVID-19. 5. 1. Methodology of scientific rigor for the integral implementation of the adaptive research project. Participants and procedures A systematic sampling will be carried out in the province of Cusco, considering the districts (San Jerónimo, San Sebastián. Santiago and Wánchaq), considered to be the most representative of the province by the population size. The voluntary recruitment phase of participants will be held during the month of June and part of July (July 15), participants will confirm their participation through a (virtual) consent format that will guarantee their voluntary participation in the study, at this point the research team, takes care of the ethical procedures for this type of studies (ethics in CONCYTEC research). With regard to recruitment methods will be applied through online surveys (implemented through the LimeSurvey software) and disseminated through virtual platforms, institutional websites and social networks. The requirement to participate in this study is to be of legal age (18 years), quota sampling will also be used to ensure equitable participation by gender, economic status, level of instruction, (criteria to be specified in the ad-hoc sheet, prepared for the study). The survey will be implemented using LimeSurvey, it is expected to have a maximum duration of 20 minutes. For the administration phase, 3 properly trained surveyors with experience in the application of surveys will be recruited, who will guarantee a total of 1000 participants. Instruments: The instruments considered for this study shall be as follows: • GAD-7, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener. The Scale of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (Spitzer, et al. 2006) consists of 7 questions scored between 0 and 3, therefore the minimum and maximum possible scores being 0 and 21 respectively. To evaluate the results obtained when answering the questionnaire its authors suggest the following scores, recommending the consultation with a health professional when obtaining a score of 10 or higher. On its psychometric properties it presents a Cronbach alpha of 0.93. • Scale of behaviors of psychological responses before Covid-19, (Smith et al., Morgan and Don, 2010). Composed of three groups of questions, about recent avoidance behaviors (avoiding eating out, avoiding public transport and reducing visits to public places) and three other about recommended behaviors (rescheduling the travel plan, increasing surface cleanliness, and maintaining better indoor ventilation) in response to the outbreak. Questions about preventive behaviors on the usual days before the state of emergency in Peru. Response options are never scored (such as 0), rare (1), sometimes (2), usually (3), always (4), or did not come out (5). • Perception Questionnaire on Psychological Responses to Covid-19), (Smith et al., Morgan and Don, 2010), Five items were used to assess whether participants believe that certain measures would reduce their risk of covid-19, and possible response options would be Ineffective (Non-effective) (1), Considerable (Inefficient) (2) and Effective (Effective) (3). A group of items will evaluate perceived threats from the new coronavirus. The kind of questions will be: "How likely do you think you'll get a new coronavirus infection in the next month?"? With five responses from highly unlikely (1) to very likely (5), and "how severe you think the new coronavirus infection would be if you contracted it" with five options, from very mild (1) to very severe (5). Public confidence will also be assessed, asking whether they were according to the statement "I believe I can take steps to protect myself against the new coronavirus" with five response options from totally disagree (1) to total agreement (5). • The symtom Assessment-45 scale of the authors, Davinson, M. K., Berhadsky, B. Bieber, J., Silversmith, D., Marusih, M, E., and Kane, R. L. (1997), instrument that will be used to determine the degree of affectation in mental health, It is a questionnaire comprising 45 items on a likert scale of five levels with items ranging from 0 ("nothing") to 4 ("much or extremely"). The questionnaire derives from the original symptom checklist 90 (Scl-90; Derogatis, Lipman and Covi, 1973) and seeks to evaluate the following dimensions: somatization, obsessive compulsion, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation and psychoticism. On its psychometric properties, several studies have already shown its appropriate psychometric properties, one of the most pertainant according to the context of our study, is from 2008, a Spanish version of SA-45 developed by Sandin, Valiente, Chorot and Santed, using an extensive sample of university students. Exploratory factorial analyses were conducted. On extracting the number of factors, the researchers took into account 5 theoretical/empirical criteria: 9 basic dimensions, other possible structures found in scl-90 (1 to 10 factors), Kaiser criterion, screening test interpretation of different resulting factorial structures: the main axes method was also performed. • Scale of Attitude, Belief and Intent to care for patients with Covid-19, overwhelmed by Yoo Hr, Kwon Be, Jang Ys, Youn Hk, scale consisting of (34 items) to collect data on intentions, attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs were the study variables. All items were measured using a 7-point likert scale (-3 to +3). On psychometric properties, the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, pearson correlation method, and step multiple regression methods. Kim et al, 2006, notes that the validity and reliability of the instrument was established through content validity, a pilot test, a reliability test, and factorial analysis. The result of the study is described elsewhere (Yoo, Kwon and Jang, 2005). Analysis of the main component verified the hypothetical 6-factor solution, explaining 68.2% of the variance, and the alpha coefficients of .75 to .93 indicated a high internal consistency of the instrument. • Risk Perception Scale on Covid-19, (Van der Linden. 2020), the instrument contains 6 items to assess the perception posed in terms of risk of the new coronavirus COvid-19. On the psychometric properties, the index included items that assess the perceived severity of COVID-19 pandemic participants, the perceived probability of contracting the virus themselves over the next 6 months, the perceived likelihood that their family and friends will contract the virus, and their current level of concern for the virus (alpha .72). 5.2. Prototype or process development methodology (if any). Our study is not intended to validate prototype. 5.3. Methodology used for the adaptation of the prototype or process aims to adapt for the Cusco region. Our study is not intended to validate prototype. 5.4. Methodology for performing validation or pre-validation tests of the prototype or process in the validation group identified or proposed by the project research team. Procedure for instrument validation: the psychometric method, based on the analysis of constructs and test through statistical procedures, based on the classical theory of tests and the Bayesian model, will be used for the development of these procedures exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis will be carried out, to demonstrate the association and causation between the study variables multiple correlation and regression analyses will be carried out. 5.5. Methodology for the transfer of prototypes or services. The paper submitted to indexed magazine will be issued. 5.6. Methodology of project development documentation, The procedure for study documentation will have the following steps: a) Report of systematic review of literature relevant to the identification of constructs. b) Adaptation of psychometric instruments. c) Validation of psychometric instruments. d) Report on the results of the pilot study. e) Data quality control plan. f) Report on data exploration. g) Results analysis report. h) Timeline for the first version of the paper. (i) Report on the first draft version of the paper. (j) Report on the shipment of the paper to indexed magazine. 6. Description of expected results: • A scientific paper submitted for publication in journals indexed in Scopus or WoS Q2. • Document for the proper management of risk communication versus that in decision makers. • Recommendations for the development of mitigation behaviors that help maintain adequate mental health against the COVID19 pandemic in Peru

Public Perceptions of Climate Change in the Peruvian Andes

Survey on climate change perception

RISK PERCEPTION AND IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON MENTAL HEALTH

Perú, China and Canad