2022
DOI: 10.1038/s41597-022-01480-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spatial and Temporal Characterization of Activity in Public Space, 2019–2020

Abstract: The data reported here characterize spatial and temporal variation in the ratio of short-to-long-duration visits in public places (i.e., points of interest) in the United States for each week between January 2019 and December 2020. The underlying data on anonymized and aggregated foot traffic to public places is curated by SafeGraph, a geospatial data provider. In this work, we report the estimated number and duration of “short” (i.e., <4 hours) and “long” (i.e., >4 hours) visits to public places at the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Their main objective is to recognize simple activities performed by solitary individuals. In contrast, public spaces 13 , 14 offer a more complex scenario with a wider range of users and activities, including group interactions, posing greater challenges than those encountered in environments designed for individual use. This complexity in public settings has spurred considerable research interest 15 , 16 .…”
Section: Background and Summarymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their main objective is to recognize simple activities performed by solitary individuals. In contrast, public spaces 13 , 14 offer a more complex scenario with a wider range of users and activities, including group interactions, posing greater challenges than those encountered in environments designed for individual use. This complexity in public settings has spurred considerable research interest 15 , 16 .…”
Section: Background and Summarymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It records the number of visits paid to each POI by residents of each CBG, aggregated on a monthly basis, along with supplementary statistics such as popularity by week and by hour. Although this dataset is a sample of all happened activities, existing works (Kang et al 2020;Brelsford et al 2022) have validated its consistency with other datasets and representativeness of the real-world situation. To account for uneven sampling across CBGs, we follow the common practice (Chang et al 2021) to reweight POI visitations according to the ratio between the number of devices residing in each CBG to the corresponding CBG.…”
Section: Data Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…We estimate the total number of customers by county using county population, customer totals from each utility, and the coverage area of each utility. County population is derived from LandScan USA ( https://landscan.ornl.gov/ ) using the average of daytime and nighttime population 20 , 21 , information on utility customer totals is collected from the Energy Information Administration’s form 861 (EIA-861) ( https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861/ ), and Electric Retail Service Territories geospatial coverage data is drawn from Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) ( https://hifld-geoplatform.opendata.arcgis.com/ ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%