Residential mobility and the local context: Comparing long-term and short-term spatial trends of population movements in Greece

How do urban socio-economic characteristics shape a city's social recovery? An empirical study of COVID-19 shocks in China

“…First, based on previous studies on urban social recovery [ 2 , 25 , 33 , 51 ], the population mobility recovery was used as a proxy for social recovery, and the social recovery index (SRI) was constructed and used as the explained variable for this study [ [79] , [80] , [81] ]. where SRI i,t is the social recovery index of city i at time t , ITI i,t shows the intercity travel intensity of city i at time t , and ITI i,t’ shows the intercity travel intensity of city i for the same time t' in lunar calendar 2019.…”

“…In studies on sustainable cities after the COVID−19 epidemic, most existing work has focused on socioeconomic recovery. Population mobility associated with social relations has been widely used as an indicator of social recovery [ 2 , 25 , 33 , 51 ]. For example [ 25 ], constructed indicators such as relative recovery index and recovery gap index based on population migration index data from January 13 to April 8, 2020, to reveal the day-by-day characteristics, stage characteristics, and spatial and temporal patterns of China's short-term impact from the COVID-19 pandemic at multiple scales.…”

Agglomeration vs amenities? Unraveling the latent engine of growth in metropolitan Greece

“…Moreover, the inherent lack in direct information sources and relevant indicators may prevent the comprehensive estimation of an “all-inclusive” local capital acting as amenities in the study area (e.g., Gkartzios, 2013). However, the selection of indicators detailed above allowed a focus on specific examples (based on proxies) of well-defined place-based capitals (namely, access to nature [protected land], landscape beauty, mild climate, and cultural/tourism attractiveness), that were recognized as relevant amenities in the study area (Cuadrado-Ciuraneta et al, 2017; Salvati, 2020; Salvia et al, 2020).…”

New sights on the impact of spatial composition of production factors for socioeconomic recovery in the post-epidemic era: a case study of cities in central and eastern China

“…The limited access to bottom-up socioeconomic status and incomplete information related to the industry make it difficult to obtain quantitative estimates of the recovery from the shock of the epidemic. The indicators currently used to reflect socioeconomic recovery mainly involve three aspects: GDP ( Shan et al, 2018 ), population movement ( Salvati, 2020 ), and air pollutant concentration ( Zheng et al, 2020 ). However, socioeconomic indicators such as GDP and population movement are highly dependent on the statistical cycle and cannot reflect daily changes in GDP.…”