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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    8. Thalles Vitelli Garcez & Helder Tenório Cavalcanti & Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, 2021. "A hybrid decision support model using Grey Relational Analysis and the Additive-Veto Model for solving multicriteria decision-making problems: an approach to supplier selection," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 304(1), pages 199-231, September.
    9. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    10. van Valkenhoef, Gert & Tervonen, Tommi, 2016. "Entropy-optimal weight constraint elicitation with additive multi-attribute utility models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 1-12.
    11. Scholz, Michael & Dorner, Verena & Schryen, Guido & Benlian, Alexander, 2017. "A configuration-based recommender system for supporting e-commerce decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(1), pages 205-215.
    12. Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli & Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Eduarda Asfora Frej, 2019. "Decision neuroscience for improving data visualization of decision support in the FITradeoff method," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 933-953, December.
    13. Lienert, Judit & Duygan, Mert & Zheng, Jun, 2016. "Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 746-760.
    14. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    15. Doyle, John R., 1999. "Evaluating OR/MS research," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 403-405, June.
    16. John R. Doyle, 1999. "Elicitation and Context Effects in Judgments: Fixed Sum Versus Fixed Scale Frames," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(7), pages 972-979, July.
    17. Sam Park, Kyung & Sang Lee, Kyung & Seong Eum, Yun & Park, Kwangtae, 2001. "Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 557-563, November.
    18. Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli & Leydiana de Sousa Pereira & Anderson Lucas Carneiro de Lima Silva & Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Danielle Costa Morais & Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa, 2020. "Neuroscience experiment applied to investigate decision-maker behavior in the tradeoff elicitation procedure," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 289(1), pages 67-84, June.
    19. Mathieu Martin & Zéphirin Nganmeni & Craig A. Tovey, 2021. "Dominance in spatial voting with imprecise ideals," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(1), pages 181-195, July.
    20. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Xu, Yan, 2013. "Managing critical success strategies for an enterprise resource planning project," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(3), pages 604-614.

    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.