IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ict/wpaper/2013-327150.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Big Data is Decision Science: the Case of Covid-19 Vaccination

Author

Listed:
  • Jacques Bughin
  • Michele Cincera
  • Dorota Reykowska
  • Rafal Ohme

Abstract

Data science has been proven to be an important asset to support better decision-making in a variety of settings, whether it is for a scientist to better predict climate change, for a company to better predict sales, or for a government to anticipate voting preferences. In this research, we leverage Random Forest (RF) as one of the most effective machine learning techniques using big data to predict vaccine intent in five European countries. The findings support the idea that outside of vaccine features, building adequate perception of the risk of contamination, as well securing institutional and peer trust are key nudges to convert skeptics to get vaccinated against the covid-19. What machine learning techniques further add beyond traditional regression techniques, is some extra granularity in factors affecting vaccine preferences (twice more factors than logistic regression). Other factors that emerge as predictors of vaccine intent are compliance appetite with non-pharmaceutical protective measures, as well as perception of the crisis duration.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacques Bughin & Michele Cincera & Dorota Reykowska & Rafal Ohme, 2021. "Big Data is Decision Science: the Case of Covid-19 Vaccination," iCite Working Papers 2021-047, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:ict:wpaper:2013/327150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/327150/3/WP2021-047-BUGHIN_CINCERA_REYKOWSKA_OHME.pdf
    File Function: Œuvre complète ou partie de l'œuvre
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    2. An Nguyen & Daniel Catalan-Matamoros, 2020. "Digital Mis/Disinformation and Public Engagement with Health and Science Controversies: Fresh Perspectives from Covid-19," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 323-328.
    3. Fazio, Russell H & Powell, Martha C & Williams, Carol J, 1989. "The Role of Attitude Accessibility in the Attitude-to-Behavior Process," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 280-289, December.
    4. Jacques Bughin & Michele Cincera & Dorota Reykowska & Marcin Zyszkiewicz & Rafal Ohme, 2020. "Perceptive Risk Clusters of European Citizens and NPI Compliance in face of the Covid-19 Pandemics," iCite Working Papers 2020-42, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Peter Bauer & Bjorn Stevens & Wilco Hazeleger, 2021. "A digital twin of Earth for the green transition," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 11(2), pages 80-83, February.
    6. Teun Terpstra, 2011. "Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1658-1675, October.
    7. Chun Yang & James Price Dillard & Ruobing Li, 2018. "Understanding Fear of Zika: Personal, Interpersonal, and Media Influences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2535-2545, December.
    8. Sang-Wook (Stanley) Cho, 2020. "Quantifying the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak: The case of Sweden," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(3), pages 323-344.
    9. Jacques Bughin & Michele Cincera & Dorota Reykowska & Marcin Zyszkiewicz & Rafal Ohme, 2021. "Covid-19 Endemism and the Control Skeptics," iCite Working Papers 2021-044, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    10. Yadav, Milind & Perumal, Murukessan & Srinivas, M, 2020. "Analysis on novel coronavirus (COVID-19) using machine learning methods," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    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. Jacques Bughin & Michele Cincera & Kelly Peters & Dorota Reykowska & Marcin Zyszkiewicz & Rafal Ohme, 2021. "Make it or Break it: Vaccination Intention at the Time of Covid-19," iCite Working Papers 2021-043, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Paula B. Repetto & Javiera V. Castañeda & Eliana Guic, 2020. "Understanding the Relationship Between Direct Experience and Risk Perception of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2057-2070, October.
    3. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    4. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    5. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2015. "Examining Public Trust in Risk‐Managing Organizations After a Major Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 57-67, January.
    6. Julie L. Demuth, 2018. "Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience for Tornadoes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1921-1943, September.
    7. Huiyun Zhu & Kecheng Liu, 2021. "Capturing the Interplay between Risk Perception and Social Media Posting to Support Risk Response and Decision Making," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-14, May.
    8. Keshun Zhang & Elizabeth J. Parks-Stamm & Yaqi Ji & Haiyan Wang, 2021. "Beyond Flood Preparedness: Effects of Experience, Trust, and Perceived Risk on Preparation Intentions and Financial Risk-Taking in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Ewa Lechowska, 2018. "What determines flood risk perception? A review of factors of flood risk perception and relations between its basic elements," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1341-1366, December.
    10. Michalis Diakakis & Michalis Skordoulis & Petros Kyriakopoulos, 2022. "Public Perceptions of Flood and Extreme Weather Early Warnings in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    11. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.
    12. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    13. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    14. Yi Ge & Guangfei Yang & Xiaotao Wang & Wen Dou & Xueer Lu & Jie Mao, 2021. "Understanding risk perception from floods: a case study from China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(3), pages 3119-3140, February.
    15. Elisabeth Maidl & David N. Bresch & Matthias Buchecker, 2021. "Social integration matters: factors influencing natural hazard risk preparedness—a survey of Swiss households," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 1861-1890, January.
    16. Ewa Lechowska, 2022. "Approaches in research on flood risk perception and their importance in flood risk management: a review," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 111(3), pages 2343-2378, April.
    17. Joop de Boer & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Teun Terpstra, 2015. "More Than Fear Induction: Toward an Understanding of People's Motivation to Be Well‐Prepared for Emergencies in Flood‐Prone Areas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 518-535, March.
    18. Cristóbal De La Maza & Alex Davis & Cleotilde Gonzalez & Inês Azevedo, 2019. "Understanding Cumulative Risk Perception from Judgments and Choices: An Application to Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 488-504, February.
    19. Soichiro Maruta & Akinori Kitsuki & Shunsuke Managi, 2020. "Perceived Arrival Time of Disaster Relief Supplies Matters for Household Preparedness for Natural Disasters," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 365-384, July.
    20. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Attitudes; Big data; Covid-19; iCode™; Machine learning techniques; Random Forest; Response time; Vaccination;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ict:wpaper:2013/327150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iculbbe.html .

    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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iculbbe.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.