新冠肺炎疫情期间美国公共空间利用效率研究

Seth G. Benzell, A. Collis, C. Nicolaides
{"title":"新冠肺炎疫情期间美国公共空间利用效率研究","authors":"Seth G. Benzell, A. Collis, C. Nicolaides","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3774478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has called for and generated massive novel government regulations to increase social distancing for the purpose of reducing disease transmission. A number of studies have attempted to guide and measure the effectiveness of these policies, but there has been less focus on the overall efficiency of these policies. Efficient social distancing requires implementing stricter restrictions during periods of high viral prevalence and rationing social contact to disproportionately preserve gatherings that produce a good ratio of benefits to transmission risk. To evaluate whether US social distancing policy actually produced an efficient social distancing regime, we tracked consumer preferences for, visits to, and crowding in public locations of 26 different types. We show that the US’s rationing of public spaces, post-spring 2020, has failed to achieve efficiency along either dimension. In April 2020 the US did achieve notable decreases in visits to public spaces and focused these reductions in locations that offer poor benefit-to-risk trade-offs. However, this achievement was marred by an increase, from March to April, in crowding at remaining locations due to fewer locations remaining open. In December 2020, at the height of the pandemic so far, crowding in and total visits to locations were higher than in February, before the US pandemic, and these increases were concentrated in locations with the worst value-to-risk tradeoff.","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Efficiency of US Public Space Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Seth G. Benzell, A. Collis, C. Nicolaides\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3774478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The COVID-19 pandemic has called for and generated massive novel government regulations to increase social distancing for the purpose of reducing disease transmission. A number of studies have attempted to guide and measure the effectiveness of these policies, but there has been less focus on the overall efficiency of these policies. Efficient social distancing requires implementing stricter restrictions during periods of high viral prevalence and rationing social contact to disproportionately preserve gatherings that produce a good ratio of benefits to transmission risk. To evaluate whether US social distancing policy actually produced an efficient social distancing regime, we tracked consumer preferences for, visits to, and crowding in public locations of 26 different types. We show that the US’s rationing of public spaces, post-spring 2020, has failed to achieve efficiency along either dimension. In April 2020 the US did achieve notable decreases in visits to public spaces and focused these reductions in locations that offer poor benefit-to-risk trade-offs. However, this achievement was marred by an increase, from March to April, in crowding at remaining locations due to fewer locations remaining open. In December 2020, at the height of the pandemic so far, crowding in and total visits to locations were higher than in February, before the US pandemic, and these increases were concentrated in locations with the worst value-to-risk tradeoff.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3774478\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3774478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

COVID-19大流行要求并催生了大量新的政府法规,以增加社会距离,以减少疾病传播。一些研究试图指导和衡量这些政策的有效性,但对这些政策的总体效率的关注较少。有效的社会距离需要在病毒高流行期间实施更严格的限制,并对社会接触进行定量配给,以不成比例地保护那些产生良好的传播风险与收益之比的聚会。为了评估美国的社会距离政策是否真的产生了有效的社会距离制度,我们跟踪了消费者对26种不同类型公共场所的偏好、访问和拥挤情况。我们的研究表明,2020年春季之后,美国对公共空间的配给,在这两个方面都未能实现效率。2020年4月,美国确实实现了公共场所访问量的显著减少,并将减少的数量集中在效益与风险权衡不佳的地方。但是,从3月至4月,由于开放的地点较少,其余地点的拥挤情况有所增加,这一成就受到损害。2020年12月,在疫情最严重的时候,各地点的拥挤程度和总访问量都高于美国疫情爆发前的2月,这些增加集中在价值与风险权衡最糟糕的地方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Efficiency of US Public Space Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has called for and generated massive novel government regulations to increase social distancing for the purpose of reducing disease transmission. A number of studies have attempted to guide and measure the effectiveness of these policies, but there has been less focus on the overall efficiency of these policies. Efficient social distancing requires implementing stricter restrictions during periods of high viral prevalence and rationing social contact to disproportionately preserve gatherings that produce a good ratio of benefits to transmission risk. To evaluate whether US social distancing policy actually produced an efficient social distancing regime, we tracked consumer preferences for, visits to, and crowding in public locations of 26 different types. We show that the US’s rationing of public spaces, post-spring 2020, has failed to achieve efficiency along either dimension. In April 2020 the US did achieve notable decreases in visits to public spaces and focused these reductions in locations that offer poor benefit-to-risk trade-offs. However, this achievement was marred by an increase, from March to April, in crowding at remaining locations due to fewer locations remaining open. In December 2020, at the height of the pandemic so far, crowding in and total visits to locations were higher than in February, before the US pandemic, and these increases were concentrated in locations with the worst value-to-risk tradeoff.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sound GUPPI Safe Harbor: A Calibrated Unilateral Effects Screen for Horizontal Mergers with Differentiated Products Consolidation on Aisle Five: Effects of Mergers in Consumer Packaged Goods Optimal Exit Policy with Uncertain Demand Friends in High Places: Demand Spillovers and Competition on Digital Platforms The Ambiguous Competitive Effects of Passive Partial Forward Integration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1