knowledge and misconceptions about the causes of climate change: a knowledge and misconceptions about the causes of climate change: a

cross sectional studycross sectional study

Conocimientos e ideas erróneas sobre las causas del cambio climático: Conocimientos e ideas erróneas sobre las causas del cambio climático:

un estudio transversalun estudio transversal

Recibido: 18 de Enero 2019 | Aceptado: 25 de Junio 2019

Andy Jossimar Alvarado Yepéz

1,2

& Fredy S. Monge Rodríguez

1,2

Universidad Nacional San Antonio de Abad del Cusco

Research Center Environment Behavior and Society

Contact: fredy.monge@unsaac.edu.pe

Abstract:Abstract:

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, signicant dierences were found with respect to occupation

(between housewives and professionals), and education (secondary and

technical level). However, gender, age and income were not signicant.

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.

Keywords: knowledge, misconceptions, causes, climate change.

ResumenResumen

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

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad

. 2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105 eISSN 2709-8219X

Doi: 10.51343/racs.v3i2.582

sujetos de la ciudad Cusco, en Perú. Respecto a los conocimientos que

causan el cambio climático, se observa que la mayoría de los participantes

identica 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 signicativas 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 signicativos. 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.

Palabras clave: conocimiento, ideas erróneas, causas, cambio climático.

IntroductionIntroduction

Climate change is one of the main threats facing humanity, this

environmental phenomenon represents a complex event full of challenges (Helgenson,

Linden and Chabay, 2012; Clayton, 2019); In this sense, knowing the factors that are

associated with the degree of knowledge that people have about climate change is

essential to determine coping strategies (adaptation and mitigation) from a

participatory approach (Corona, 2018; Brugger, Morton & Dessai, 2015). Studies on

knowledge of climate change allow an approximation to the degree of understanding and

sensitivity that exists on the subject (Marino, 2011; Retamal, Rojas & Parra, 2011).

Likewise, knowing the primary causes of climate change allows us to understand

the evolution of the recognition of this phenomenon not only in the context of the

scientic community, but also in ordinary people (Camarasa & Moreno, 1994).

Considering that the concept of climate change is a collective cultural construction

(Meira, 2007), therefore, to face its negative impacts, it will be necessary to identify the

levels of understanding, participation and social consensus. In addition, the study on the

causes of climate change makes it possible to propose possible climatic scenarios,

according to sociodemographic factors (Useros, 2012, IPCC, 2008). Despite the

importance of the subject, there is still a limited role regarding the information and

knowledge that people reect on the phenomena that give rise to climate change, given

its cognitively complex nature, and which is also perceived as psychologically distant for

the most people (Clayton, 2019).

Despite growing scientic evidence, the population still does not have

objective or empirical knowledge regarding the causes of climate change (van

der linden, 2015). In addition, some people have misconceptions, which are

characterized by the tendency to combine one or more environmental problems

and link them with the causes of climate change, this is known as the green eect or

ecological beliefs (Dryden, Morgan, Bostrom & Bruine de Bruin, 2018), this is due

to a bias in the process of dierentiating the causes that give rise to environmental

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105

and climate change, for example, the hole in the ozone layer generated deep public

concern due to the relative ease of understanding the risk it represented, however, is not

a cause of climate change (Ungar, 2000). Another error that people present is to think

that climate change is mainly due to the natural variability of the climate system, for

example, considering natural phenomena such as the phenomenon of the child as the

cause of climate change, which is wrong, because this represents a natural variation,

such as ocean currents or wind currents (Quintero et al, 2012). According to Reynolds et

al (2010), in recent years, non-professional survey and interview responses have made

reference to natural climate variability more frequently than before (van der linden, 2015).

Regarding the causes of climate change, it is necessary to recognize those of

anthropic origin as the most relevant and that are mainly related to the greenhouse

eect, which is characterized by the large amount of gas emissions, which began with the

industrial era (Corona, 2018). In addition, some studies report that they are associated with

economic factors, for example, energy production, industry, agriculture and transportation

(Useros, 2012). Knowing how people identify these dierences to recognize the causes of

climate change could help us in the development of policies that allow us to signicantly

inuence the management of the risks that climate change implies (Leiserowitz, 2005).

The present study aims to make an approximation about the level of knowledge

and erroneous ideas about the causes and anthropogenic determinants of climate change,

it also aims to observe if there are signicant dierences between the sociodemographic

variables proposed for this study.

MethodologyMethodology

ParticipantsParticipants

The sample consisted of a total of N = 250 subjects, who having decided to

participate voluntarily in the study, continued to ll out the questionnaire, the

participants are mostly women, 148 participants (59.2%), men 102 participants ( 40.8%);

the majority are in an age range of 18 to 30 years, with 163 participants (65.2%). Regarding

economic income, the majority receive an income between 600 and 1500 soles, with 115

participants (46%); the level of instruction is mainly the secondary level 97 (38.8%),

the higher technical level 65 (26%), the higher level 53 subjects (21.2%). Regarding

occupation, most have a trade (carpentry, bricklayer, etc.) 94 subjects (37.6%), 49

subjects with university profession (19.6%), housewives 61 (24.4%) and students 46

(18.4%) . Regarding the religious exercise, the majority is Catholic with 198 participants

(79.2%), then evangelical with 24 subjects (9.6%), leaving a percentage less than 10% in

the other religions, these data and more are seen in table 1:

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105 92

Table 1 Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics

Data collection processingData collection processing

Participants were invited to ll out the survey voluntarily, lling out an informed

consent form, following the recommendations of the Helsinki protocol (Manzini, 2000),

a systematic convenience sampling was used; the data was processed in the

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105

programming language software in R, in its R-Studio console, a program that

allows powerful statistical processing and high visualization graphics (Grolemund &

Wickham, 2016).

MeasurementsMeasurements

Questionnaire on knowledge of the causes of climate change. Questionnaire on knowledge of the causes of climate change.

The questionnaire on knowledge of the causes of climate change is an

instrument adapted to the Cusco context, used for the rst time in Brügger, Tobias &

Monge in 2016, it is an instrument designed to analyze the level of knowledge of the

causes of climate change, comprised of 13 items of possible causes of climate change,

it has an internal consistency of .84, proving to be adequate for the study, it includes

response options from 0 to 2, where 0 = nothing, 1 = little, 2 = a lot. The scores to measure

knowledge are followed according to the recommendations in van der Linden (2015)

and in Leiserowitz, Smith & Marlon (2010), who indicate that the higher the score,

the greater the knowledge of the causes of climate change. In addition, the scale has two

dimensions, the rst is divided into 7 correct items on the causes of climate change

(driving a car, burning fossil fuels, air travel, CO2 emissions, aerosol cans, agricultural

activities such as cattle raising and deforestation) and, the second presents 6 incorrect

items (the sun, the hole in the ozone layer, the phenomenon of the child, toxic waste,

nuclear power plants, and acid rain).

Statistical ProcessingStatistical Processing

The present study makes use of descriptive statistics to determine the

levels of knowledge of cause, later, for the inferential part, it makes use of

analysis of comparison of groups through sociodemographic variables, to observe

if there are signicant dierences, through the Kruskal Wallis tests for variables with

more than 3 categories and U-Mann Whitney tests for variables with 2 categories.

ResultsResults

Descriptive analysisDescriptive analysis

Figure 1 shows the frequencies of knowledge of the cause of climate change,

comprised of 13 items, to measure how much they know about the possible factors that

cause climate change in 3 response levels 0 = nothing, 1 = little and 2 = a lot. Regarding

the items that denote correct knowledge of the causes of climate change, item 3 “The

burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas)”, the participants indicated 84% that climate change

contributes a lot, not so, 15% who indicated that it causes little and 1% who indicated the

opposite, then, item 8 “Constant increase in CO2 emissions”, the respondents indicated

by 82% that the increase in CO2 contributes a lot as a cause of change climatic, while

16% indicate that it causes only a little, while 1% indicates the opposite; for item 13

“Deforestation (for example, the destruction of tropical forests)” the participants

indicated that deforestation causes a lot of climate change in 76%, and only 17%

indicated that it causes little, not 7% which indicates that deforestation does not cause

climate change at all; in item 1 “Driving a car”, respondents answered that it is a cause that

contributes a lot to climate change in 66%, leaving 28% who indicated that it causes little,

however, 6% indicated the opposite, it is say that driving a car does not cause climate

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105 94

change. Then, in item 9 “Aerosol cans”, the participants answered that the use of aerosol

cans causes a lot in 74%, not so 23% indicated that aerosol cans only cause a little, while

3 % indicated that it does not cause anything. It is striking that item 6 “Travel by plane"

the participants indicated that it causes a lot only in 36% and for item 11 “Agricultural

activities such as raising livestock (cows raised for meat consumption)” , the participants

indicated that it causes a lot only in 24%, being the items with the lowest report on the

causes of climate change in the questionnaire, however, van der Linden (2015) and in

Leiserowitz, Smith & Marlon (2010), indicate that These are causes of climate change,

despite this, the participants indicated that it causes little in 50% and 35%, respectively

and that it causes nothing in 14% and 41%, which denotes a lack of knowledge regarding

these two causes.

Regarding the items of erroneous knowledge or erroneous ideas about the causes

of climate change, it is striking that item 7 “Toxic waste” is the one most considered by

the participants, indicating that it is the one that most causes climate change, responding a

lot at 86%, leaving 13% who indicated that it causes little and 2% that indicates nothing;

however, this item is not a cause of climate change. For item 10 “Nuclear power plants”,

the respondents indicated that it causes a lot in 74%, leaving 21% who indicated that it

causes only a little, while 4% indicated that nuclear power plants do not cause the change

at all climate. In item 4 “The hole in the ozone layer”, respondents indicate that the hole in

the ozone layer causes a lot of climate change by 58%, while 25% indicate that it causes

little, and 18% indicate that the hole in the ozone layer does not cause climate change at

all. For item 12 “Acid rain”, 54% of respondents indicated that acid rain causes a lot of

climate change, while 34% think that only a little, and 12% indicate that acid rain is not

the cause. of climate change. In item 2 “The sun”, the participants indicated that the sun

causes much climate change only in 45%, noting a report lower than 50%, on the other

hand, 30% indicate that it causes little climate change, while that, 25% indicates that the sun

does not cause climate change. For item 5 “The phenomenon of the child”, the participants

indicate that this phenomenon causes a lot of climate change in 44%. It is remarkable

that respondents have answered that the incorrect causes of climate change exceed 44%,

wrongly indicating that they are causes, this allows observing that there are still

misconceptions about the causes of climate change that must be addressed, for their better

understanding.

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105

Figure 1 Figure 1

Descriptive Frequencies of Climate Change Knowledge

Note:

0 = Nothing, 1 = Little and 2 = a lot; Items 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13 represent

correct knowledge about the causes of climate change, items 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 12

represent erroneous knowledge or misconceptions about the causes of climate change.

Group analysisGroup analysis

To establish the categories of low, medium, high, we follow the recommendations

that the higher the score, the greater the knowledge of the causes of climate change, it is

important to mention that we consider only the correct items of climate change, where

the highest score is 14 indicating greater knowledge of the causes of climate change.

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105 96

Table 2 Table 2

Comparisons sex, age, income, education, trade or profession with knowledge of the

cause of climate change

Note:

* indicates p <.05. ** indicates p <.01. The Kruskal Wallis Te was used for

more than 2 groups and the U-Mann Withney for 2 groups, both for non-parametric data.

Table 2 shows that the results of group analysis, which were made using the

Kruskal Wallis tests for variables with more than 3 categories and U-Mann Whitney tests

for variables with 2 categories, all of these used for non-parametric data It is observed

that regarding the occupation (X

Kruskal Wallis (3) = 11.28, p = 0.010, ε

ordinal= 0.03);

the dierences between the group of housewives and that of university professionals

are conrmed by the Bonferroni method and a Dunn pairwise test (p<0.011); regarding

the level of education (X

Kruskal Wallis (4) = 10.25, p = 0.036, ε

ordinal= 0.04), We also

observed that there are signicant dierences, using the Bonferroni method and Dunn’s

pairwise test (p <0.045), between those at the secondary and higher technical level.

On the other hand, there are no signicant dierences regarding sex, age, income

andreligion, however, the percentages place women with greater knowledge of the

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105

causes of climate change in terms of sex. Regarding age, young people present a higher

percentage located between 18 and 30 years old. Respect to economic income, the

percentage of responses from the participants places people with an income of 300 to

1500 soles with better knowledge. Finally, regarding religion, the frequency is marked by

a majority Catholic population, this being the one that presents a greater knowledge of

the causes of climate change.

DiscussionDiscussion

This research focuses on knowledge about the main causes of climate

change, from a cognitive approach, in this sense, knowledge of climate change is

considered an aspect that must be approached from cognitive indicators (Sundblad et

al., 2007; van der Linden, 2015), a clear example of this is the use of mental models.

Studies such as that of Leiserowitz, Smith & Marlon (2010), have questioned the role of

knowledge about the most outstanding cognitive factors of this phenomenon, such as

causes, eects and responses. Proper identication of these factors can contribute to

generating greater awareness among people, and on this, they would be more willing

to take actions to avoid negative impacts. The study by Kaiser & Fuhrer (2003), put

into relevance that ecological behavior depended on knowledge and that this was a

prerequisite in the approach to climate change, since people need to know what to do and

what to act against. development of various forms of knowledge; similarly, Sundblad,

Biel & Garling (2007), develop around knowledge of cause a perspective towards risk

judgments, where knowledge of the causes is a predictor of risk behavior. However, Van

der Linden (2015) indicates that the cognitive understanding of climate change remains

somewhat unclear, since the knowledge that exists is posed in a “subjective” way, that is,

from what people think it is true in the face of real evidence. In this regard, Leiserowitz

(2010), conducted a study on the causes of climate change and the misconceptions that

exist about this phenomenon, where it was observed that the participants confuse domains

such as climate variability, environmental pollution and natural climate. As such, despite

this, the author indicates that these misconceptions can generate a type of concern that

can be useful in raising awareness about climate change. On the other hand, other studies

(Huxster et al., 2015, Kahan et al., 2012) indicate that the confusion of the exact causes

of climate change can generate skepticism about the human causes of climate change,

leading to think about natural cycles as the main cause, relegating to second place

greenhouse gas emissions that are caused by man, and have an impact on climate change,

for example, a study by Monge, Tobias & Brügger (2019) , put this domain into relevance,

a study in which it is determined that more than 80% of the population studied had

knowledge of the causes of climate change, in the present study similar results are

obtained, and being precise, the respondents indicated that the waste toxic substances, the

burning of fossil fuels, and the emission of CO2 are the main causes of climate change.

According to experts, such as Leiserowitz (2010), only two are correct, that is, according

to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (2007, 2008), the burning of fossil

fuels represents the greatest cause, as it emits a large amount of Second, greenhouse

gases (GHG), which leads to large emissions of CO2 and other gases, in this regard,

Useros (2012), when conducting a study of the causes and eects of climate change,

indicated that carbon dioxide and other gases, in addition to being the cause of

climate change, conditions the absorption, dispersion and emissions of radiation from the

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105 98

atmosphere and the energy balances of the entire climate system, which, accompanied

by human activities, are manifested in the elevation of the global temperature. Respect

toxic waste, there is no evidence that they constitute a cause of climate change,

however, our results showed that more than 80% have a wrong idea about it and indicate

that it is, it is important to clarify that waste or toxic waste has become a serious pollution

problem, but there is no evidence of causing climate change (Lopez & Sainz, 2011).

Research such as that of Malka, Krosnick & Langer (2009), & Leiserowitz et al (2005)

reinforce that misconceptions like this one (that of toxic waste, air pollution, or natural

phenomena such as “the phenomenon of the child”), may lead to increased concern and

awareness of climate change, however, misconceptions about the drivers of climate

change have increased the amount of doubt about human contributions to climate change

and have led to a lack of awareness with the risks that faces our raises, that is, those who

are skeptical about the causes of climate change, even if they have more knowledge about

the problem, show less concern.

In addition, obeying the category of correct knowledge about the causes of

climate change, we can refer that, in Semmartin, Mazzeo & Verón (2014) and in

Truelove & Parks (2012), they show results that expose a list of thirteen causes

of climate change, where the results are similar to those obtained, that is, the use of

fossil fuels, which turned out to be the most relevant item in the present study. These

results, according to the IPCC (2008), indicated that the burning of fuels and the

emission of CO2 represented 56.6% of the generation of greenhouse gases (GHG),

becoming one of the most outstanding responsible (causes) of the climate change

(Useros, 2012). However, the study has shown that the participants mistakenly put

toxic waste as the rst cause of climate change, 86% indicated they agree. Studies

such as that of Ahumada & García (2018) and that of Spence, Poortinga and Pidgeon

(2012) suggest that the contrast with scientic information may be due to psychological

distance, where experience plays a mediating role, making this result more perceptible

to public opinion, also previous studies such as Dunlap’s (1992), found similar results.

Likewise, the present research performs a group analysis, where, with respect

to the sociodemographic variables, no signicant dierences were found regarding sex,

age, income, indicating that the causes of climate change are of general domain, as

suggested in the meta-analysis by García, Iglesias & Gradaílle (2019), where they

concluded that there are no signicant dierences with respect to the conceptual

category of knowledge, also indicated that the decit of knowledge or that better

knowledge does not ensure better behavior that contributes to the environmental

crisis, indicating that the trade and the educational level are elements without signicant

dierences. However, if signicant dierences were found for the occupation variable,

between housewives and university professionals, this is similar to the study by

Truelove & Parks, 2014. Despite these results, the study by Ahumada and García

(2018), said that his study population had a lack of knowledge about the main

aspects related to climate change, indicating that they do not recognize the

causes of this topic. In this sense, we can indicate that studies on the knowledge of

climate change is a preliminary element of human behavior, allowing to observe the

level of awareness and concern about the problem (Clayton, 2019; Frometa and

Guardado, 2016), the latter it is worrying regarding the fact that studies report that

even the levels of knowledge are not ideal, for example, Parnalí, Haque & Drieger

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105

(2012), indicated that the current literature on public opinion and

knowledge about climate change provides considerable evidence that indicates that the

public lacks a clear understanding of the precise nature and consequences of climate

variability, which is evident from the responses of the participants in this study,

the public commonly displays a variety of misunderstandings and confusion about

the causes of climate change , where even very well-educated people tend to

conceptualize climate change issues very dierent from scientists and specialists.

Finally, it is important to highlight that having a better knowledge about the

causes of climate change will allow us to have an adequate level of risk perception and

therefore develop adaptation and mitigation capacities (van der Linden, 2015; Gonzales

and Maldonado, 2017; Lopez & Marvan, 2018). Additionally, Hugel & Davies (2019)

report that perceptions and knowledge act as a predictor of appropriate ecological

behaviors. On the other hand, it is recommended that in the face of the causes of

climate change perceived as more relevant (toxic waste, the burning of fossil fuel and the

emission of CO2) the decision makers and the political part can actuate

mechanisms to implement and educate, to reduce knowledge biases, which could lead to

misinformation. As already indicated, the correct and erroneous conceptions generate

greater confusion, and therefore less involvement towards coping actions in the face of

the negative impacts of climate change (Dryden et al., 2018), as indicated by Fischho

(2019), the educational and political strategies should be aimed at reducing the risk of

climate change, through participatory action and risk management (Slovic, 2010; Slovic

& Weber, 2002). Finally, it is important to recognize the role of perceptions, knowledge

and information, being key to generating a greater understanding of climate change and

therefore a greater commitment to strategies (van der Lin, 2015, Brúgger, Morton &

Dessai, 2015, Clayton, 2019).

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105 100

ReferencesReferences

Ahumada, R., & García, P. (2018). Conocimiento y percepción acerca del cambio

climático en comunidades costeras del municipio de Aguascalientes, 26(75), 38-45.

Bostrom, A. (2018). Mental models and risk perceptions related to climate change.

In M. C. Nisbet, , S. Ho, E. Markowitz, S. O’Neill, M. Schafer, & J. T.

Thaker (Eds.),

The Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication.

New

York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/

9780190228620.013.303

Brügger, A., Morton, T. A., & Dessai, S. (2015). Hand in hand: public endorsement

of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

PloS one,

10(4), e0124843. https://

doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124843

Brügger, A., Tobias, R. & Monge, F. (2016). A replication and Extension of the

socio-phychological model of climate change risk perceptions (Unpublished). In:

Society for risk Analysis. San Diego 11.11.–15.12.2016

Clayton, S. (2019). Psicología y Cambio climático.

Psychologist Papers.

https://doi.

org/10.23923/pap.psicol2019.2902

Corona Jiménez, M. Á. (2018). El conocimiento, la percepción y disponibilidad para

afrontar el cambio climático en una población emergente, los migrantes de retorno.

Estudios sociales. Revista de alimentación contemporánea y desarrollo regional,

28(52), 0-0.

Corona Jiménez, Miguel Ángel. (2018). El conocimiento, la percepción y disponibilidad

para afrontar el cambio climático en una población emergente, los migrantes de

retorno.

Estudios sociales. Revista de alimentación contemporánea y desarrollo

regional,

28(52) https://doi.org/10.24836/es.v28i52.578

Dryden, R., Morgan, M. G., Bostrom, A., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2018). Public

perceptions of how long air pollution and carbon dioxide remain in the

atmosphere.

Risk Analysis

, 38(3), 525– 534.

Fischho, B. (in press). Making behavioral science integral to climate science and action.

Behavioural Public Policy.

Frómeta, A. & Guardado, R. (2017). Percepción del riesgo: su rol ante el cambio climático,

sus efectos y la adaptación.

Revista de Innovación Social y Desarrollos.

Vol. 2, Núm. 1

García-Vinuesa, Antonio, Iglesias da Cunha, María Lucía, & Gradaílle Pernas, Rita.

(2020). Diferencias de género en el conocimiento y las percepciones del cambio

climático entre adolescentes. Metaanálisis.

Pensamiento educativo,

57(2) https://

dx.doi.org/10.7764/pel.57.2.2020.5

González-Gaudiano, E. & Maldonado González, A. L. (2017). Amenazas y riesgos

101

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105

climáticos en poblaciones vulnerables. El papel de la educación en la

resiliencia comunitaria.

Desarrollo humano sostenible: retos y avances

educativos,

Vol. 29 Núm. 1, Páginas 273-294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14201/

teoredu291273294

Grothmann, T & Patt, A. (2005). Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process

of individual adaptation to climate change.

Global Environmental Change.

15.

199–213. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002

Helgeson, J., Linden, S., & Chabay, I. (2012). The role of knowledge, learning and mental

models in public perceptions of climate change related risks. https://

climatecommunication.yale.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/

Climate-Change-American-Mind-October-20151.pdf.

Hügel, S., & Davies, A. (2020). Public participation, engagement, and climate change

adaptation: A review of the research literature.

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:

Climate Change, 11.

IPCC (2007)

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change

[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.

Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], p. 36.

Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel,

G. (2012). The polarizing impact of sci- ence literacy and numeracy on perceived

climate change risks.

Nature Climate Change,

2(10), 732–735

Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2003). Ecological behavior’s dependency on dierent forms of

knowledge.

Applied Psychology,

52, 598-613. https://doi.org/10.1111/

1464-0597.00153

Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous?

Risk

Analysis,

25(6), 1433–1442.

Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous?.

Risk

Analysis: An International Journal,

25(6), 1433-1442.

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2015).

Climate change in the American mind: October, 2015.

Yale University and George

Mason University.

New Haven, CT: Yale Program on Climate Change

Communication. Retrieved August 24, 2020.

Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N. & Marlon, J.R. (2010).

Americans’ Knowledge of climate

change.

Yale university. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on climate change

communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/les/climatechange

Knowledge2010.pdf

López Mosquera, M. & Sainz Osés, MJ. (2011).

Guía de residuos orgánicos de uso

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105 102

agricola. Santiago de Compostela: Servizo de Publicacións.

Universidade de

Santiago de Compostela.

López-Vázquez E. & Marván M.L. (2018)

Introduction to Risk Psychology.

In: Marván

M., López-Vázquez E. (eds) Preventing Health and Environmental Risks in Latin

America. The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science, vol 23.

Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73799-7_1

Malka, A., Krosnick, J. A., & Langer, G. (2009). The association of knowledge with

concern about global warming: Trued in- formation sources shape public

thinking.

Risk Analysis

, 29(5), 633–647.

Manzini, Jorge Luis. (2000). Declaración de helsinki: principios éticos para la

investigación médica sobre sujetos humanos.

Acta bioethica

, 6(2), 321-334.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2000000200010

Monge, F., Tobias, R. & Brügger, A. (2019).

Cambio climático y percepciones

en comunidades andinas quechuahablantes.

Cusco, Peru: Universidad Nacional

de San Antonio Abad del Cusco

Norgaard, Kari Marie. (2010).

Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to

Climate Change. Washington,

openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9066

Parnali Dhar Chowdhury, C. Emdad Haque & S. Michelle Driedger (2012) Public versus

expert knowledge and perception of climate change-induced heat wave risk:

a modied mental model approach,

Journal of Risk Research,

15:2, 149-168,

DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2011.601319

Quintero-Angel, M., Carvajal-Escobar, Y., & Aldunce, P. (2012). Adaptación a la

variabilidad y el cambio climático: intersecciones con la gestión del riesgo.

Revista Luna Azul,

(34), 257-271.

Semmartin, Mazzeo & Verón. (2014). Semmartin Mazzeo Veron RAE2014.

Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Public perception of climate change: The

importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews.

Risk Analysis,

35(12),

2183–2201.

Slovic, P. (2010).

Feelings of Risk. New perspective in Risk Percepction.

Earthscan

Slovic, Paul & Weber, Elke U., (2002) Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. In:

Regulation of Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste

(2nd edition) (Applegate,

Gabba, Laitos, and Sachs, Editors), Foundation Press, Forthcoming, Available at

SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2293086

Truelove, H. B., & Parks, C. (2012). Perceptions of behaviors that cause and mitigate

global warming and intentions to perform these behaviors.

Journal of

103

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105

Environmental Psychology,

32(3), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jenvp.2012.04.002

Useros F. (2012). El cambio climático: sus causas y efectos medioambientales.

Anales de

la Real Academia de Medicina y Cirugía de Valladolid.

van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk

perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model.

Journal of Environmental

Psychology,

41, 112–124.

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105 104

AppendixAppendix

Appendix1 Appendix1

CC Awareness Scale CC Awareness Scale

Do you think the following factors contribute a lot, little or nothing to climate change?

Correct:

Wrong:

105

Ambiente, Comportamiento y Sociedad .

2020, 2(2)(2), 90-105