IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp689.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is it riskier to meet 100 people outdoors or 14 people indoors? Comparing public and expert perceptions of COVID-19 risk

Author

Listed:
  • Timmons, Shane
  • Belton, Cameron
  • Robertson, Deirdre
  • Barjaková, Martina
  • Lavin, Ciarán
  • Julienne, Hannah
  • Lunn, Pete

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Timmons, Shane & Belton, Cameron & Robertson, Deirdre & Barjaková, Martina & Lavin, Ciarán & Julienne, Hannah & Lunn, Pete, 2020. "Is it riskier to meet 100 people outdoors or 14 people indoors? Comparing public and expert perceptions of COVID-19 risk," Papers WP689, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp689
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.esri.ie/pubs/WP689.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ed Cook & Jason R. W. Merrick, 2023. "Technology Implementation at Capital One," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 178-191, May.
    2. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    3. Madson Bruno da Silva Monte & Danielle Costa Morais, 2019. "A Decision Model for Identifying and Solving Problems in an Urban Water Supply System," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(14), pages 4835-4848, November.
    4. Jamie P. Monat, 2009. "The benefits of global scaling in multi-criteria decision analysis," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 492-508, October.
    5. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    6. Gomes, Luís S. & Santos, Sérgio P. & Coelho, Luís Serra & Rebelo, Efigénio L., 2023. "Using MCDA to assist an Intermunicipal community develop a resilience strategy in face of the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    7. Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Eduarda Asfora Frej & Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli, 2021. "Combining holistic and decomposition paradigms in preference modeling with the flexibility of FITradeoff," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 29(1), pages 7-47, March.
    8. Lahdelma, Risto & Miettinen, Kaisa & Salminen, Pekka, 2005. "Reference point approach for multiple decision makers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 785-791, August.
    9. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    10. P. S. Nagpaul & Santanu Roy, 2003. "Constructing a multi-objective measure of research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 383-402, March.
    11. Hobbs, Benjamin F & Horn, Graham TF, 1997. "Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 357-375, February.
    12. Vetschera, Rudolf & Weitzl, Wolfgang & Wolfsteiner, Elisabeth, 2014. "Implausible alternatives in eliciting multi-attribute value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 221-230.
    13. Pope, Robin & Selten, Reinhard & Kube, Sebastian, 2009. "Nominalist Heuristics and Economic Theory," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 17/2009, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    14. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    15. von Hagen, Jürgen & Kube, Sebastian & Kaiser, Johannes & Selten, Reinhard & Pope, Robin, 2006. "Prominent Numbers and Ratios in Exchange Rate Determination: Field and Laboratory Evidence," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 29/2006, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    16. Robin Pope & Reinhard Selten & Sebastian Kube & Jürgen von Hagen, 2006. "Experimental Evidence on the Benefits of Eliminating Exchange Rate Uncertainties and Why Expected Utility Theory causes Economists to Miss Them," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 010, University of Siena.
    17. Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2007. "On the concept of decision aiding process: an operational perspective," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 3-27, October.
    18. Scholz, Michael & Pfeiffer, Jella & Rothlauf, Franz, 2017. "Using PageRank for non-personalized default rankings in dynamic markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 388-401.
    19. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    20. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp689. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Burns (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esriiie.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.