
How does the issue of the discount rate intersect the research on building energy efficiency and the topics into which it has branched? This contribution tries to answer the previous question through a comprehensive review of related studies. Those studies usually rely on two alternative assumptions. The first refers, explicitly or implicitly, to the notion of cost of capital and, hence, to the position of private stakeholders involved in the decision processes focusing on the adoption of energy-efficient measures in buildings. The second assumption relates to the notion of the social discount rate, which is meant to pursue intergenerational equity and environmental sustainability. As far as the results are concerned, the literature agrees that the discount rate is among the key parameters—possibly the most prominent—affecting the evaluation. However, despite the crucial role it plays, its calculation seldom relies on acknowledged methods and models. Furthermore, data sources sometimes lack consistency and accuracy. Some guidance and suggestions are provided as to the improvement of the discount rate estimation.
Citation: Sergio Copiello. Economic viability of building energy efficiency measures: a review on the discount rate[J]. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(2): 257-285. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021014
[1] | Hamdy M. Youssef, Najat A. Alghamdi, Magdy A. Ezzat, Alaa A. El-Bary, Ahmed M. Shawky . A new dynamical modeling SEIR with global analysis applied to the real data of spreading COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 7018-7044. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020362 |
[2] | Ayako Suzuki, Hiroshi Nishiura . Transmission dynamics of varicella before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan: a modelling study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 5998-6012. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022280 |
[3] | Anthony Morciglio, R. K. P. Zia, James M. Hyman, Yi Jiang . Understanding the oscillations of an epidemic due to vaccine hesitancy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(8): 6829-6846. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024299 |
[4] | Adil Yousif, Awad Ali . The impact of intervention strategies and prevention measurements for controlling COVID-19 outbreak in Saudi Arabia. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 8123-8137. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020412 |
[5] | Avinash Shankaranarayanan, Hsiu-Chuan Wei . Mathematical modeling of SARS-nCoV-2 virus in Tamil Nadu, South India. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(11): 11324-11344. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022527 |
[6] | Tao Chen, Zhiming Li, Ge Zhang . Analysis of a COVID-19 model with media coverage and limited resources. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 5283-5307. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024233 |
[7] | Gilberto González-Parra, Cristina-Luisovna Pérez, Marcos Llamazares, Rafael-J. Villanueva, Jesus Villegas-Villanueva . Challenges in the mathematical modeling of the spatial diffusion of SARS-CoV-2 in Chile. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(7): 1680-1721. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025062 |
[8] | Sarafa A. Iyaniwura, Musa Rabiu, Jummy F. David, Jude D. Kong . Assessing the impact of adherence to Non-pharmaceutical interventions and indirect transmission on the dynamics of COVID-19: a mathematical modelling study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8905-8932. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021439 |
[9] | Antonios Armaou, Bryce Katch, Lucia Russo, Constantinos Siettos . Designing social distancing policies for the COVID-19 pandemic: A probabilistic model predictive control approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 8804-8832. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022409 |
[10] | H. Swapnarekha, Janmenjoy Nayak, H. S. Behera, Pandit Byomakesha Dash, Danilo Pelusi . An optimistic firefly algorithm-based deep learning approach for sentiment analysis of COVID-19 tweets. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 2382-2407. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023112 |
How does the issue of the discount rate intersect the research on building energy efficiency and the topics into which it has branched? This contribution tries to answer the previous question through a comprehensive review of related studies. Those studies usually rely on two alternative assumptions. The first refers, explicitly or implicitly, to the notion of cost of capital and, hence, to the position of private stakeholders involved in the decision processes focusing on the adoption of energy-efficient measures in buildings. The second assumption relates to the notion of the social discount rate, which is meant to pursue intergenerational equity and environmental sustainability. As far as the results are concerned, the literature agrees that the discount rate is among the key parameters—possibly the most prominent—affecting the evaluation. However, despite the crucial role it plays, its calculation seldom relies on acknowledged methods and models. Furthermore, data sources sometimes lack consistency and accuracy. Some guidance and suggestions are provided as to the improvement of the discount rate estimation.
Since being first detected in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and the resulting disease COVID-19, has spread rapidly around the globe. Without a vaccine or generally effective treatment, the unprecedented international mitigation effort has instead focused on reducing transmission through travel restrictions, mandatory quarantines, work-from-home initiatives, school closures, and social distancing practices. These measures have in turn had detrimental effects on economic productivity, job stability, and overall quality of life, which in some regions has limited public willingness to abide by social distancing guidelines, even as cases have continued to rise. To date, COVID-19 has afflicted at least 33 million people worldwide and resulted in over 1 million deaths [1].
Mathematical modeling has played a significant role in understanding the primary transmission pathways and epidemiological parameters of the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies have estimated the basic reproductive number, a key measure of the transmissibility of a disease, of SARS-CoV-2 [2,3,4,5] and projected the disease's spread under a wide variety of public policy intervention scenarios, including variances in social distancing policies, travel restrictions, and face mask utilization [6,7,8,9,10,11]. Forecasting the extent of the spread of COVID-19, however, has been complicated by many factors, including evidence of asymptomatic spread [12,13], issues with parameter identifiability [14,15], and the uncertain mechanisms by which social behaviors have altered the spread of the disease to date[16,17,18].
Several methods have been proposed in the research literature for incorporating and evaluating the role of social perception and behavior changes in dynamical models of emerging infectious disease (see the excellent review paper [19]). The papers [20,21,22] incorporate social behavior changes into an SIR compartmental model by dividing the susceptible and infectious classes into individuals who initiate behavior changes to reduce transmission and those who do not, and allowing behavior change to transmit through social contact like a contagion. The papers [23,24,25,26,27] instead incorporate social distancing behavior by allowing perception to evolve as an independent state-dependent variable and having it feedback directly into the transmission rate. Other studies have focused on regional movement patterns, effectiveness of social distancing, and the summer release of school children followed by their return to classes in the fall [28]. The more recent study [29] specific to the study of COVID-19 incorporates public support for social distancing as a function of both infection level and economic losses.
In this paper, we present a novel modeling framework for incorporating social perception and behavior (Figure 2) into a compartmental SEIR model (Figure 1). Our model incorporates the effects of fear of infection (PI) and frustration with social distancing (Pω) on social distancing (ω), and the effects of social distancing on disease dynamics by modifying the transmission rate (β). Analysis of the corresponding system of differential equations (2.2) suggests that fear of infection can be an effective mitigator of disease spread but that a high level of frustration with social distancing can overwhelm these efforts and result in an uncontrolled outbreak (see Figure 4). Our analysis also suggests that delays in social feedback can lead to transient and sustained waves of infection, even in populations where the disease's spread is controlled (see Figure 5).
We fit the model to cumulative COVID-19 case and mortality data across several regions: Canada, the United States, Israel, Michigan, California and Italy (See Figures 6 and 7). Our analysis suggests that, although the capacity for secondary waves of infection after controlling the initial outbreak is widespread, the magnitude of the reduction in infection after the initial outbreak is a strong indicator of a society's ability to be able to mitigate the secondary waves. Regions which have significant reductions in infection after the initial outbreak, such as Canada and Israel, are predicted to have modest and controllable secondary waves. Countries which had only modest reductions in infection levels after the initial outbreak, such as the United States, are predicted to have large secondary waves which threaten to become uncontrolled outbreaks.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we develop the SEIR behavior-perception system (2.2), which incorporates social distancing, fear of infection, and frustration with social distancing as time-dependent variables capable of influencing the dynamics of disease spread. In Section 3, we analyze the SEIR behavior-perception system (2.2) and demonstrate the admissible behaviors in a variety of parameter regions, leading to controlled outbreaks, uncontrolled outbreaks, and sustained waves of infection. In Section 4, we fit the model to cumulative COVID-19 case and mortality data from several regions to estimate key epidemiological and social perception and behavior parameters of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Section 5, we summarize our results and avenues for future work. In Appendix A, we present the mathematical details of the stability results found in Section 3.
In this section, we introduce an SEIR behavior-perception feedback model of disease spread. The model consists of two parts: (a) an SEIR model for tracking the evolution of disease dynamics (Figure 1); and (b) a behavior-perception loop involving social distancing, fear of infection, and frustration with social distancing (Figure 2).
We consider the following classical SEIR model [30]:
For simplicity, we assume that only actively infectious individuals can transmit the infection to susceptible individuals, although we note that asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread is suspected in COVID-19 [12,13]. We assume that removed individuals cannot become susceptible to the illness again. It is currently unclear whether COVID-19 may be contracted multiple times but reinfection is not believed to be a significant factor in disease spread [31].
The dynamics of the SEIR model in Figure 1 can be modeling by the following SEIR system:
{dSdt=−βNSI,dEdt=βNSI−λE,dIdt=λE−γI,dRdt=γI, | (2.1) |
where the parameters are as in Table 1. Notice that the infectious period γ−1 is the expected number of days until an individual is no longer infectious, regardless of whether that is a result of recovery, death, quarantine, or another means.
Variable | Units | Description |
S≥0 | people | Susceptible individuals |
E≥0 | people | Exposed (non-infectious) individuals |
I≥0 | people | Infectious individuals |
R≥0 | people | Removed individuals |
ω∈[0,1] | % | Measure of social distancing behavior |
PI∈[0,1] | none | Measure of socially perceived fear of infection |
Pω∈[0,1] | none | Measure of socially perceived frustration with social distancing |
t≥0 | days | Time since start of simulation |
Parameter | Units | Description |
β≥0 | days−1 | Transmission rate |
λ−1≥0 | days | Incubation period |
γ−1≥0 | days | Infectious period |
kω≥0 | days−1 | Rate of social distancing behavior change |
kPI≥0 | days−1 | Rate of socially perceived fear of infection change |
kPω≥0 | days−1 | Rate of socially perceived frustration with socially distancing change |
N≥0 | people | Total population size (N=S+E+I+R) |
M≥0 | people | Threshold value of new daily infections for fear of infection |
q≥1 | none | Steepness parameter for fear of infection change |
ω∗∈[0,1] | % | Maximum reduction to social distancing due to frustration |
Although the SEIR system (2.1) cannot be solved explicitly, the dynamics are well-understood. Trajectories with non-negative initial conditions stay non-negative and satisfy the population size conservation equation N=S(t)+E(t)+I(t)+R(t). Trajectories asymptotically approach the steady state (ˉS,ˉE,ˉI,H)=(N−R∗,0,0,R∗) where R∗ is the solution of N−R∗=e−βNγR∗. The value of R∗ is the extent of the disease since it corresponds to the number of people who contracted the disease during its course.
The critical parameter for determining whether a disease will spread or die in a population is the basic reproductive number, R0, which quantifies the expected number of secondary infections produced by one active infection entering a fully susceptible population. When R0>1 we expect an outbreak and when R0<1 we expect no outbreak. For the SEIR model in Figure 1 and corresponding system (2.1), the basic reproductive number is R0=βγ, which can be calculated using the next-generation method [32,33,34]. It follows that there will be an outbreak in (2.1) if β>γ while the disease will dissipate without an outbreak if β<γ.
The SEIR model in Figure 1 by itself does not account for the possibility that individuals may alter their behavior, and therefore the disease's trajectory, in response to the disease's spread. Since there is no vaccine or generally effective treatment for the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, mitigation efforts have necessarily focused on modifications to social behavior such as social distancing, hand washing, and face mask utilization.
We extend the SEIR model in Figure 1 to incorporate the effects of social perception and behavior change with the following:
We now extend the SEIR system (2.1) to include social perceptions and behavior. We assume that the rates of changes of ω, PI, and Pω are influenced by variables with arrows leading to it in Figure 2 and that, in the absence of disease, ω, PI, and Pω will decay to zero. This gives the following SEIR behavior-perception system:
{dSdt=−β(1−ω)NSI,dEdt=β(1−ω)NSI−λE,dIdt=λE−γI,dRdt=γI,dωdt=kω(f(PI,Pω)−ω),dPIdt=kPI(g(λE)−PI),dPωdt=kPω(h(ω)−Pω). | (2.2) |
Notice that the social perception variables PI and Pω influence the social behavior variable ω which in turn influences the effective transmission rate β(1−ω), as outlined in Figure 2. Notice also that we use the daily number of new active cases λE as the catalyst for social perception change rather than the number of current active infections I, as used in [29]. We believe λE correlates better with publicly reported case incidence data than the current infection level I.
We utilize the following functions f, g, and h:
f(PI,Pω)=PI(1−ω∗Pω), | (2.3) |
g(λE)=(λE)qMq+(λE)q, | (2.4) |
h(ω)=ω. | (2.5) |
We use a Hill function [35] on the level of new infections λE to control the perceived fear of infection (2.4) and note that this function become more "switch-like" around the threshold value M as q grows (see Figure 3). The parameters kω, kPI, kPω, q, M, and ω∗ are as in Table 1.
To further illustrate how social perception and behavior influences disease dynamics, we take ω, PI, and Pω at quasi-steady state in (2.2). This gives the following relationship for the level of new daily infections λE on the social distancing variable ω:
ω=(λE)qMq+(1+ω∗)(λE)q. | (2.6) |
Illustration of the effect of the parameters q, M, and ω∗ on the relationship (2.6) is contained in Figure 3.
In this section, we analyze the SEIR behavior-perception system (2.2) by considering reduced models which simulate the early-stage dynamics of the outbreak. We show that there are three dominants modes of behavior—no outbreak, controlled outbreak, and uncontrolled outbreak. We also show that the system (2.2) has the capacity for transient and sustained waves of infection, and investigate how this depends upon the delays in the social perception and behavior changes.
We reduce the behavior-perception model (2.2) to consider the early-stage dynamics when nearly everyone in the population is susceptible to illness. To accomplish this, we set S=N and remove the equations for S and R. To further investigate the mechanisms which contribute to secondary waves of infection, we consider three scenarios on the delays in social perception—no delays, one delay, and two delays. In all cases, we state the model with frustration with social distancing included but can remove this variable by taking ω∗=0.
Model I: No delays. We assume that the social perception and behavior variables in (2.2) operate on a significantly faster time scale than the disease dynamic variables. On the slow-time scale of the disease dynamics variables, this corresponds to taking ω, PI, and Pω in (2.2) at steady state, which yields (2.6). Substituting (2.6) into (2.2) and removing S and R gives the following reduced no delay SEIR behavior-perception system:
{dEdt=β(1−(λE)qMq+(1+ω∗)(λE)q)I−λE,dIdt=λE−γI. | (3.1) |
The behavior of this model is a reasonable approximation of that of (2.2) so long as the outbreak remains small (S≈N) and the social perceptions and behavior variables evolve on a significantly faster time-scale than the disease dynamics variables.
Model II: One delay. We assume that fear of infection evolves on a faster time scale than the remainder of the variables, which corresponds to taking PI at steady state in (2.2). After removing S and R, this gives the reduced one delay SEIR behavior-perception system:
{dEdt=β(1−ω)I−λE,dIdt=λE−γI,dωdt=kω((λE)qMq+(λE)q(1−ω∗Pω)−ω),dPωdt=kPω(ω−Pω). | (3.2) |
This model approximates (2.2) when the outbreak remains small (S≈N) and social perception of the disease evolves on a significantly faster time-scale than social behavior change or frustration due to social distancing. This is appropriate in societies where information is readily available due to media and other vectors of mass communication, but will or capability to change social behavior is limited.
Model III: Two delays. We remove S and R but do not assume any social perception or behavior variables operate on a significantly faster time scale than the disease spread variables. This gives the reduced two delay SEIR behavior-perception system:
{dEdt=β(1−ω)I−λE,dIdt=λE−γI,dωdt=kω(PI(1−ω∗Pω)−ω),dPIdt=kPI((λE)qMq+(λE)q−PI),dPωdt=kPω(ω−Pω). | (3.3) |
This model is the closest approximation of (2.2) since it only assumes that changes in S occur on a slower time scale than the remainder of the variables. The system (3.3) is appropriate for studying the early stages of an outbreak, diseases which are not easily transmitted, or diseases which are significant controlled through social intervention and never enter a mode of true outbreak.
The primary epidemiological parameter for determining whether an outbreak will occur is the basic reproductive number R0. This value corresponds to the expected number of secondary infections resulting from a single primary infection in a fully susceptible population (i.e., early in an outbreak when S≈N). Consequently, when R0<1 it is predicted that the disease will die off before an outbreak occurs, while if R0>1 it is predicted that the disease will spread.
To determine the basic reproductive number, we consider the disease-free steady state
(ˉE,ˉI,ˉω,¯PI,¯Pω)df=(0,0,0,0,0) of the reduced models (3.1), (3.2), and (3.3), and apply the next-generation method [32,33,34]. We will use this single steady state for all three reduced models by restricting to the relevant model variables as required. For all three models, it can be computed that the dominant eigenvalue of the next-generation matrix at the disease-free state is βγ so that R0=βγ. It follows that the disease will die off if β<γ and we will have an outbreak if β>γ.
The reduced models (3.1), (3.2), and (3.3) also have an endemic steady state, which is given by
(ˉE,ˉI,ˉω,¯PI,¯Pω)end=(Mλ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q,Mγ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q,β−γβ,β−γβ−ω∗(β−γ),β−γβ). | (3.4) |
Notice that the endemic steady state (3.4) is only physically meaningful for any of the three reduced models when 0<β−γ<γω∗. Again, we can consider (3.4) to be the steady state for all three reduced models by restricting to the appropriate model variables.
The endemic steady state (3.4) corresponds to a controlled outbreak where the the fear of infection keeps the spread of the disease from growing uncontrolled (see Figure 4). Notice, however, that if ω∗ is sufficiently high, the endemic steady state is not physically relevant and the system exhibits a full outbreak similar to as though no social interventions had taken place. This suggests that frustration with social distancing can undo the gains in mitigating disease spread given by fear of infection and the resultant social distancing.
To further understand the behavior of the reduced models (3.1), (3.2), and (3.3), and therefore the full SEIR behavior-perception model (2.2), we conduct linear stability analysis on the disease-free and endemic steady states of the reduced model (see Appendix A for mathematical details). A summary of the analysis is contained in Table 2. Simulations of the full SEIR behavior-perception model (2.2) are contained in Figure 4 for various values of the transmission rate β and sharpness parameter q.
Model | Behavior | Parameter range | Disease-free steady state | Endemic steady state | Oscillations |
no delays (3.1) | No outbreak | β<γ | stable | DNE | none |
Controlled outbreak | 0<β−γ<γω∗ | unstable | stable | ||
Uncontrolled outbreak | β−γ>γω∗ | unstable | DNE | ||
one delay (3.2) | No outbreak | β<γ | stable | DNE | transient |
Controlled outbreak | 0<β−γ<γω∗ | unstable | stable | ||
Uncontrolled outbreak | β−γ>γω∗ | unstable | DNE | ||
two delays (3.3) | No outbreak | β<γ | stable | DNE | sustained |
Controlled outbreak | 0<β−γ<γω∗ | unstable | varies∗ | ||
Uncontrolled outbreak | β−γ>γω∗ | unstable | DNE |
These analyses suggest three distinct possibilities for the dynamics:
(i) No outbreak when β<γ (green in Figure 4). In this case, the overall level of infection E(t)+I(t) tends monotonically to zero. This corresponds to a disease which is not virulent enough to maintain presence in a population.
(ii) Controlled outbreak when 0<β−γ<γω∗ (blue in Figure 4). In this case, the infection nears the endemic steady state (3.4). This corresponds to a population which, through social perception and behavior feedback, is able to tolerate a certain amount of ambient infection without ever fully ridding it from the population.
(iii) Uncontrolled outbreak when β−γ>γω∗ (red in Figure 4). In this case, the infection runs through the population relatively unimpeded and forms a characteristic infection peak. This corresponds to a population for which the frustration of social distancing is simply too great to allow the level of social behavior change required to mitigate the disease's spread.
Note that the parameter bounds for these three cases can be stated in terms of the basic reproductive number R0=βγ. Defining Rcrit=1+ω∗ω∗, we have that the system (2.2) exhibits no outbreak if 0<R0<1, a controlled outbreak if 1<R0<Rcrit, and an uncontrolled outbreak if Rcrit<R0. Intuitively, diseases with high reproductive numbers require less frustration with social distancing in order to revert to full outbreaks. In contrast, outbreaks of diseases with low basic reproductive numbers and high levels of frustration can still be controlled since the disease does not spread as fast. For diseases with high reproductive numbers, it is crucial that mitigation strategies are implemented in such a way that frustrations with disease mitigation strategies do not feedback to cause a decrease in social distancing.
Significant discussion and public policy planning has centered around the possibility of secondary waves of infection. It is widely feared that after initial success in mitigating the spread of COVID-19, social perceptions and behaviors will change in response to falling infection numbers and that this will lead to a second wave of infection, and indeed this is suspected to be occurring in several regions around the world. Given the costs associated with social restrictions, predicting and assessing the timing and scale of potential second waves of infection is an area of significant research and concern.
To analyze the possibility of secondary waves of infection in the SEIR behavior-perception system (2.2), we further analyze the stability of the endemic steady state (3.4). The mathematical analysis is contained in Appendix A and the results are summarized in Table 2. We see that no oscillations are possible for the reduced no delay system (3.1), transient but not sustained oscillations (i.e., limit cycles) are possible in certain parameter regions for the one delay system (3.2), and both transient and sustained oscillations are possible in certain parameter regions for the two-delay system (3.3). This analysis suggests that delays in the social feedback and behavior variables play a key role in the generating the capacity for secondary waves of infection. The distinctions between no oscillations, transient oscillations, and sustained oscillations for the full SEIR behavior-perception model (2.2) are illustrated in Figure 5.
In this section, we fit the SEIR behavior-perception system (2.2) to COVID-19 case incidence and mortality data. Data is taken from the database hosted by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University [36]. In additional to cumulative cases, we fit to the number of deaths. For model fitting purpose, we divided the removed class into a healed class (H) and death class (D), and replaced the dRdt equation in (2.2) with
dHdt=μIdDdt=δI, |
so that R(t)=H(t)+D(t) and γ=μ+δ. For parameter estimation, we defined the cumulative cases from the model to be I(t)+H(t)+D(t). For fitting to death data, we used D(t) from the model. From there, β,λ,γ,μ,δ,kω,kPI,kPω,q,M,ω∗ and initial values ω(0),PI(0) and Pω(0) were estimated through nonlinear least-squares curve fitting to the cumulative reported case and mortality data and their corresponding rates of change. For each location, I(0) was set equal to the number of reported cases on the day the simulation started, and we assumed the values E(0)=200, R(0)=H(0)+D(0)=0, and S(0)=N−I(0)−E(0)−R(0), where N is the total population size. We used the built-in MATLAB functions fmincon and multistart to minimize the following objective function:
Obj(θ)=T∑i=1(c(θ,ti)−ˆci)2+(d(θ,ti)−ˆdi)2)+T∑i=T−10(rc(θ,ti)−ˆrci)2+(rd(θ,ti)−ˆrdi)2), |
where c(θ,ti) and d(θ,ti) are the estimated cumulative cases and death cases from the model with parameter set θ at the calendar date ti, respectively. ˆci and ˆdi correspond to the actual reported cumulative cases and death cases at calendar date ti. The second term consists of the rates of change of cumulative cases and death cases. That is, rc(θ,ti) and rd(θ,ti) are the rates of change of cumulative cases and death cases and ˆrci and ˆrdi are the actual rates of change from the data. T is the total number of data points. In the second sum, we only consider the last 10 data points as to make sure the trajectory of the solution is taken into account.
To test the model, we have selected six regions which have experienced different profiles in how the epidemic has spread: Canada, Italy, the United States, Israel, Michigan, and California. In Canada and Italy, after a substantial initial outbreak, the outbreak has been largely contained. In the United States, there was a large outbreak in March and April, a moderate dip in May and early June, and then a larger outbreak in July. In Israel, there was a small outbreak in March and April, a period of near eradication in May and June, and then a large outbreak in July. In Michigan, there was an initial outbreak that was largely contained, until early July where new cases of infection started to increase. California, much like the United States experienced a initial outbreak followed by a moderate dip in the month of April, and then entered the beginning of a much larger outbreak. The results are contained in Figures 6 and 7 and parameter values are contained in Table 3.
Parameter | Canada | United States | Israel | Michigan | California | Italy |
β | 1.369 | 1.672 | 0.904 | 2.153 | 1.470 | 1.788 |
λ | 0.701 | 0.370 | 0.6753 | 0.488 | 0.160 | 0.456 |
γ | 0.698 | 0.443 | 0.590 | 0.979 | 0.406 | 0.711 |
μ | 0.643 | 0.418 | 0.582 | 0.886 | 0.393 | 0.610 |
δ | 0.055 | 0.025 | 0.008 | 0.093 | 0.013 | 0.101 |
kω | 0.368 | 0.132 | 0.053 | 0.136 | 0.651 | 0.230 |
kPI | 0.042 | 0.108 | 0.064 | 0.202 | 0.085 | 0.071 |
kPω | 0.127 | 0.037 | 0.021 | 0.220 | 0.023 | 0.499 |
q | 40.09 | 32.45 | 40.04 | 50 | 6.905 | 17.02 |
M | 198.0 | 73.97 | 195.9 | 240.2 | 233.1 | 180.7 |
ω∗ | 0.836 | 0.419 | 0.954 | 0.733 | 0.604 | 0.492 |
N | 37590000 | 328200000 | 9152000 | 99870000 | 39510000 | 60360000 |
S(0) | 37589621 | 328198408 | 9151800 | 9986769 | 39509766 | 60359707 |
E(0) | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
I(0) | 179 | 1392 | 0 | 31 | 34 | 93 |
R(0) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
ω(0) | 0 | 0 | 0.187 | 0.177 | 0.144 | 0.121 |
PI(0) | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.183 | 0.165 | 0.089 | 0.078 |
Pω(0) | 0.019 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.166 | 0.109 |
Simulated model fits indicate that the SEIR behavior-perception model supports different epidemic profiles as fear of infection, social distancing and frustration with social distancing are allowed to dynamically change between 0 and 1. These profiles include controlled disease incidence with near eradication (Canada in Figure 6), loss of disease control and management (United States in Figure 6), and disease resurgence in the form of a secondary wave (Israel in Figure 6).
Figure 6 shows model fits to reported case data for Canada, the United States and Israel. The model fit for Canadian reported case data shows an initial outbreak in early March which is ultimately controlled over the following four months. The model predicts stable levels of high fear of infection while social distancing and frustration with social distancing both tend to sufficient levels for disease control and near eradication. On the other hand, the United States shows an initial outbreak which is temporarily controlled until late May. Fear of infection quickly saturates to 1, while frustration with social distancing slowly increases over time. After the initial increase in social distancing, the increasing levels of frustration lead to a steady decrease in social distancing levels which become insufficient for control or eradication and thus active cases of infection increase. Interestingly, Israel shows an initial outbreak followed by a period of near eradication of the disease. However, fear of infection and social distancing decrease to insufficient levels too quickly after the first wave of infections and leads to a secondary outbreak.
Figure 7 shows model fits of the SEIR behavior-perception system for Michigan, California and Italy. Michigan shows an initial outbreak that is relatively under control. However, the model predicts a period starting after mid-July where social distancing, fear of infection and frustration with social distancing begin to oscillate, but not to the extend seen in the Israel model fit from Figure 6. California experiences an initial outbreak that is only temporarily managed before increasing exponentially. After the initial outbreak, the rise in active cases is accompanied by high fear of infection and an increasing level of frustration with social distancing. This leads to a reduction in social distancing. Italy dynamically behaves similar to what is seen in Michigan and Canada. That is, after the initial outbreak, high fear of infection drives a period of stable social distancing and frustration with social distancing.
We have introduced an SEIR behavior-perception system (2.2) for modeling the feedback of social fear of infection and frustration with social distancing on the dynamics of disease spread. We have shown the following: (1) including fear of infection leads to a controlled outbreak the level of which depends on each society's tolerance for infection; (2) delays in the fear of infection can lead to secondary and sustained waves of infection; and (3) frustration with social distancing can overcome the fear of infection to lead to an uncontrolled outbreak. Where analytically possible, we have provided parameter ranges where the relevant behaviors occur.
We have also fit the model to cumulative COVID-19 case data from several regions: Canada, the United States, Israel, Michigan, California and Italy (See Figures 6 and 7). The fits obtained validate our SEIR behavior-perception model as capable of capturing the emergence of social-feedback-driven secondary waves of infection. Our analysis furthermore suggests that regions which experience significant reductions in new infection levels following their initial outbreak, such as Israel and Canada, are likely to be able to mitigate secondary waves of infection. Regions which experiences only moderate reductions in new infection levels, such as the United States, are likely to experience more dramatic secondary waves and are at increase risk for entering into an uncontrolled outbreak.
Using the full model (2.2), we estimated the basic reproductive number for Canada, United States, Israel, Michigan, California and Italy, to be 1.96, 3.78, 1.53, 2.2, 3.62 and 2.51 respectively. These estimations are inline with other studies [4,5]. In addition, the time varying effective reproductive number is now implicitly a function of the social behavior in the population, because of the incorporation of behavior-perception feedback variables, ω, PI and Pω. This effective reproductive number may provide further real-time and future insight into not only the disease dynamics, but the social dynamics that drive the spread of the disease.
The reduced model (3.1) produces a threshold number, Rcrit>1 such that when R0>Rcrit the solutions become unbounded. This unbounded behavior manifests itself within the full model (2.2) as the uncontrolled outbreak which forms a characteristic peak often seen in disease outbreaks. However, unlike in the reduced model, the full model has bounded solutions, because of the finite susceptible population. Thus herd immunity ultimately reduces the disease burden to zero and the disease dies out. These dynamics are illustrated in Figure 4.
The model introduced in this paper presents several immediate opportunities for further work.
1. The model (2.2) assumes the same critical infection level M for both the ascending and descending phases of disease dynamics. In practice, however, we have seen some countries quick to lockdown and slow to open up, while other countries are slow to lockdown and quick to open up, which suggests a different critical value M in the ascending and descending phase of an outbreak.
2. Currently, our estimates for the social distancing variable ω only come through disease prevalence. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, however, data on social mobility has been provided by several sources, including Google, Apple, and the United States Department of Transportation [37,38]. Further insight in the social mechanisms underlying disease dynamics might be gained by fitting ω to this data as well.
3. Numerical simulations such as those in Figure 5 suggest that the reduced SEIR behavior-perception model (3.3) undergoes a Hopf bifurcation as the endemic steady state (3.4) loses stability. Numerical results also suggest that trajectories of the reduced models (3.2) and (3.3) are bounded in the controlled outbreak scenario but unbounded for the uncontrolled outbreak scenario. These results are currently unproved.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
In this Appendix, we provide the mathematical stability analysis for the disease-free and endemic steady states of the reduced feedback systems (3.1), (3.2), and (3.3). We make use of the trace-determinant condition for planar systems [39] and the Routh-Hurwitz criterion for non-planar systems [40,41]. The Routh-Hurwitz conditions states that a given polynomial has all roots with negative real part if and only if the first column entries of the Routh-Hurwitz table are all positive. Consequently, if the Routh-Hurwitz table of the characteristic polynomial of a matrix has any first column entry which is negative, then the matrix has an eigenvalue with positive real part.
Assuming that ω, PI, and Pω (if considered) equilibriate immediately, (3.3) reduces to the following direct systems:
No frustration_With frustration_{dEdt=β(1−(λE)qMq+(λE)q)I−λE,dIdt=λE−γI.{dEdt=β(1−(λE)qMq+(1+ω∗)(λE)q)I−λE,dIdt=λE−γI. | (A.1) |
In addition to the disease-free steady state (ˉE,ˉI)df=(0,0), the system (A.1) has the endemic steady state
(ˉE,ˉI)end=(Mλ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q,Mγ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q), | (A.2) |
which is only physical meaningful if 0<β−γ<γω∗. We will consider the "With frustration" system in (A.1) and reduce to the "No frustration" case by taking ω∗=0.
We have the following result.
Theorem A.1. Consider the reduced direct SEIR behavior-perception models (A.1). The following behaviors are possible:
1. If β<γ then there is only the disease-free steady state and it is asymptotically stable.
2. If 0<β−γ<γω∗ then the disease-free steady state is unstable, and the endemic steady state is positive and asymptotically stable. Furthermore, trajectories near the endemic steady state may not exhibit oscillatory behavior.
3. If β−γ>γω∗ then there is only the disease-free steady state and it is unstable, and solutions become unbounded.
Proof. We consider the Jacobian of the system (A.1) evaluated at the disease-free steady state and the endemic steady state (A.2). After simplifying, we have
Jdf=[−λβλ−γ] and Jend=[−λ((β−γ)(γ−ω∗(β−γ))q+γβγβ)γλ−γ]. | (A.3) |
We have tr(Jdf)=−(λ+γ)<0 and det(Jdf)=−λ(β−γ). It follows that disease-free steady state is a stable node if β<γ (no outbreak) and a saddle if β>γ (controlled or uncontrolled outbreak). For the endemic steady state, we have
det(Jend)=(β−γ)(γ−ω∗(β−γ))λqβ,tr(Jend)=−(β−γ)(γ−ω∗(β−γ))λq+γβ(γ+λ)γβ. |
Since we are only concerned with the endemic steady state when 0<β−γ<γω∗, we have that det(Jend)>0 and tr(Jend)<0. It follows that the endemic steady state (A.2) of (A.1) is asymptotically stable whenever it exists.
In order for trajectories near the endemic steady state (A.2) to oscillate, we require that tr(Jend)2−4det(Jend)<0. To analyze this condition, we compute
tr(Jend)2−4det(Jend)=[λ(β−γ)(γ−ω∗(β−γ))q+γβ(λ−γ)]2+4λγ3β2γ2β2>0. | (A.4) |
It follows that the linearized system may not permit oscillations around the endemic steady state (A.2) so that (A.1) does not permit the oscillatory behavior.
To prove solutions become unbounded if β−γ>γω∗ (uncontrolled outbreak) we note that this condition implies that
(λE)q>0>(β−γ)Mqγ−ω∗(β−γ), |
for E>0. It follows that
(λE)qMq+(1+ω∗)(λE)q<β−γβ, |
so that
β(1−(λE)qMq+(1+ω∗)(λE)q)>γ. |
Now consider the quantity E+I. From (3.1) we have that
ddt(E+I)=[β(1−(λE)qMq+(1+ω∗)(λE)q)−γ]I>0. |
It follows that, provided E>0, then we have that E+I is continually increasing for all time. Now suppose that there is a least upper bound Elim+Ilim>0 such that E(t)+I(t)≤Elim+Ilim. It follows that E(t)+I(t) approaches a single point on this set and by continuity of (3.1), this point must be a steady state. When β−γ>γω∗, however, there is only the disease-free steady state and this does not lie on this set. It follows that there is not a least upper bound Elim+Ilim to E(t)+I(t). Consequently, it follows that
limt→∞E(t)+I(t)=∞. |
That is, the overall level of infection in the population is unbounded.
Assuming that fear of infection (PI) operates on a significantly faster timescale than the remainder of the variables, we can set dPIdt=0 in (3.3) to get the reduced one delay SEIR behavior-perception systems:
No frustration_With frustration_{dEdt=β(1−ω)I−λE,dIdt=λE−γI,dωdt=kω((λE)qMq+(λE)q−ω){dEdt=β(1−ω)I−λE,dIdt=λE−γI,dωdt=kω((λE)qMq+(λE)q(1−ω∗Pω)−ω),dPωdt=kPω(ω−Pω). | (A.5) |
The system (A.5) has the disease-free steady state (ˉE,ˉI,ˉω,¯Pω)df=(0,0,0,0) and the endemic steady state
(ˉE,ˉI,ˉω,ˉPω)end=(Mλ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q,Mγ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q,β−γβ,β−γβ), | (A.6) |
which again is only physical meaningful if 0<β−γ<γω∗. Once again, we will consider only the "with frustration" case and limit to the "no frustration" case by taking ω∗=0.
We have the following result.
Theorem A.2. Consider the reduced direct SEIR behavior-perception models (A.1). The following behaviors are possible:
1. If β<γ then there is only the disease-free steady state and it is asymptotically stable.
2. If 0<β−γ<γω∗ then the disease-free steady state is unstable, and the endemic steady state is positive and asymptotically stable. Furthermore, trajectories near the endemic steady state may or may not exhibit oscillatory behavior depending on the parameter values.
3. If β−γ>γω∗ then there is only the disease-free steady state and it is unstable.
Proof. The Jacobian of (3.2) evaluated at the disease-free steady state is
Jdf=[−λβ00λ−γ0000−kω000kPω−kPω]. | (A.7) |
The diagonal structure of (A.7) means the eigenvalues can be analysed by considering the decomposed matrices
[−λβλ−γ] and [−kω0kPω−kPω]. | (A.8) |
The right matrix in (A.8) has the eigenvalues λ1,2=−kω,−kPω<0 while the eigenvalues of the left matrix in (A.8) were considered in the proof of Theorem A.1. It follows that the disease-free steady state is a stable node if β<γ and a saddle if β>γ.
The Jacobian of (3.2) evaluated at the endemic steady state (ˉE,ˉI,ˉω,¯PI) (A.6) is
Jend=[−λγ−βMγ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q0λ−γ00λkωq(β−γ)1−1q(γ−ω∗(β−γ))1+1qβM(β−ω∗(β−γ))0−kω−ω∗(β−γ)kωβ−ω∗(β−γ)00kPω−kPω]. | (A.9) |
It is not feasible to determine the eigenvalues of (A.9) directly. The Routh-Hurwitz criterion, however, can be applied to the characteristic polynomial of (A.9). The first two entries of the Routh-Hurwitz table are 1 and λ+γ+kPω+kω, which are trivially positive. The third and fourth entries can be expanded and factored into terms which are either positive of contain factors of β−γ of β−ω∗(β−γ) (see supplemental computational material). We notice that the endemic condition 0<β−γ<γω∗ implies that
β−ω∗(β−γ)>γ−ω∗(β−γ)>γ−ω∗(γω∗)>0, |
so that the third and fourth Routh-Hurwitz entries are positive. The fifth entry is
kPωkωλ(β−γ)(γ−ω∗(β−γ))qβ−ω∗(β−γ). |
This is positive, so that all the first-column entries of the Routh-Hurwitz table are positive. It follows that all of the eigenvalues of (A.3) have negative real part so that the endemic steady state of (A.5) is locally asymptotically stable. It follows that the system with one delay is not consistent with sustained oscillations around the endemic steady state (A.6).
It is challenging to find explicit conditions on the parameters which guarantee (A.9) has complex eigenvalues. It can be checked numerically, however, that this is possible. One example set of parameters is β=0.2, λ=0.1, γ=0.1, q=10, M=100, kω=0.1, kPω=0.1, ω∗=0. Substituted in (A.9), this produces the eigenvalues: λ1=−0.1, λ2=−0.1, λ3,4=−0.1±0.2i. It follows that the one-delay models (A.5) permit transient waves of infection.
Now consider the full two delay model, with and without frustration with social distancing:
No frustration_With frustration_{dEdt=β(1−ω)I−λE,dIdt=λE−γI,dωdt=kω(PI−ω),dPIdt=kPI((λE)qMq+(λE)q−PI){dEdt=β(1−ω)I−λE,dIdt=λE−γI,dωdt=kω(PI(1−ω∗Pω)−ω),dPIdt=kPI((λE)qMq+(λE)q−PI),dPωdt=kPω(ω−Pω). | (A.10) |
The system (A.10) has the disease-free steady state (ˉE,ˉI,ˉω,¯PI,¯Pω)df=(0,0,0,0,0). The endemic steady state of (A.10) is
(ˉE,ˉI,ˉω,¯PI,¯Pω)end=(Mλ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q,Mγ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q,β−γβ,β−γβ−ω∗(β−γ),β−γβ), | (A.11) |
which is physically meaningful if and only if 0<β−γ<γω∗. We consider the "with frustration" case with the understanding that we can limit to the "no frustration" case by taking ω∗=0.
We have the following result.
Theorem A.3. Consider the reduced direct SEIR behavior-perception models (A.1). The following behaviors are possible:
1. If β<γ then there is only the disease-free steady state and it is asymptotically stable.
2. If 0<β−γ<γω∗ then the disease-free steady state is unstable, and the endemic steady state is positive. Trajectories near the endemic steady state may converge exponentially toward it, exhibit damped oscillations, or converge toward nearby limit cycles, depending on the parameter values.
3. If β−γ>γω∗ then there is only the disease-free steady state and it is unstable.
Proof. The Jacobian of (A.10) evaluated at the disease-free steady state is
[−λβ000λ−γ00000−kωkω0000−kPI000kPω0−kPω]. | (A.12) |
The diagonal structure of (A.12) means the eigenvalues can be analysed by considering the decomposed matrices
[−λβλ−γ] and [−kωkω00−kPI0kPω0−kPω]. | (A.13) |
The right matrix in (A.13) has the eigenvalues λ1,2,3=−kω,−kPI,−kPω<0 while the eigenvalues of the left matrix in (A.13) were considered in the proof of Theorem A.1. It follows that the disease-free steady state is a stable node if β<γ and a saddle if β>γ.
The Jacobian evaluated at the endemic steady state (ˉE,ˉI,ˉω,¯PI,¯Pω)end (A.11) is
[−λγ−Mβγ(β−γγ−ω∗(β−γ))1q00λ−γ00000−kωkω(β−ω∗(β−γ)β)−kωω∗(β−γ)β−ω∗(β−γ)λkPIq(β−γ)1−1q(γ−ω∗(β−γ))1+1qM(β−ω∗(β−γ))200−kPI000kPω0−kPω]. | (A.14) |
The eigenvalues of (A.14) cannot be reasonably computed directly. The Routh-Hurwitz condition, however, can be utilized to determine if the matrix permits eigenvalues with positive real part. The first two column entries of the Routh-Hurwitz table are 1 and λ+γ+kPI+kPω+kω, both of which are positive. The third entry can be factored as
−n(q,1)⋅q+n(q,0)d(q,0), | (A.15) |
where
n(q,1)=kPIλkω(β−γ)(γ−ω∗(β−γ)),n(q,0)=γ(kPI+kω+kPω)(λ+γ+kPω+kω)(λ+kPI+γ)(β−ω∗(β−γ))+βγkPωkω(kPω+kω),d(q,0)=γ(γ+kPI+kPω+kω+λ)(β−ω∗(β−γ)). |
For the endemic condition 0<β−γ<γω∗ we have so that n(q,1)>0, n(q,0)>0, and d(q,0)>0. It follows that (A.15) can be made negative by choosing
q>n(q,0)n(q,1). |
In particular, for any values of the parameters β,λ,γ,kPI, and kω we can choose q sufficiently large so that the first column of the Routh-Hurwitz table has a sign change, so that the endemic steady state (ˉE,ˉI,ˉω,¯PI,¯Pω)end (A.11) is unstable. The value of q increasing corresponds to the social behavior operating more and more like a switch. Independently, there is capacity for a sign change in the fourth Routh-Hurwitz coefficient; however, the algebra is too complicated to present here directly (see supplemental computational files for numerical results).
[1] |
Copiello S (2017) Building energy efficiency: A research branch made of paradoxes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 69: 1064-1076. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.094
![]() |
[2] |
Rajagopalan P, Dimoudi A (2018) Editorial note for low energy social housing. Energy Build 180: 29-31. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.027
![]() |
[3] |
Soebarto V, de Dear R, Zuo J, et al. (2018) Editorial note for Virtual Special Issue on energy performance to indoor environmental quality. Energy Build 166: 317-318. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.022
![]() |
[4] |
Galvin R, Sunikka-Blank M (2014) Disaggregating the causes of falling consumption of domestic heating energy in Germany. Energy Effic 7: 851-864. doi: 10.1007/s12053-014-9259-5
![]() |
[5] |
Huebner GM, Hamilton I, Chalabi Z, et al. (2015) Explaining domestic energy consumption— The comparative contribution of building factors, socio-demographics, behaviours and attitudes. Appl Energy 159: 589-600. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.028
![]() |
[6] |
Belaïd F (2016) Understanding the spectrum of domestic energy consumption: Empirical evidence from France. Energy Policy 92: 220-233. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.015
![]() |
[7] |
Copiello S, Gabrielli L (2017) Analysis of building energy consumption through panel data: The role played by the economic drivers. Energy Build 145: 130-143. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.053
![]() |
[8] |
Copiello S, Grillenzoni C (2017) Is the cold the only reason why we heat our homes? Empirical evidence from spatial series data. Appl Energy 193: 491-506. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.013
![]() |
[9] |
Gann DM, Wang Y, Hawkins R (1998) Do regulations encourage innovation?—the case of energy efficiency in housing. Build Res Inf 26: 280-296. doi: 10.1080/096132198369760
![]() |
[10] |
Sandén BA, Azar C (2005) Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets—economy wide versus technology specific approaches. Energy Policy 33: 1557-1576. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2004.01.012
![]() |
[11] |
Noailly J (2012) Improving the energy efficiency of buildings: The impact of environmental policy on technological innovation. Energy Econ 34: 795-806. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.07.015
![]() |
[12] |
Dalla Mora T, Peron F, Romagnoni P, et al. (2018) Tools and procedures to support decision making for cost-effective energy and carbon emissions optimization in building renovation. Energy Build 167: 200-215. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.030
![]() |
[13] |
Penna P, Prada A, Cappelletti F, et al. (2015) Multi-objectives optimization of Energy Efficiency Measures in existing buildings. Energy Build 95: 57-69. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.003
![]() |
[14] |
Omer AM (2008) Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 12: 2265-2300. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2007.05.001
![]() |
[15] |
Marszal AJ, Heiselberg P, Bourrelle JS, et al. (2011) Zero Energy Building—A review of definitions and calculation methodologies. Energy Build 43: 971-979. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.12.022
![]() |
[16] |
Palm J (2018) Household installation of solar panels—Motives and barriers in a 10-year perspective. Energy Policy 113: 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.047
![]() |
[17] |
Sartori I, Hestnes AG (2007) Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy Build 39: 249-257. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.07.001
![]() |
[18] |
Dixit MK, Fernández-Solís JL, Lavy S, et al. (2010) Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review. Energy Build 42: 1238-1247. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.016
![]() |
[19] |
Dixit MK, Fernández-Solís JL, Lavy S, et al. (2012) Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: A review paper. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16: 3730-3743. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.021
![]() |
[20] |
Copiello S (2016) Economic implications of the energy issue: Evidence for a positive non-linear relation between embodied energy and construction cost. Energy Build 123: 59-70. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.054
![]() |
[21] |
Copiello S (2019) Economic parameters in the evaluation studies focusing on building energy efficiency: a review of the underlying rationale, data sources, and assumptions. Energy Procedia 157: 180-192. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.179
![]() |
[22] |
Amstalden RW, Kost M, Nathani C, et al. (2007) Economic potential of energy-efficient retrofitting in the Swiss residential building sector: The effects of policy instruments and energy price expectations. Energy Policy 35: 1819-1829. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.05.018
![]() |
[23] |
Kumbaroğlu G, Madlener R (2012) Evaluation of economically optimal retrofit investment options for energy savings in buildings. Energy Build 49: 327-334. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.02.022
![]() |
[24] |
Zalejska-Jonsson A, Lind H, Hintze S (2012) Low-energy versus conventional residential buildings: cost and profit. J Eur Real Estate Res 5: 211-228. doi: 10.1108/17539261211282064
![]() |
[25] |
Brotman BA (2014) Green office construction: A discounted after-tax cash flow analysis. J Prop Invest Financ 32: 474-484. doi: 10.1108/JPIF-01-2014-0007
![]() |
[26] |
Becchio C, Bottero MC, Corgnati SP, et al. (2018) Decision making for sustainable urban energy planning: an integrated evaluation framework of alternative solutions for a NZED (Net Zero-Energy District) in Turin. Land Use Policy 78: 803-817. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.048
![]() |
[27] |
Marshall HE, Ruegg RT (1977) Energy Conservation through Life-Cycle Costing. J Archit Educ 30: 42-53. doi: 10.1080/10464883.1977.10758110
![]() |
[28] |
Bagatin M, Caldon R, Gottardi G (1984) Economic optimization and sensitivity analysis of energy requirements in residential space heating. Int J Energy Res 8: 127-138. doi: 10.1002/er.4440080204
![]() |
[29] | Gustafsson S-I (1993) Life cycle costing related to the refurbishment of buildings, In: Bull JW (Ed.), Life Cycle Costing for Construction, London, Chapman & Hall, 37-52. |
[30] |
Gustafsson SI (2000) Optimization of insulation measures on existing buildings. Energy Build 33: 49-55. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00062-1
![]() |
[31] | Verbeeck G, Hens H (2005) Energy savings in retrofitted dwellings: economically viable? Energy Build 37: 747-754. |
[32] |
Ouyang J, Lu M, Li B, et al. (2011) Economic analysis of upgrading aging residential buildings in China based on dynamic energy consumption and energy price in a market economy. Energy Policy 39: 4902-4910. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.025
![]() |
[33] |
Copiello S, Gabrielli L, Bonifaci P (2017) Evaluation of energy retrofit in buildings under conditions of uncertainty: The prominence of the discount rate. Energy 137: 104-117. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.06.159
![]() |
[34] |
Di Giuseppe E, Massi A, D'Orazio M (2017) Probabilistic Life Cycle Cost Analysis of building energy efficiency measures: Selection and characterization of the stochastic inputs through a case study. Procedia Eng 180: 491-501. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.208
![]() |
[35] | European Commission (2012) Guidelines accompanying Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012 supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings by establishing a comparative methodology f. Off J Eur Union 55: 1-28. |
[36] |
Kurnitski J, Kuusk K, Tark T, et al. (2014) Energy and investment intensity of integrated renovation and 2030 cost optimal savings. Energy Build 75: 51-59. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.01.044
![]() |
[37] |
Mora TD, Righi A, Peron F, et al. (2017) Cost-Optimal measures for renovation of existing school buildings towards nZEB. Energy Procedia 140: 288-302. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.143
![]() |
[38] | Damodaran A (2006) Valuation Approaches and Metrics: A Survey of the Theory and Evidence, New York. |
[39] |
Copiello S (2016) A Discounted Cash Flow variant to detect the optimal amount of additional burdens in Public-Private Partnership transactions. MethodsX 3: 195-204. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2016.03.003
![]() |
[40] | Böhm-Bawerk E von (1903) Recent Literature on Interest, London, The MacMillan co. |
[41] | Fisher I (1907) The Rate of Interest, New York, The MacMillan Co. |
[42] | Fisher I (1930) The Theory of Interest, New York, The MacMillan Co. |
[43] | Marshall A (1920) Principles of Economics, London, The MacMillan co. |
[44] |
Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O'donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. J Econ Lit 40: 351-401. doi: 10.1257/jel.40.2.351
![]() |
[45] |
Komendantova N, Patt A, Williges K (2011) Solar power investment in North Africa: Reducing perceived risks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15: 4829-4835. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.068
![]() |
[46] |
Liu N, Zhao Y, Ge J (2018) Do renters skimp on energy efficiency during economic recessions? Evidence from Northeast Scotland. Energy 165: 164-175. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.078
![]() |
[47] |
Trotta G (2018) The determinants of energy efficient retrofit investments in the English residential sector. Energy Policy 120: 175-182. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.024
![]() |
[48] |
Phua FTT (2018) The role of organizational climate in socially embedding construction firms' sustainability goals. Constr Manag Econ 36: 409-421. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2018.1424348
![]() |
[49] |
Gaspar K, Casals M, Gangolells M (2018) In situ measurement of façades with a low U-value: Avoiding deviations. Energy Build 170: 61-73. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.04.012
![]() |
[50] |
Kangas H-L, Lazarevic D, Kivimaa P (2018) Technical skills, disinterest and non-functional regulation: Barriers to building energy efficiency in Finland viewed by energy service companies. Energy Policy 114: 63-76. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.060
![]() |
[51] |
Wells L, Rismanchi B, Aye L (2018) A review of Net Zero Energy Buildings with reflections on the Australian context. Energy Build 158: 616-628. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.055
![]() |
[52] |
Palmer K, Walls M (2017) Using information to close the energy efficiency gap: A review of benchmarking and disclosure ordinances. Energy Effic 10: 673-691. doi: 10.1007/s12053-016-9480-5
![]() |
[53] |
Davis P, McCord MJ, McCluskey W, et al. (2017) Is energy performance too taxing?: A CAMA approach to modelling residential energy in housing in Northern Ireland. J Eur Real Estate Res 10: 124-148. doi: 10.1108/JERER-06-2016-0023
![]() |
[54] |
Liu J, Sun X, Lu B, et al. (2016) The life cycle rebound effect of air-conditioner consumption in China. Appl Energy 184: 1026-1032. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.100
![]() |
[55] |
Claudy M, Michelsen C (2016) Housing market fundamentals, housing quality and energy consumption: Evidence from Germany. Energy J 37: 25-43. doi: 10.5547/01956574.37.4.mcla
![]() |
[56] |
Wang Q, Ploskić A, Song X, et al. (2016) Ventilation heat recovery jointed low-temperature heating in retrofitting—An investigation of energy conservation, environmental impacts and indoor air quality in Swedish multifamily houses. Energy Build 121: 250-264. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.02.050
![]() |
[57] |
Ürge-Vorsatz D, Kelemen A, Tirado-Herrero S, et al. (2016) Measuring multiple impacts of low-carbon energy options in a green economy context. Appl Energy 179: 1409-1426. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.027
![]() |
[58] |
Langlois-Bertrand S, Benhaddadi M, Jegen M, et al. (2015) Political-institutional barriers to energy efficiency. Energy Strateg Rev 8: 30-38. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2015.08.001
![]() |
[59] |
Bouhou N-EI, Blackhurst MF, Torres P (2015) An empirical analysis of joint residential electricity efficiency gains within and across end uses: implications for demand-side management. Ecol Econ 110: 61-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.011
![]() |
[60] |
Abolarin SM, Shitta MB, Gbadegesin O, et al. (2015) An Economic Evaluation of Energy Management Opportunities in a Medium Scale Manufacturing Industry in Lagos. Int J Eng Res Africa 14: 97-106. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/JERA.14.97
![]() |
[61] |
Jeuland M, Pattanayak SK, Bluffstone R (2015) The economics of household air pollution. Annu Rev Resour Econ 7: 81-108. doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-100814-125048
![]() |
[62] |
Hsu D (2014) Improving energy benchmarking with self-reported data. Build Res Inf 42: 641-656. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2014.887612
![]() |
[63] |
Matisoff DC, Noonan DS, Mazzolini AM (2014) Performance or marketing benefits? The case of LEED certification. Environ Sci Technol 48: 2001-2007. doi: 10.1021/es4042447
![]() |
[64] |
Franceschini F, Maisano D, Mastrogiacomo L (2016) The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus. J Informetr 10: 174-182. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.006
![]() |
[65] |
Meester WJN, Colledge L, Dyas EE (2016) A response to 'The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus' by Franceschini et al. J Informetr 10: 569-570. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.011
![]() |
[66] |
Franceschini F, Maisano D, Mastrogiacomo L (2016) Empirical analysis and classification of database errors in Scopus and Web of Science. J Informetr 10: 933-953. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.003
![]() |
[67] | van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2007) VOS: A New Method for Visualizing Similarities Between Objects, In: Lenz H-J, Decker R (Eds.), Advances in Data Analysis: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the German Classification Society, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 299-306. |
[68] |
van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84: 523-538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
![]() |
[69] |
Waltman L, van Eck NJ, Noyons ECM (2010) A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. J Informetr 4: 629-635. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002
![]() |
[70] |
Waltman L, van Eck NJ (2013) A smart local moving algorithm for large-scale modularity-based community detection. Eur Phys J B 86: 471. doi: 10.1140/epjb/e2013-40829-0
![]() |
[71] | van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2014) Visualizing Bibliometric Networks, In: Ding Y, Rousseau R, Wolfram D (Eds.), Measuring Scholarly Impact, Cham, Springer International Publishing, 285-320. |
[72] |
Moon Y, Baran M (2018) Economic analysis of a residential PV system from the timing perspective: A real option model. Renew Energy 125: 783-795. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.138
![]() |
[73] |
Burhenne S, Tsvetkova O, Jacob D, et al. (2013) Uncertainty quantification for combined building performance and cost-benefit analyses. Build Environ 62: 143-154. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.01.013
![]() |
[74] |
Tadeu S, Tadeu A, Simões N, et al. (2018) A sensitivity analysis of a cost optimality study on the energy retrofit of a single-family reference building in Portugal. Energy Effic 11: 1411-1432. doi: 10.1007/s12053-018-9645-5
![]() |
[75] |
Copiello S (2018) Expansion of the Italian natural gas network to the Sardinia Island : Economic assessment. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 54: 297-308. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2018.04.010
![]() |
[76] |
Brown NWO, Malmqvist T, Bai W, et al. (2013) Sustainability assessment of renovation packages for increased energy efficiency for multi-family buildings in Sweden. Build Environ 61: 140-148. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.11.019
![]() |
[77] |
Fabbri R, Gabrielli L, Ruggeri AG (2018) Interactions between restoration and financial analysis: the case of Cuneo War Wounded House. J Cult Herit Manag Sustain Dev 8: 145-161. doi: 10.1108/JCHMSD-05-2017-0026
![]() |
[78] |
Newell RG, Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1999) The induced innovation hypothesis and Energy-Saving technological change. Q J Econ 114: 941-975. doi: 10.1162/003355399556188
![]() |
[79] | Walls M, Gerarden T, Palmer K, et al. (2017) Is energy efficiency capitalized into home prices? Evidence from three U.S. cities. J Environ Econ Manage 82: 104-124. |
[80] |
Wang J, Zhang Y, Wang Y (2018) Environmental impacts of short building lifespans in China considering time value. J Clean Prod 203: 696-707. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.314
![]() |
[81] |
Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Le Truong N (2018) Primary energy benefits of cost-effective energy renovation of a district heated multi-family building under different energy supply systems. Energy 143: 69-90. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.113
![]() |
[82] |
Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Tettey UYA (2017) Final energy savings and cost-effectiveness of deep energy renovation of a multi-storey residential building. Energy 135: 563-576. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.06.123
![]() |
[83] |
Faludi J, Lepech M (2012) Ecological payback time of an energy-efficient modular building. J Green Build 7: 100-119. doi: 10.3992/jgb.7.1.100
![]() |
[84] | Reddy BS, Assenza GB, Assenza D, et al. (2009) Energy efficiency and climate change: Conserving power for a sustainable future energy efficiency and climate change: Conserving power for a sustainable future, New Delhi, SAGE Publications India. |
[85] | Revesz RL, Stavins RN (2007) Chapter 8 Environmental Law, Handbook of Law and Economics, 499-589. |
[86] | Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, et al. (Eds.) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. |
[87] | Dasgupta P, Mäler K-G, Barrett S (1999) Intergenerational Equity, Social Discount Rates and Global Warming, In: Portney P, Weyant JP (Eds.), Discounting and intergenerational equity, Washington, DC, Resources for the Future, 51-79. |
[88] |
Weitzman ML (1998) Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate. J Environ Econ Manage 36: 201-208. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1998.1052
![]() |
[89] |
Weitzman ML (2001) Gamma Discounting. Am Econ Rev 91: 260-271. doi: 10.1257/aer.91.1.260
![]() |
[90] |
Hepburn C, Koundouri P, Panopoulou E, et al. (2009) Social discounting under uncertainty: A cross-country comparison. J Environ Econ Manage 57: 140-150. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2008.04.004
![]() |
[91] |
Goulder LH, Williams RC (2012) The choice of discount rate for climate change policy evaluation. Clim Chang Econ 03: 1250024. doi: 10.1142/S2010007812500248
![]() |
[92] |
Markandya A, Pearce DW (1991) Development, the environment, and the social rate of discount. World Bank Res Obs 6: 137-152. doi: 10.1093/wbro/6.2.137
![]() |
[93] |
Weitzman ML (1994) On the 'Environmental' Discount Rate. J Environ Econ Manage 26: 200-209. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1012
![]() |
[94] | Lind RC (1997) Intertemporal Equity, Discounting, and Economic Efficiency in Water Policy Evaluation, Climate Change and Water Resources Planning Criteria, Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands, 41-62. |
[95] |
Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbühler K (2003) Discounting and the environment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8: 8-18. doi: 10.1007/BF02978744
![]() |
[96] |
Howarth RB (2003) Discounting and uncertainty in climate change policy analysis. Land Econ 79: 369-381. doi: 10.2307/3147023
![]() |
[97] |
Dasgupta P (2008) Discounting climate change. J Risk Uncertain 37: 141-169. doi: 10.1007/s11166-008-9049-6
![]() |
[98] | Newell RG, Pizer WA (2003) Discounting the distant future: how much do uncertain rates increase valuations? J Environ Econ Manage 46: 52-71. |
[99] |
Newell RG, Pizer WA (2004) Uncertain discount rates in climate policy analysis. Energy Policy 32: 519-529. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00153-8
![]() |
[100] |
Gollier C (2010) Ecological discounting. J Econ Theory 145: 812-829. doi: 10.1016/j.jet.2009.10.001
![]() |
[101] |
Gollier C (2002) Time Horizon and the Discount Rate. J Econ Theory 107: 463-473. doi: 10.1006/jeth.2001.2952
![]() |
[102] |
Atkinson G, Mourato S (2008) Environmental Cost-Benefit analysis. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33: 317-344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020107.112927
![]() |
[103] |
Horowitz JK (1996) Environmental policy under a non-market discount rate. Ecol Econ 16: 73-78. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(95)00082-8
![]() |
[104] |
Philibert C (1999) The economics of climate change and the theory of discounting. Energy Policy 27: 913-927. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(99)00081-6
![]() |
[105] |
Winkler R (2006) Does 'better' discounting lead to 'worse' outcomes in long-run decisions? The dilemma of hyperbolic discounting. Ecol Econ 57: 573-582. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.013
![]() |
[106] | Freeman MC, Groom B (2016) How certain are we about the certainty-equivalent long term social discount rate? J Environ Econ Manage 79: 152-168. |
[107] | Homer S, Sylla R (2005) A History of Interest Rates, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons. |
[108] |
D'Adamo I, Gastaldi M, Morone P (2020) The post COVID-19 green recovery in practice: Assessing the profitability of a policy proposal on residential photovoltaic plants. Energy Policy 147: 111910. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111910
![]() |
[109] |
Croese S, Green C, Morgan G (2020) Localizing the sustainable development goals through the lens of urban resilience: Lessons and learnings from 100 resilient cities and cape town. Sustainability 12: 550. doi: 10.3390/su12020550
![]() |
[110] |
Elmqvist T, Andersson E, Frantzeskaki N, et al. (2019) Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nat Sustain 2: 267-273. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1
![]() |
[111] | Australian Department of Finance and Administration (2006) Handbook of cost-benefit analysis, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. |
[112] |
Fama EF, French KR (2004) The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Theory and evidence. J Econ Perspect 18: 25-46. doi: 10.1257/0895330042162430
![]() |
[113] | Sharpe WF (1964) Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J Finance 19: 425-442. |
[114] |
Blume ME, Friend I (1973) A new look at the capital asset pricing model. J Finance 28: 19-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01342.x
![]() |
[115] | French CW (2003) The Treynor capital asset pricing model. J Invest Manag 1: 60-72. |
[116] | Perold AF (2004) The Capital Asset Pricing Model. J Econ Perspect 18: 3-24. |
[117] |
Awerbuch S, Deehan W (1995) Do consumers discount the future correctly? A market-based valuation of residential fuel switching. Energy Policy 23: 57-69. doi: 10.1016/0301-4215(95)90766-Z
![]() |
[118] |
Albrecht J (2007) The future role of photovoltaics: A learning curve versus portfolio perspective. Energy Policy 35: 2296-2304. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.07.013
![]() |
[119] |
Menassa CC (2011) Evaluating sustainable retrofits in existing buildings under uncertainty. Energy Build 43: 3576-3583. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.030
![]() |
[120] | Lilford EV (2006) The corporate cost of capital. J South African Inst Min Metall 106: 139-146. |
[121] | Lilford EV, Minnitt RCA (2002) Methodologies in the valuation of mineral rights. J South African Inst Min Metall 102: 369-384. |
[122] |
Lilford E, Maybee B, Packey D (2018) Cost of capital and discount rates in cash flow valuations for resources projects. Resour Policy 59: 525-531. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.09.008
![]() |
[123] |
Torriti J (2012) Multiple-project discount rates for cost-benefit analysis in construction projects: A formal risk model for microgeneration renewable energy technologies. Constr Manag Econ 30: 739-747. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2012.692165
![]() |
[124] | D'Alpaos C, Bragolusi P (2018) Buildings energy retrofit valuation approaches: State of the art and future perspectives. Valori e Valutazioni 20: 79-94. |
[125] | Jacoboni C, Lugli P (1989) The Monte Carlo Method for Semiconductor Device Simulation, Vienna, Springer Vienna. |
[126] |
James F (1980) Monte Carlo theory and practice. Reports Prog Phys 43: 1145-1189. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/43/9/002
![]() |
[127] |
Nikolaidis Y, Pilavachi PA, Chletsis A (2009) Economic evaluation of energy saving measures in a common type of Greek building. Appl Energy 86: 2550-2559. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.04.029
![]() |
[128] |
Das P, Van Gelder L, Janssen H, et al. (2017) Designing uncertain optimization schemes for the economic assessment of stock energy-efficiency measures. J Build Perform Simul 10: 3-16. doi: 10.1080/19401493.2015.1099054
![]() |
[129] |
Mahdiyar A, Tabatabaee S, Sadeghifam AN, et al. (2016) Probabilistic private cost-benefit analysis for green roof installation: A Monte Carlo simulation approach. Urban Urban Green 20: 317-327. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.001
![]() |
[130] |
Cox M, Brown MA, Sun X (2013) Energy benchmarking of commercial buildings: a low-cost pathway toward urban sustainability. Environ Res Lett 8: 035018. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035018
![]() |
[131] |
Tian W, Heo Y, de Wilde P, et al. (2018) A review of uncertainty analysis in building energy assessment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 93: 285-301. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.029
![]() |
[132] | European Commission (2012) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012. Off J Eur Union L: 18-36. |
[133] |
Fennell P, Ruyssevelt P, Smith AZP (2016) Financial viability of school retrofit projects for clients and ESCOs. Build Res Inf 44: 889-906. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2015.1082779
![]() |
[134] |
Ondraczek J, Komendantova N, Patt A (2015) WACC the dog: The effect of financing costs on the levelized cost of solar PV power. Renew Energy 75: 888-898. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.053
![]() |
[135] | Rushing AS, Kneifel JD, Lippiatt BL (2013) Energy price indices and discount factors for life-cycle cost analysis—2013 : annual supplement to NIST Handbook 135 and NBS Special Publication 709, Gaithersburg, MD. |
[136] | Lavappa PD, Kneifel JD (2016) Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis—2016 Annual Supplement to NIST Handbook 135, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg, MD. |
[137] |
Paganin G, Angelotti A, Ducoli C, et al. (2017) Energy performance of an exhibition hall in a life cycle perspective: Embodied energy, operational energy and retrofit strategies. Energy Effic 10: 1343-1364. doi: 10.1007/s12053-017-9521-8
![]() |
[138] | Fujita KS (2016) Commercial Discount Rate Estimation for Efficiency Standards Analysis, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. |
[139] | Office of Management and Budget (1992) Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Washington, DC, US Office of Management and Budget. |
[140] | Australian Government (2007) Best practice regulation handbook, Canberra, Office of Best Practice Regulation. |
[141] | Steinbach J, Staniaszek D (2015) Discount rates in energy system analysis, Discussion paper commissioned by the Buildings Performance Institute Europe, Brussels. |
[142] |
Zhang Y, Si P, Feng Y, et al. (2017) Operation strategy optimization of BCHP system with thermal energy storage: A case study for airport terminal in Qingdao, China. Energy Build 154: 465-478. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.059
![]() |
[143] |
Yan X, Zhang X, Chen H, et al. (2014) Techno-economic and social analysis of energy storage for commercial buildings. Energy Convers Manag 78: 125-136. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.014
![]() |
[144] |
Qian D, Guo J (2014) Research on the energy-saving and revenue sharing strategy of ESCOs under the uncertainty of the value of Energy Performance Contracting Projects. Energy Policy 73: 710-721. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.013
![]() |
[145] |
Zhou S, Zhao J (2013) Optimum combinations of building envelop energy-saving technologies for office buildings in different climatic regions of China. Energy Build 57: 103-109. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.11.019
![]() |
[146] |
Liu CT, Hsieh BZ (2016) Assessment model for estimating CO2 commercial storage capacity in saline formations: A case study in Taiwan. Int J Greenh Gas Control 49: 14-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.02.016
![]() |
[147] |
Moore T, Morrissey J (2014) Lifecycle costing sensitivities for zero energy housing in Melbourne, Australia. Energy Build 79: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.04.050
![]() |
[148] |
Islam H, Jollands M, Setunge S (2015) Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost implication of residential buildings—A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 42: 129-140. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.006
![]() |
[149] |
Morrissey J, Meyrick B, Sivaraman D, et al. (2013) Cost-benefit assessment of energy efficiency investments: Accounting for future resources, savings and risks in the Australian residential sector. Energy Policy 54: 148-159. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.005
![]() |
[150] |
Bonakdar F, Dodoo A, Gustavsson L (2014) Cost-optimum analysis of building fabric renovation in a Swedish multi-story residential building. Energy Build 84: 662-673. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.003
![]() |
[151] | Copiello S, Bonifaci P (2015) Green housing: Toward a new energy efficiency paradox? Cities 49: 76-87. |
[152] |
Wu L, Mao XQ, Zeng A (2015) Carbon footprint accounting in support of city water supply infrastructure siting decision making: A case study in Ningbo, China. J Clean Prod 103: 737-746. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.060
![]() |
[153] |
Mata É, Sasic Kalagasidis A, Johnsson F (2015) Cost-effective retrofitting of Swedish residential buildings: Effects of energy price developments and discount rates. Energy Effic 8: 223-237. doi: 10.1007/s12053-014-9287-1
![]() |
[154] |
Brandão de Vasconcelos A, Cabaço A, Pinheiro MD, et al. (2016) The impact of building orientation and discount rates on a Portuguese reference building refurbishment decision. Energy Policy 91: 329-340. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.021
![]() |
[155] |
Liu X, Cui Q (2016) Assessing the impacts of preferential procurement on low-carbon building. J Clean Prod 112: 863-871. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.015
![]() |
[156] |
Guo F, Akenji L, Schroeder P, et al. (2018) Static analysis of technical and economic energy-saving potential in the residential sector of Xiamen city. Energy 142: 373-383. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.10.042
![]() |
[157] |
Ó Broin E, Mata É, Nässén J, et al. (2015) Quantification of the energy efficiency gap in the Swedish residential sector. Energy Effic 8: 975-993. doi: 10.1007/s12053-015-9323-9
![]() |
[158] |
Copiello S (2015) Achieving affordable housing through energy efficiency strategy. Energy Policy 85: 288-298. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.06.017
![]() |
[159] |
Copiello S (2016) Leveraging energy efficiency to finance public-private social housing projects. Energy Policy 96: 217-230. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.003
![]() |
[160] |
Schmidt TS, Born R, Schneider M (2012) Assessing the costs of photovoltaic and wind power in six developing countries. Nat Clim Chang 2: 548-553. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1490
![]() |
[161] |
Peters M, Schmidt TS, Wiederkehr D, et al. (2011) Shedding light on solar technologies—A techno-economic assessment and its policy implications. Energy Policy 39: 6422-6439. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.045
![]() |
[162] | Di Vita G (2008) Is the discount rate relevant in explaining the Environmental Kuznets Curve? J Policy Model 30: 191-207. |
[163] |
Mundaca L, Neij L, Worrell E, et al. (2010) Evaluating Energy Efficiency Policies with Energy-Economy Models. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35: 305-344. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-052810-164840
![]() |
[164] |
Mundaca L (2008) Markets for energy efficiency: Exploring the implications of an EU-wide 'Tradable White Certificate' scheme. Energy Econ 30: 3016-3043. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2008.03.004
![]() |
[165] |
Sovacool BK (2009) Rejecting renewables: The socio-technical impediments to renewable electricity in the United States. Energy Policy 37: 4500-4513. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.073
![]() |
[166] |
Ürge-Vorsatz D, Novikova A, Köppel S, et al. (2009) Bottom-up assessment of potentials and costs of CO2 emission mitigation in the buildings sector: insights into the missing elements. Energy Effic 2: 293-316. doi: 10.1007/s12053-009-9051-0
![]() |
[167] |
Gillingham K, Newell R, Palmer K (2006) Energy efficiency policies: A retrospective examination. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31: 161-192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.31.020105.100157
![]() |
[168] |
Howarth RB, Andersson B (1993) Market barriers to energy efficiency. Energy Econ 15: 262-272. doi: 10.1016/0140-9883(93)90016-K
![]() |
[169] | Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1994) The energy-efficiency gap What does it mean? Energy Policy 22: 804-810. |
[170] | Sorrell S, O'Malley E, Schleich J, et al. (2004) The Economics of Energy Efficiency: Barriers to Cost-Effective Investment, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. |
[171] |
Schleich J, Gruber E (2008) Beyond case studies: Barriers to energy efficiency in commerce and the services sector. Energy Econ 30: 449-464. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2006.08.004
![]() |
[172] |
Palm J, Reindl K (2018) Understanding barriers to energy-efficiency renovations of multifamily dwellings. Energy Effic 11: 53-65. doi: 10.1007/s12053-017-9549-9
![]() |
[173] |
Hassett KA, Metcalf GE (1993) Energy conservation investment. Energy Policy 21: 710-716. doi: 10.1016/0301-4215(93)90294-P
![]() |
[174] |
Gallagher KS, Muehlegger E (2011) Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology. J Environ Econ Manage 61: 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.004
![]() |
[175] |
Adan H, Fuerst F (2015) Modelling energy retrofit investments in the UK housing market. Smart Sustain Built Environ 4: 251-267. doi: 10.1108/SASBE-03-2013-0016
![]() |
[176] |
Schleich J, Gassmann X, Faure C, et al. (2016) Making the implicit explicit: A look inside the implicit discount rate. Energy Policy 97: 321-331. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.044
![]() |
[177] |
Zhang L, Wu J, Liu H (2018) Turning green into gold: A review on the economics of green buildings. J Clean Prod 172: 2234-2245. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.188
![]() |
[178] |
Hausman JA (1979) Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using Durables. Bell J Econ 10: 33. doi: 10.2307/3003318
![]() |
[179] |
Gately D (1980) Individual discount rates and the purchase and utilization of Energy-Using durables: Comment. Bell J Econ 11: 373. doi: 10.2307/3003422
![]() |
[180] |
Dubin JA, McFadden DL (1984) An econometric analysis of residential electric appliance holdings and consumption. Econometrica 52: 345-362. doi: 10.2307/1911493
![]() |
[181] |
Ruderman H, Levine MD, McMahon JE (1987) The behavior of the market for energy efficiency in residential appliances including heating and cooling equipment. Energy J 8: 101-124. doi: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol8-No1-7
![]() |
[182] | Dubin JA (1992) Market barriers to conservation: Are implicit discount rates too high? Calif Inst Technol Pasadena, Soc Sci Work Pap 802. |
[183] | Gates RW (1983) Investing in energy conservation: Are homeowners passing up high yields? Energy Policy 11: 63-71. |
[184] | Sutherland RJ (1991) Market barriers to energy-efficiency investments. Energy J 12: 15-34. |
[185] |
Jaffe AB, Stavins RN (1994) The energy paradox and the diffusion of conservation technology. Resour Energy Econ 16: 91-122. doi: 10.1016/0928-7655(94)90001-9
![]() |
[186] |
Metcalf GE, Hassett KA (1999) Measuring the energy savings from home improvement investments: Evidence from monthly billing data. Rev Econ Stat 81: 516-528. doi: 10.1162/003465399558274
![]() |
[187] |
Atmadja SS, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK, et al. (2017) Explaining environmental health behaviors: evidence from rural India on the influence of discount rates. Environ Dev Econ 22: 229-248. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X17000018
![]() |
[188] |
Train K (1985) Discount rates in consumers' energy-related decisions: A review of the literature. Energy 10: 1243-1253. doi: 10.1016/0360-5442(85)90135-5
![]() |
[189] |
Howarth RB, Sanstad AH (1995) Discount rates and energy efficiency. Contemp Econ Policy 13: 101-109. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.1995.tb00726.x
![]() |
[190] | Howarth RB (2004) Discount Rates and Energy Efficiency Gap, In: Cutler CJ (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Energy, New York, Elsevier, 817-822. |
[191] |
Newell RG, Siikamäki J (2015) Individual time preferences and energy efficiency. Am Econ Rev 105: 196-200. doi: 10.1257/aer.p20151010
![]() |
[192] | Edenhofer O, Pichs Madruga R, Sokona Y (Eds.) (2012) Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. |
[193] |
Qiu Y, Tiwari A, Wang YD (2015) The diffusion of voluntary green building certification: a spatial approach. Energy Effic 8: 449-471. doi: 10.1007/s12053-014-9303-5
![]() |
[194] | Qiu Y (Lucy), Su X, Wang YD (2017) Factors influencing commercial buildings to obtain green certificates. Appl Econ 49: 1937-1949. |
1. | Qifang Liang, Buping Liu, Chunping Liu, Wenxing Liu, Xiaoxue Han, Limei Wan, Xiaobo Chen, Peng wu, Hongyu Li, Yujiao Sun, Yubin Yang, Weixiong Chen, 2021, Visual analysis based on the research of SARS and COVID-19, 9781450390002, 38, 10.1145/3448748.3448756 | |
2. | Farai Nyabadza, Josiah Mushanyu, Rachel Mbogo, Gift Muchatibaya, Modelling the Influence of Dynamic Social Processes on COVID-19 Infection Dynamics, 2023, 11, 2227-7390, 963, 10.3390/math11040963 | |
3. | Jennifer M. Klasen, Deborah M. Tynes, Caspar J. Peterson, Romano Schneider, Katharina Timper, Ralph Peterli, Cameron L. Randall, Tarik Delko, The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients from a Bariatric Program: A Qualitative Analysis of Their Perceptions of Health and Well-Being, 2022, 10, 2227-9032, 780, 10.3390/healthcare10050780 | |
4. | Fatma Bozkurt, Ali Yousef, Thabet Abdeljawad, Adem Kalinli, Qasem Al Mdallal, A fractional-order model of COVID-19 considering the fear effect of the media and social networks on the community, 2021, 152, 09600779, 111403, 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111403 | |
5. | Tin Phan, Samantha Brozak, Bruce Pell, Anna Gitter, Amy Xiao, Kristina D. Mena, Yang Kuang, Fuqing Wu, A simple SEIR-V model to estimate COVID-19 prevalence and predict SARS-CoV-2 transmission using wastewater-based surveillance data, 2023, 857, 00489697, 159326, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159326 | |
6. | Kaiyan Peng, Zheng Lu, Vanessa Lin, Michael R. Lindstrom, Christian Parkinson, Chuntian Wang, Andrea L. Bertozzi, Mason A. Porter, A multilayer network model of the coevolution of the spread of a disease and competing opinions, 2021, 31, 0218-2025, 2455, 10.1142/S0218202521500536 | |
7. | Ali Yousef, A fractional-order model of COVID-19 with a strong Allee effect considering the fear effect spread by social networks to the community and the existence of the silent spreaders during the pandemic stage, 2022, 7, 2473-6988, 10052, 10.3934/math.2022560 | |
8. | Mohammad Masum, M.A. Masud, Muhaiminul Islam Adnan, Hossain Shahriar, Sangil Kim, Comparative study of a mathematical epidemic model, statistical modeling, and deep learning for COVID-19 forecasting and management, 2022, 80, 00380121, 101249, 10.1016/j.seps.2022.101249 | |
9. | Yoh Iwasa, Rena Hayashi, Waves of infection emerging from coupled social and epidemiological dynamics, 2023, 558, 00225193, 111366, 10.1016/j.jtbi.2022.111366 | |
10. | M. Ali Al-Radhawi, Mahdiar Sadeghi, Eduardo D. Sontag, Long-Term Regulation of Prolonged Epidemic Outbreaks in Large Populations via Adaptive Control: A Singular Perturbation Approach, 2022, 6, 2475-1456, 578, 10.1109/LCSYS.2021.3083983 | |
11. | Kirti Jain, Vasudha Bhatnagar, Sadanand Prasad, Sharanjit Kaur, Coupling Fear and Contagion for Modeling Epidemic Dynamics, 2023, 10, 2327-4697, 20, 10.1109/TNSE.2022.3187775 | |
12. | Ali Yousef, Fatma Bozkurt, Thabet Abdeljawad, Emad Emreizeeq, A mathematical model of COVID-19 and the multi fears of the community during the epidemiological stage, 2023, 419, 03770427, 114624, 10.1016/j.cam.2022.114624 | |
13. | S. Manrubia, D. H. Zanette, Individual risk-aversion responses tune epidemics to critical transmissibility ( R = 1) , 2022, 9, 2054-5703, 10.1098/rsos.211667 | |
14. | Giulia De Meijere, Vittoria Colizza, Eugenio Valdano, Claudio Castellano, Effect of delayed awareness and fatigue on the efficacy of self-isolation in epidemic control, 2021, 104, 2470-0045, 10.1103/PhysRevE.104.044316 | |
15. | Wasim Abbas, Masud M. A., Anna Park, Sajida Parveen, Sangil Kim, Siew Ann Cheong, Evolution and consequences of individual responses during the COVID-19 outbreak, 2022, 17, 1932-6203, e0273964, 10.1371/journal.pone.0273964 | |
16. | Musa Rabiu, Sarafa A. Iyaniwura, Assessing the potential impact of immunity waning on the dynamics of COVID-19 in South Africa: an endemic model of COVID-19, 2022, 109, 0924-090X, 203, 10.1007/s11071-022-07225-9 | |
17. | Jinming Wan, Genki Ichinose, Michael Small, Hiroki Sayama, Yamir Moreno, Changqing Cheng, Multilayer networks with higher-order interaction reveal the impact of collective behavior on epidemic dynamics, 2022, 164, 09600779, 112735, 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112735 | |
18. | Bruce Kuwahara, Chris T. Bauch, Predicting Covid-19 pandemic waves with biologically and behaviorally informed universal differential equations, 2024, 10, 24058440, e25363, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25363 | |
19. | Peter Miller, Kira Button, Nicholas Taylor, Kerri Coomber, Ryan Baldwin, Travis Harries, Brittany Patafio, Tahnee Guala, Nathan Harris, Ashlee Curtis, Gery C. Karantzas, Petra K. Staiger, Dominique de Andrade, The Impact of COVID-19 on Trends of Violence-Related Offences in Australia, 2023, 13, 2210-6014, 504, 10.1007/s44197-023-00131-2 | |
20. | Matthew Ryan, Emily Brindal, Mick Roberts, Roslyn I. Hickson, A behaviour and disease transmission model: incorporating the Health Belief Model for human behaviour into a simple transmission model, 2024, 21, 1742-5662, 10.1098/rsif.2024.0038 | |
21. | Iulia Martina Bulai, Mattia Sensi, Sara Sottile, A geometric analysis of the SIRS compartmental model with fast information and misinformation spreading, 2024, 185, 09600779, 115104, 10.1016/j.chaos.2024.115104 |
Variable | Units | Description |
S≥0 | people | Susceptible individuals |
E≥0 | people | Exposed (non-infectious) individuals |
I≥0 | people | Infectious individuals |
R≥0 | people | Removed individuals |
ω∈[0,1] | % | Measure of social distancing behavior |
PI∈[0,1] | none | Measure of socially perceived fear of infection |
Pω∈[0,1] | none | Measure of socially perceived frustration with social distancing |
t≥0 | days | Time since start of simulation |
Parameter | Units | Description |
β≥0 | days−1 | Transmission rate |
λ−1≥0 | days | Incubation period |
γ−1≥0 | days | Infectious period |
kω≥0 | days−1 | Rate of social distancing behavior change |
kPI≥0 | days−1 | Rate of socially perceived fear of infection change |
kPω≥0 | days−1 | Rate of socially perceived frustration with socially distancing change |
N≥0 | people | Total population size (N=S+E+I+R) |
M≥0 | people | Threshold value of new daily infections for fear of infection |
q≥1 | none | Steepness parameter for fear of infection change |
ω∗∈[0,1] | % | Maximum reduction to social distancing due to frustration |
Model | Behavior | Parameter range | Disease-free steady state | Endemic steady state | Oscillations |
no delays (3.1) | No outbreak | β<γ | stable | DNE | none |
Controlled outbreak | 0<β−γ<γω∗ | unstable | stable | ||
Uncontrolled outbreak | β−γ>γω∗ | unstable | DNE | ||
one delay (3.2) | No outbreak | β<γ | stable | DNE | transient |
Controlled outbreak | 0<β−γ<γω∗ | unstable | stable | ||
Uncontrolled outbreak | β−γ>γω∗ | unstable | DNE | ||
two delays (3.3) | No outbreak | β<γ | stable | DNE | sustained |
Controlled outbreak | 0<β−γ<γω∗ | unstable | varies∗ | ||
Uncontrolled outbreak | β−γ>γω∗ | unstable | DNE |
Parameter | Canada | United States | Israel | Michigan | California | Italy |
β | 1.369 | 1.672 | 0.904 | 2.153 | 1.470 | 1.788 |
λ | 0.701 | 0.370 | 0.6753 | 0.488 | 0.160 | 0.456 |
γ | 0.698 | 0.443 | 0.590 | 0.979 | 0.406 | 0.711 |
μ | 0.643 | 0.418 | 0.582 | 0.886 | 0.393 | 0.610 |
δ | 0.055 | 0.025 | 0.008 | 0.093 | 0.013 | 0.101 |
kω | 0.368 | 0.132 | 0.053 | 0.136 | 0.651 | 0.230 |
kPI | 0.042 | 0.108 | 0.064 | 0.202 | 0.085 | 0.071 |
kPω | 0.127 | 0.037 | 0.021 | 0.220 | 0.023 | 0.499 |
q | 40.09 | 32.45 | 40.04 | 50 | 6.905 | 17.02 |
M | 198.0 | 73.97 | 195.9 | 240.2 | 233.1 | 180.7 |
ω∗ | 0.836 | 0.419 | 0.954 | 0.733 | 0.604 | 0.492 |
N | 37590000 | 328200000 | 9152000 | 99870000 | 39510000 | 60360000 |
S(0) | 37589621 | 328198408 | 9151800 | 9986769 | 39509766 | 60359707 |
E(0) | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
I(0) | 179 | 1392 | 0 | 31 | 34 | 93 |
R(0) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
ω(0) | 0 | 0 | 0.187 | 0.177 | 0.144 | 0.121 |
PI(0) | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.183 | 0.165 | 0.089 | 0.078 |
Pω(0) | 0.019 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.166 | 0.109 |
Variable | Units | Description |
S≥0 | people | Susceptible individuals |
E≥0 | people | Exposed (non-infectious) individuals |
I≥0 | people | Infectious individuals |
R≥0 | people | Removed individuals |
ω∈[0,1] | % | Measure of social distancing behavior |
PI∈[0,1] | none | Measure of socially perceived fear of infection |
Pω∈[0,1] | none | Measure of socially perceived frustration with social distancing |
t≥0 | days | Time since start of simulation |
Parameter | Units | Description |
β≥0 | days−1 | Transmission rate |
λ−1≥0 | days | Incubation period |
γ−1≥0 | days | Infectious period |
kω≥0 | days−1 | Rate of social distancing behavior change |
kPI≥0 | days−1 | Rate of socially perceived fear of infection change |
kPω≥0 | days−1 | Rate of socially perceived frustration with socially distancing change |
N≥0 | people | Total population size (N=S+E+I+R) |
M≥0 | people | Threshold value of new daily infections for fear of infection |
q≥1 | none | Steepness parameter for fear of infection change |
ω∗∈[0,1] | % | Maximum reduction to social distancing due to frustration |
Model | Behavior | Parameter range | Disease-free steady state | Endemic steady state | Oscillations |
no delays (3.1) | No outbreak | β<γ | stable | DNE | none |
Controlled outbreak | 0<β−γ<γω∗ | unstable | stable | ||
Uncontrolled outbreak | β−γ>γω∗ | unstable | DNE | ||
one delay (3.2) | No outbreak | β<γ | stable | DNE | transient |
Controlled outbreak | 0<β−γ<γω∗ | unstable | stable | ||
Uncontrolled outbreak | β−γ>γω∗ | unstable | DNE | ||
two delays (3.3) | No outbreak | β<γ | stable | DNE | sustained |
Controlled outbreak | 0<β−γ<γω∗ | unstable | varies∗ | ||
Uncontrolled outbreak | β−γ>γω∗ | unstable | DNE |
Parameter | Canada | United States | Israel | Michigan | California | Italy |
β | 1.369 | 1.672 | 0.904 | 2.153 | 1.470 | 1.788 |
λ | 0.701 | 0.370 | 0.6753 | 0.488 | 0.160 | 0.456 |
γ | 0.698 | 0.443 | 0.590 | 0.979 | 0.406 | 0.711 |
μ | 0.643 | 0.418 | 0.582 | 0.886 | 0.393 | 0.610 |
δ | 0.055 | 0.025 | 0.008 | 0.093 | 0.013 | 0.101 |
kω | 0.368 | 0.132 | 0.053 | 0.136 | 0.651 | 0.230 |
kPI | 0.042 | 0.108 | 0.064 | 0.202 | 0.085 | 0.071 |
kPω | 0.127 | 0.037 | 0.021 | 0.220 | 0.023 | 0.499 |
q | 40.09 | 32.45 | 40.04 | 50 | 6.905 | 17.02 |
M | 198.0 | 73.97 | 195.9 | 240.2 | 233.1 | 180.7 |
ω∗ | 0.836 | 0.419 | 0.954 | 0.733 | 0.604 | 0.492 |
N | 37590000 | 328200000 | 9152000 | 99870000 | 39510000 | 60360000 |
S(0) | 37589621 | 328198408 | 9151800 | 9986769 | 39509766 | 60359707 |
E(0) | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
I(0) | 179 | 1392 | 0 | 31 | 34 | 93 |
R(0) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
ω(0) | 0 | 0 | 0.187 | 0.177 | 0.144 | 0.121 |
PI(0) | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.183 | 0.165 | 0.089 | 0.078 |
Pω(0) | 0.019 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.166 | 0.109 |