ECOS – European COVID Survey

本研究计划的目的是为COVID-19大流行背景下公共卫生干预措施的行为有效性和可接受性提供科学证据。为了实现这一目标，我们采用了一种克服以往研究局限性的研究设计。首先，我们的目标是继续收集数据，保留自大流行开始以来在我们的四波欧洲COVID调查（ECOS）中进行的面板数据设计。该调查对七个国家（丹麦、法国、德国、意大利、荷兰、葡萄牙和英国）各有代表性，每个国家有1000名受访者。其次，我们将把经验数据与实验结合起来，以便对因果关系进行更有力的推断。在我们调查个体风险感知在保护行为变化中的作用的过程中，我们将通过模拟假设情况和进行经济激励的随机实验，获得风险感知并具体引出风险偏好。继续收集数据将使我们能够回答以下研究问题：1)我们能否依靠大流行期间的个人风险感知作为坚持保护行为的激励因素？2)诱导风险认知的改变能否导致保护行为的改变或改变保护行为的意图？3)风险观念是如何形成的，它们是如何发展的，以及它们是否因为大流行期间的保护行为而改变？第三，我们将探讨各国疫苗运动的时间差异，通过采用差异中的差异方法来衡量因果关系。在每次数据收集中，我们使用支付意愿法（WTP）得出了两种COVID-19疫苗的可接受性。持续的数据收集将使我们能够回答以下研究问题：1)随着时间的推移，七个欧洲国家COVID-19疫苗WTP的（行为）决定因素是什么？2)从WTP数据中产生哪些分配优先级，这些与受访者所陈述的偏好相比如何？3)与整体人口相比，信息运动和/或疫苗可获得性是否会改变人口中子群体对疫苗的偏好强度？2019冠状病毒病大流行的影响在欧盟各地区和人口群体之间表现出高度异质性，这就需要制定有针对性的政策应对措施，并导致不同人口群体对政策措施的接受程度存在差异。鉴于此，我们的研究结果不仅对促进公共卫生应对COVID-19大流行具有重要意义，而且还将为应对未来的突发公共卫生事件提供行为见解。

The objective of this research proposal is to generate scientific evidence on behavioral effectiveness and acceptability of public health interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve this, we employ a research design that overcomes the limitations of previous studies. First, we aim to continue data collection, preserving the panel data design that has been carried since the onset of the pandemic in four waves of our European COVID Survey (ECOS). The survey is representative for each of seven countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom) with 1000 respondents for each country. Second, we will combine empirical data with experiments to allow for a stronger inference about the causal relationship. In our pursuit of investigating the role of individual risk perceptions in changes in protective behavior, we will both acquire risk perceptions and specifically elicit risk preferences through modelling hypothetical situations and conducting financially incentivized randomized experiments. The continuation of data collection will allow us to answer the following research questions: 1) Can we rely on individual risk-perceptions during the pandemic as motivating factors for adherence to protective behaviors? 2) Can eliciting changes in risk perceptions lead to changes in protective behaviors or intentions to alter protective behaviors? 3) How are risk perceptions formed, how do they develop, and do they change because of protective behaviors over the course of the pandemic? Third, we will explore time differences in the countries vaccine campaigns to measure causal effects by employing a difference in difference approach. Within each data collection, we elicited the acceptability for two COVID-19 vaccines using the willingness to pay methodology (WTP). A continued data collection will allow us to answer the following research questions: 1) What are the (behavioral) determinants of the WTP for COVID-19 vaccines in seven European countries over time? 2) Which distributional priorities arise from the WTP data, and how do these compare to respondents' stated preferences? 3) Do information campaigns and/or vaccine availability change the strengths of preferences for a vaccine in sub-groups of the population, compared to the populations as a whole? The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic showed to be highly heterogeneous across the EU regions and population groups triggering the need for tailored policy responses and causing heterogeneous acceptability of policy measures across population groups. In light of this, our findings will be important not only to facilitate public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic but will also provide behavioral insights for tackling future public health emergencies.