Socioeconomic Differences And Persistent Segregation Of Italian Territories During Covid 19 Pandemic
Summary
A research article, Socioeconomic differences and persistent segregation of Italian territories during COVID-19 pandemic, published in Scientific Reports (2021) 11:21174 by Giovanni Bonaccorsi, Francesco Pierri, Francesco Scotti, Andrea Flori, Francesco Manaresi, Stefano Ceri and Fabio Pammolli. The authors analyze Italian mobility data from February to October 2020, from Facebook's Data for Good program, with socioeconomic data on 562 Italian Local Labour Markets. The article reports that the least affected areas had higher income per capita, lower income inequality and a V-shaped recovery. It reports that the most affected areas had a slower U-shaped recovery, with mobility still nearly 20% below pre-lockdown levels at the end of the study period. It is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Socioeconomic Differences And Persistent Segregation Of Italian Territories During Covid 19 Pandemic.”
Original at doi.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/socioeconomic-differences-and-persistent-segregation-of-italian-territ-0b6e6ffc22/
, SHA-256 f4bdf9dd5ae52a1d80c23a327dee82218b78989775fae9faaf22f62fa2dd96fa.Full text
www.nature.com/scientificreports
OPEN Socioeconomic differences
and persistent segregation
of Italian territories
during COVID‑19 pandemic
Giovanni Bonaccorsi1,5*, Francesco Pierri2,5, Francesco Scotti1,5, Andrea Flori1,
Francesco Manaresi3, Stefano Ceri2 & Fabio Pammolli1,4*
Lockdowns implemented to address the COVID-19 pandemic have disrupted human mobility flows
around the globe to an unprecedented extent and with economic consequences which are unevenly
distributed across territories, firms and individuals. Here we study socioeconomic determinants of
mobility disruption during both the lockdown and the recovery phases in Italy. For this purpose, we
analyze a massive data set on Italian mobility from February to October 2020 and we combine it with
detailed data on pre-existing local socioeconomic features of Italian administrative units. Using a set
of unsupervised and supervised learning techniques, we reliably show that the least and the most
affected areas persistently belong to two different clusters. Notably, the former cluster features
significantly higher income per capita and lower income inequality than the latter. This distinction
persists once the lockdown is lifted. The least affected areas display a swift (V-shaped) recovery in
mobility patterns, while poorer, most affected areas experience a much slower (U-shaped) recovery:
as of October 2020, their mobility was still significantly lower than pre-lockdown levels. These results
are then detailed and confirmed with a quantile regression analysis. Our findings show that economic
segregation has, thus, strengthened during the pandemic.
Public health strategies extensively adopted by governments at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic required
the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce the transmission rate of the virus1–6.
Among NPIs, mobility restrictions proved to play a central role in decreasing social contacts7,8, effectively con-
tributing to control the diffusion of several pathogens across social systems and motivating their wide adoption
for the containment also of the COVID-199–13.
Specifically, full national lockdowns, i.e. periods of severe mobility restrictions and social distancing for
almost all citizens, were widely adopted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic14–17, while restric-
tions targeted to specific geographic areas and for shorter periods constituted the preferred strategy during the
second half of 202018–25.
The spread of the COVID-19 was unevenly distributed among geographic areas and clustered in specific
zones during the first wave of contagion14,19,26. However, the adoption of generalized mobility restrictions across
entire national territories severely affected the whole population, causing the disruption of national mobil-
ity networks27–29 with relevant consequences for the socioeconomic context. The impact of the contraction of
mobility flows on business activities and economic output thus sparked a vivid debate on the direct and indirect
consequences of such policy measures16,30–32, stimulating the investigation of the socioeconomic effects of NPIs
adoption26,33,34.
This work aims to assess the impact of NPIs by evaluating how mobility restrictions interacted with socioeco-
nomic characteristics. In so doing, we focus on Italian territories and we rely on the assumption that a reduction
in mobility flows represents a first-order proxy for the contraction of economic activities. This is plausible since
a wide share of the population relies on mobility to reach workplaces, and a significant portion of productive
1
Impact, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan,
Italy. 2Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy. 3Science,
Technology and Innovation Directorate, Productivity and Business Dynamism Division, OECD, Paris, France. 4SIT,
Schaffhausen Institute of Technology, Schaffhausen, Switzerland. 5These authors contributed equally: Giovanni
Bonaccorsi, Francesco Pierri and Francesco Scotti. *email: giovanni.bonaccorsi@polimi.it; fabio.pammolli@
polimi.it
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 1
Vol.:(0123456789)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
establishments depends on direct contact with consumers to carry on their activities. For example, mobility
restrictions have been shown to be strongly correlated with consumption reduction35,36 and loss of Gross Domes-
tic Production (GDP)37 during the pandemic.
Official measurements on the economic response of individuals and firms are typically available only several
months after the events take place, and often with insufficient geographic detail. Digital traces of individuals,
including mobility data, are instead widely diffused, readily available and contain information on the geographic
position of users38–40. In this work, we take advantage of a large-scale social network dataset comprising near real-
time observations for over 4 million individuals, provided by Facebook through its “Data For Good” program,
to measure Italian mobility patterns and assess how restrictions disrupted the corresponding mobility network.
Given the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, we follow the literature on the management of natural disasters
and other disruptive events41–44 in which digital data have been exploited to evaluate the impact of shocks, even
though these sources of information may not represent perfect survey instruments.
Extant literature on the negative impacts of NPIs on economic activities has focused mostly on the lockdown
phase26,34,45,46, although the speed and strength of recovery after restrictions lifting have relevant consequences
on the overall impact of the crisis, with potentially long-lasting effects which could modify the socioeconomic
structure of a country. On a macroeconomic perspective, the study of the effects of restrictions on economic
output has resulted in competing recovery scenarios from the COVID-19 pandemic47–52, distinguishing between
a long and slow recovery (U-shaped or L-shaped), which signals the existence of long-run negative effects, and
a short and fast dynamics (V-shaped), which indicates temporary disruptions.
Against this background, we investigate the existence of persistent effects from mobility restrictions in Ital-
ian territories by analyzing their recovery patterns and heterogeneous responses. In fact, some territories might
limit the negative consequences of the lockdown, promptly reversing their mobility patterns once restrictions
are lifted (a V-shaped recovery). Conversely, other territories might be persistently penalized by restrictions,
suggesting long-lasting negative effects (a U-shaped recovery).
To investigate the existence and persistence of these heterogeneous patterns, we analyze the evolution of
mobility in Italy from March to October 2020, i.e., covering both the lockdown and the recovery phases, and
we construct an indicator measuring the level of mobility disruption. By ranking territories according to their
mobility performance, we provide evidence on the existence of two distinct classes characterized by different
behaviors. The most affected territories exhibit a slow U-shaped recovery, and at the end of our period of analysis
their mobility levels are still nearly 20% lower than their pre-lockdown levels. The least affected territories have a
quicker, V-shaped, recovery, with mobility reaching pre-lockdown levels around mid-July, hence only 2 months
after mobility restrictions are lifted.
Then, to understand the extent to which pre-existing socioeconomic characteristics of Italian territories are
informative to understand such mobility responses, we investigate the presence of commonalities among mem-
bers of the two classes with both supervised and unsupervised machine learning techniques. We find significant
evidence of persistent economic segregation induced by the lockdown, with most affected territories being
characterized by lower income per capita and higher income inequality, in line with other recent studies46,52–54.
Such findings are confirmed with a quantile regression analysis to assess the individual effect of different socio-
economic dimensions.
Our main variable of interest is income, but we also account for other relevant socioeconomic variables, such
as the distribution of revenues per employee by productive sector, the share of employed individuals capable to
work from remote, or the North-South geographic divide. Thus, we provide evidence that the effects of mobility
restrictions have been unequally distributed across territories, with stronger and persistent effects where income
per capita is lower.
These findings are relevant for the decision process of policymakers. The existence of two separate behaviours
of recovery among territories signals the urgency of a differentiated policy response, targeting the most affected
territories with intervention reducing the persistence of the effects of mobility restrictions. Moreover, our results
show the relevance of pre-existing economic and social conditions for the resilience of territories during disrupt-
ing events and support governments and policymakers in tailoring effective economic relief schemes. In fact,
our analysis does not simply reveal how recovery behaves differently among territories, but it pinpoints which
socio-economic characteristics are reliable indicators to assess heterogeneous recovery performances.
Results
Evolution of the Italian mobility network. We collect near real-time observations of individuals mov-
ing in the Italian peninsula in a period of 32 weeks, from February 24th to October 4th, 2020, based on data
of the “Disease Prevention Movement Maps” provided by Facebook through their “Data for Good” program56.
Measurements are recorded with an 8-h frequency by aggregating individual trips of Facebook users moving
between Bing map tiles57. Mobility flows are constructed with proprietary mechanisms to ensure privacy and
anonymization, e.g., adding random noise and discarding flows with less than 10 individuals58. Specifically,
we collect observations of traffic flows within about 5,000 distinct tiles produced by an average daily number
of almost 4 million individuals, representing Italian users who enabled Facebook geolocation on their mobile
phones during the period of observation.
To study the impact of variations in mobility patterns with respect to the Italian economic structure, we
perform a further aggregation step by mapping tiles into 562 Italian Local Labour Markets (LLMs), i.e., territo-
rial divisions made by the Italian Institute of Statistics (Istat) to identify uniform sub-regional areas in which
the labour force lives and works, and where local firms usually employ most of their workers59,60 (see Fig. S5 in
Supplementary Information for an illustrative example).
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 2
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Using LLMs as units of analysis is particularly suitable for our study. In fact, LLMs are defined based on
labor markets, i.e., areas with a homogeneous productive structure in which, therefore, we can assume internal
consistency in the distribution of labor forces and commuting flows. For these reasons, we can exploit them to
infer differences among comparable units. Using lower-level territorial units (such as municipalities) would have
required, instead, a more complicated process of attribution of the economic productive structure since local
labor markets overlap over administrative boundaries of municipalities. On the other hand, aggregating at the
level of LLMs reduces our ability to capture short-range mobility flows, i.e., mobility flows inside LLMs. Our data,
however, measure movements across fixed time windows of several hours and hence are more likely to represent
long-range commuting patterns of individuals45, i.e., among LLMs, rather than shorter ones.
We then build mobility networks using a weighted undirected graph formulation, where LLMs stand for
nodes, while edges are weighted by the number of individuals traveling between two nodes in a given period
of time. Given the large variability of daily measurements, for instance during the weekends, we study human
mobility by aggregating observations using non-overlapping windows of 14 days over the interval from Febru-
ary 24th to October 4th. Figure 1 provides an outlook on Italian mobility as measured by our data. Top panels
(A–B–C) highlight three specific snapshots before, (24/2-8/3), during (23/3-5/4) and after (15/6-29/6) the national
lockdown of March 8th. Middle panels show the evolution of the total number of individuals flows, aggregat-
ing either over bi-weekly windows (D) or daily (E). Note how during the lockdown period there was a strong
reduction in mobility flows, consistent with the hypothesis of the disruption of the Italian mobility network.
We investigate the process of disruption on the Italian mobility network due to lockdown restrictions, along
with the analysis of simple topological statistics61,62. More specifically, we focus on the global efficiency (see Meth-
ods) along the literature on the resilience of networks against disruptive events63–65. We observe a pronounced
variation of several network metrics (see Figs. 1D, E and S2, S3 in the Supplementary Information) following the
national lockdown, which caused the disappearance of a large number of connections and induced a fragmenta-
tion of the mobility network which is well reflected by the pattern of global efficiency in Fig. 1F. Interestingly, we
also note that the strongest effects of mobility restrictions are most evident a couple of weeks after the lockdown
(cf. 23/3-5/4). Finally, at the end of the period of observation (21/9-4/10), these metrics are approximately at
their pre-lockdown values, signaling a return to the “business as usual” mobility levels.
When focusing on mobility disruption at the level of single nodes, we adopt the same approach as above,
analyzing both simple node centrality measures, namely degree and strength61,62, and nodal efficiency66,67, a more
specific measure chosen to capture local mobility disruption. Nodal efficiency is defined as the average reciprocal
distance of each node from the other nodes in the network, thus representing the contribution of each node to
the global efficiency of the network. Hence, this measure combines the information deriving from network cohe-
siveness and the distance between nodes to measure how efficiently individuals travel throughout the network
(see Methods for more details). The evolution over time of the distribution of node centralities mirrors the trend
of the global network statistics: a sharp decreasing trend consequent to the application of lockdown and then a
gradual recovery during the summer period (see Fig. 1F for nodal efficiency, and Fig. S4 in the Supplementary
Information for strength and degree centrality).
The core of our analysis relies on the assumption that mobility disruption negatively affects economic activity.
We proxy shocks to mobility with the nodal efficiency of each LLM compared to the pre-lockdown scenario, i.e.,
the network of mobility corresponding to the first 14-day window in our sample (24/2-8/3). We consider such
proxy as particularly suitable in our setting, where a complex system undergoes external stress and then recovers,
because it allows us to quantify the contribution of different territories to the configuration of the network. To
model the shock in mobility at node level, a good candidate is also strength centrality, which simply sums the
number of individuals moving from a location to all its immediate neighbors, and it is positively correlated with
nodal efficiency. However, we employ nodal efficiency because it takes the overall topology of the graph into
account, thus providing a system-wide evaluation of the mobility network, while strength centrality considers
only direct connections.
e −e
Hence, let i be an Italian LLM in our sample, we define the relative variation in nodal efficiency eit as i,tei,t i,t0 ,
0
where ei is the nodal efficiency of the LLM calculated in a specific window of time (see Methods), t represents a
14-day window and t0 is the pre-lockdown window taken as reference (24/2-8/3). Figure 1G provides a Kernel
Density Estimation of the variation in nodal efficiency over the entire period of observation. Note how the
distribution of the variation in nodal efficiency is mainly negative during the lockdown phase, while after the
release of restrictions it progressively shifts into more positive values in the upper tail of the distribution, thus
capturing the effective dynamics of the human mobility network in Italy. More specifically, in the 2 weeks fol-
lowing the release of the national lockdown (cf. 4/5-18/5), roughly one-third of LLMs recovered at least half of
their initial nodal efficiency, while at the end of our period of observation (cf. 21/9-4/10) there was still a non-
negligible number of LLMs displaying negative values, thus not being able to reach the pre-pandemic levels of
mobility. The distribution of variations in nodal efficiency indicates the emergence of heterogeneous responses
in the recovery dynamics across LLMs, which we investigate from a micro-level territorial perspective in the
following subsections.
Identifying the most and the least affected LLMs. We next examine whether the emergence of dif-
ferent mobility variations of Italian LLMs uncovers the presence of socioeconomic commonalities among those
territories which instead share the same mobility performance in both the lockdown and recovery phases. Since
socioeconomic variables do not cover the entire set of LLMs present in the mobility sample, at this stage the total
number of observations in our analyses is reduced from 562 to 495 (cf. Fig. S5).
We attempt to answer the following question: do LLMs that exhibit different mobility performance, both
during and after lockdown, also differ in their socioeconomic characteristics? To provide an answer, we rely on
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 3
Vol.:(0123456789)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Figure 1. (A–C) Snapshots of Italian mobility during three distinct windows of 14-day, 24/2-8/3, 23/3-5/4, and
15/6-29/6, chosen to capture the pre-lockdown, lockdown, and recovery periods, respectively. Nodes represent
LLMs and edges represent mobility flows between two locations, with thickness proportional to their weight.
Figures created with Python (version 3.7.4) using networkx package (version 2.6.2)55. (D) Temporal evolution
of the total number of individuals moving between LLMs, aggregated over windows of 14 days. (E) Temporal
evolution of the total number of individuals moving between LLMs daily, separating working days from
weekends. (F) Temporal evolution of the global network efficiency (top) and the distribution of nodal efficiency
(bottom). We also annotate the periods in which we computed the two performance indicators, respectively
Lockdown and Recovery. (G) Kernel density estimation of the distribution of relative variation (%) in nodal
efficiency for each window w.r.t. the baseline (24/2-8/3).
two measurements of mobility performance, one for the lockdown phase and one for the recovery phase, and
we focus on those LLMS placed in the tails of the distribution of mobility performance, to identify the most and
the least affected LLMs. By leveraging both unsupervised and supervised machine learning techniques, we test
whether socioeconomic characteristics of LLMs are reliable predictors of their mobility performance.
We introduce two indicators that allow us to identify the most and the least affected LLMs during the lock-
down and the recovery phases. We consider the nodal efficiency and denote lockdown as the mean percentage
variation over the first two 14-day windows during the lockdown phase, and recovery as the mean percentage
variation over the first two 14-day windows after lockdown lifting. Specifically, let tL refer to the 14-day window
of lockdown (8/3-21/3), and tR to the 14-day window in which lockdown was lifted (4/5-17/5), then our two
indicators of performance are computed as:
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 4
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
40 — Most affected
® Least affected Least affected
— Least affecte'
HD Most affected
[> Rest = 2
. aS
[> Data not available x
3
g 0
@
L
c=
Ww -20
©
3
3}
Z -40
&
c
2
@ ~60
=
Gg
>
-80
-100
on nr vrnnno ork KrF DDD OO
@ooxyrF HO HK HHREE BASS
oVNG SORE FSASSZSESE
aQMQe re FT Preyy Vr da QT
F¥~eoagaryroke eeee ktErFeFe
AGBN6CAFTHDOHKTHKREANAR S
= - A “
Figure 2. (A) Most (red) and least (blue) affected LLMs identified using the lockdown indicator and K = 30%.
White color indicates remaining 40% of LLMs in the data, whereas grey indicates LLMs not present in our data.
Figure created with Python (version 3.7.4) using networkx package (version 2.6.2). (B) Temporal evolution
of variation in nodal efficiency, w.rt. baseline (24/2-8/3), for the most (red) and the least (blue) affected LLMs,
identified using lockdown indicator and K = 30%. Solid lines show mean values with 95% confidence interval
(dashed area). We excluded from the plot the period corresponding to Assumption (10/8-23/8).
t t
Aelockdown _ Ae tae"
(1)
t
Aereovery _ AeR +AeRt
i 2
Figure 1F reports the periods in which we measure the two performance indicators, while their distribution
is shown in Fig. S7 of the Supplementary Information.
We then define the most and the least affected LLMs as those territories respectively in the bottom and in
the top K% of the distribution of the aforementioned mobility performance indicators, where K is a threshold
chosen among the bottom/top percentiles of the distribution. As shown in the Supplementary Information (cf.
Figs. S8 and S9), we find high correspondence between the most and the least affected territories for different
values of K, indicating that, regardless of which indicator is used to define the most and the least affected LLMs,
our findings are robust. Besides, we find that the distribution of the variation in nodal efficiency for the two
classes are well separated in almost all different periods of observation (Kruskal-Wallis (KW) PVAL ~ 0 in
all cases at significance level w = 0.01), with only slight overlaps in farther periods (cf. Figs. S10 and S11 in the
Supplementary Information).
Panel A of Fig. 2 shows the geographical distribution of the (K = 30%) most and least affected LLMs identi-
fied using the lockdown indicator (cf. Fig. S6 in the Supplementary Information for the results obtained using
the recovery indicator), whereas Panel B provides the temporal evolution of their mobility as expressed by the
relative percentage variation in nodal efficiency. Note that the two classes experience different dynamics: the least
affected LLMs exhibit a V-shaped recovery, with a steep drop followed by a fast upturn, while the most affected
LLMs present a more smoothed and U-shaped pattern, with a long-lasting period of reduction in mobility and
with a lag of 3 months in the recovery after the end of the lockdown. This shows the absence of a catch-up pro-
cess for the most affected LLMs during recovery. Hence, not only mobility restrictions have unevenly impacted
LLMs, but their effects are lasting longer in those LLMs where mobility disruption during the lockdown has been
stronger. Interestingly, the dynamics of the relative percentage variation in nodal efficiency is able to capture the
fact that at the end of the summer Italy experienced a strong rebound in mobility patterns, which attenuated
during the early stages of Autumn showing again more penalized trajectories for the most affected territories.
Unsupervised clustering of territories. We employ unsupervised hierarchical clustering (see Methods) to
investigate whether the most and least affected LLMs manifest distinct peculiarities in terms of socioeconomic
variables.
Specifically, since the disruption of mobility is associated with the exacerbation of socioeconomic
disparities***>“*, we consider income per capita, inequality in the distribution of income and population density
as potential drivers of variations in mobility. Furthermore, the market structure and the sectoral composition of
the local economy are considered as relevant factors that might affect the impact of restrictions, given the differ-
ent requirements of each sector in terms of mobility and direct contact with customers!***7%°*”°, We control for
overall market structure by introducing an aggregated measure representing the concentration of revenues among
sectors (Revenue Concentration) in each LLM. We account for sectoral distribution of activities by including the
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 nature portfolio
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
number of employees by sector. Moreover, we control for the sectoral distribution of revenues by including the
revenues per employee in each sector, i.e., a proxy of the local productivity of each sector in every LLM. Finally,
we account for features affecting the response of LLMs to government interventions. Indeed, on the one hand,
the Italian Government distinguished among industries having the possibility to maintain their activities open
even during the lockdown (the so-called essential sectors) and others whose reopening was postponed. On the
other hand, differences among firms in their capacity to implement work from remote influence the effect of
restrictions. Hence, we account for the presence of employees in essential sectors and in sectors with higher
attitudes to remote work using two aggregated variables, Essential Workers and Remote Workers, which meas-
ure the share of employees in these categories for each LLM. We use 16 aggregated NACE Rev. 2 categories to
define sectors (see Table S6 for details). Overall, we consider 38 features (3 socioeconomic variables, 2 variables
associated with governmental intervention and 33 variables for the sectoral composition of the economy: the
number of employees and the revenues per employee for each of the 16 sectors and the overall concentration of
revenues among them) measured before the lockdown and explained in detail in the Methods section (cf. Fig. S1).
Panels A and B of Fig. 3 provide results of the clustering analysis, carried out considering all aforementioned
variables, to extract the two classes of territories in an unsupervised fashion (for K = 30%). Note how observa-
tions from the same class cluster together, as they exhibit smaller inter-distances with respect to members of the
opposite class. We quantify this result through the purity score of each cluster. This is computed by (1) assigning
each observation to the class which is most frequent in the cluster, and (2) counting the number of correctly
assigned observations within each cluster and dividing by the total number of observations. We note high
values of purity score in the clustering (about 90%) when extracting more than 50 clusters, with values around
70–80% when extracting as few as 2 clusters (see Panel C in Fig. 3). This suggests that the two classes exhibit a
remarkable discrepancy in their socioeconomic structure. Similar results hold for K = 20% (cf. Fig. S12 in the
Supplementary Information).
Binary classification of the most and the least affected territories. We corroborate these findings by using
a simple supervised machine learning framework. We aim to test whether we can accurately distinguish LLMs,
belonging either to the most or least affected territories, based on their socioeconomic variables. We thus train and
test several off-the-shelf classifiers, from Logistic Regression to Random Forest and K-Nearest Neighbors71 (see
Methods). We use a stratified shuffle split cross-validation (with 10 folds and 20% of observations as test sample)
to evaluate the performance of different models. We show in Panel D of Fig. 3 the Area under the Receiving
Operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of a Random Forest classifier (computed as the macro average of both
classes), using both lockdown and recovery indicators to extract the two classes, and different values for K. We note
a great performance in the classification task, with AUROC values in the range 82–97%, with lockdown indicator
performing slightly worse than recovery, and lower performance for both when considering larger samples (cf.
K ∈ [40%, 50%]). Other classifiers yield similar performance (see Tables S2 and S3 in Supplementary Informa-
tion), indicating that indeed mobility patterns uncover two classes which exhibit very different socioeconomic
characteristics before the lockdown. We also obtain similar results when considering a period of four 14-day
windows to compute the two indicators (see Fig. S13 in the Supplementary Information).
Multiple comparison tests. We finally check the robustness of these findings by performing pairwise multiple
comparison tests, for each of these socioeconomic dimensions, among the three classes of LLMs, namely the
K = 30% most and least affected LLMs and the remaining 40% ones (see Tables S4 and S5 in the Supplementary
Information). Specifically, we perform a Kruskal–Wallis (KW) test with Conover procedure and Bonferroni cor-
rection for p-values72 (see Methods). We observe that several variables exhibit statistically significant different
distributions (KW PVAL ∼ 0 at significance level α = 0.01). In particular, we find that, using both lockdown and
recovery indicators to extract classes, the most affected LLMs exhibit median values of Income per Capita and
Density which are significantly smaller compared to the least affected ones, whereas median values of Inequal-
ity are higher for the most affected areas compared to the others (KW PVAL ∼ 0 at significance level α = 0.01,
cf. Figs. 4A, B and S14, S15 in Supplementary Information). For what concerns variables describing the labour
market and the industrial composition of different territories, we observe that sectors of the most affected LLMs
exhibit lower levels of revenues per employee, whereas the number of essential workers does not seem to show
statistically significant differences among the different classes (cf. Figs. 4C, D and S14, S15 in Supplementary
Information). We remark that our analysis focuses on the differences between the most and the least affected
classes (and not with respect to the rest of the territories). Hence, these tests show that although not all variables
of interest exhibit a statistically significant difference between the two classes, in general territories belonging to
the most or the least affected classes differ along several relevant socioeconomic dimensions.
The relationship between socioeconomic characteristics of territories and mobility dynam‑
ics. We finally explore the determinants of changes in human mobility of LLMs altogether, both during the
lockdown and after the relaxation of restrictive measures, by using all 495 LLMs for which we have data for
mobility and socioeconomic variables.
The classification analysis tells us that socioeconomic variables can predict which LLMs belong to the most
or the least affected classes (i.e., a binary outcome), but it does not indicate how these factors affect variation in
nodal efficiency. In this section, we propose a framework to evaluate the magnitude and, more importantly, the
direction of the interplay between local mobility performances and the socioeconomic characteristics of LLMs.
The unexplored hypothesis we want to test here is the emergence within the two classes of peculiar relation-
ships between the variation of mobility and the corresponding socioeconomic characteristics. For instance,
among LLMs in one class the response of mobility performance to a certain variable might be negative, while
among LLMs in the other class the relation might be reversed or with a reduced magnitude. Alternatively, it
may happen that the correlation remains the same within the two classes, thus signaling a socioeconomic trait
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 6
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Figure 3. (A, B) Results of hierarchical clustering using features of the most and the least affected LLMs
identified with lockdown (A) and recovery (B) indicators, with K = 30%. Red and blue labels of rows and
columns identify respectively the most and the least affected areas. (C) Plot of purity score vs number of clusters
for lockdown (green) and recovery (orange) dendrograms, shown respectively in panels (A) and (B). In the
recovery phase, the two classes are more homogeneous and better separated, as indicated by purity scores higher
compared to the lockdown period. This might signal that the effects of lockdown were more uniformly applied
among LLMs, whereas recovery dynamics present more heterogeneity which allows us to better identify the
most and the least affected territories. (D) Area under the Receiving Operator characteristic Curve (AUROC)
for a Random Forest classifier evaluated on features of the most and the least affected LLMs, using lockdown
(green) and recovery (orange) indicators and different values of K to obtain the binary label. Note the best
performance for K = 20%, with AUROC values around 95% for both indicators. Similar to panel (C), we observe
in general better results when identifying the most and the least affected LLMs during the recovery phase.
which strongly characterizes the mobility response of all LLMs, regardless of classes. Furthermore, by analyzing
both lockdown and recovery performance of LLMs, we are interested in understanding the extent to which the
impact of socioeconomic characteristics on mobility performance is stable over time, thus affecting LLMs both
before and after the implementation of mobility restrictions.
To do so, we perform a quantile regression73 in which the dependent variable corresponds, in turn, to the
lockdown and recovery indicators defined in the previous section. The quantile regression method allows us
to estimate specific coefficients for the explanatory variables in each quantile of the distribution of variation
in mobility, investigating the existence of different effects involving the tails of the distribution. In contrast, a
traditional Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, assumes a uniform relationship between the distributions
of the predictors and the one of the dependent variable, providing only a single coefficient.
Our purpose is to analyze the role of socioeconomic variables on the resilience of territories. We focus, in
particular, on the relationship between income per capita and mobility variation. To account for the role of other
socioeconomic dimensions, we include the economic structure of territories in the econometric model and we
employ a proxy of sectoral productivity (revenues per employee of each sector) to control for the influence of
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 7
Vol.:(0123456789)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
__ 1.35{ —— —__ —__ —
24000 a
— 0.26 —_— 7 0.60
22000 > 1.30
£ a) 2 0.55
20000 1.25 @ 0.24 gs
> x <
° = 8 $0.50
& 18000 S S 3
3 21.20 3 0.22 =
co) ® Wal 2
& 16000 4s 2 5 0-45
8 ; 2 0.20 a
v0.
£ 14000 Lo 9.40
1.10 LE
12000 iL 0.18 a 0.35 [i
10000. — 1.05 —_ — —_ —_
Most affected Rest Least affected Most affected Rest Least affected Most affected Rest Least affected Most affected Rest Least affected
Figure 4. (A-D) Distributions of socioeconomic features for the most (red) and the least (blue) affected LLMs,
and remaining ones (white), identified using lockdown variable and K = 30%. For variables in panels (A-C), the
Kruskal-Wallis test to assess statistical differences between the distributions of the classes of LLMs is significant
at a level ~w = 0.001. For the variable in panel (D), it is not significant. According to the pairwise multiple
comparison tests with Conover procedure and Bonferroni correction for p-values, distributions are statistically
different at a level w = 0.01 in all cases for variables in panels (A-C), with the following exceptions: in panel (B),
there is no significant difference between Rest and Least; in panel (C) the difference between Rest and Least is
significant at a level aw = 0.05.
local productivity on the mobility performance of territories. Finally, territorial controls at the level of macroarea
account for remaining unobserved local effects.
As we obtain a clear separation between the most and the least affected classes in correspondence of a
threshold K equal to 10%, 20% and 30%, we focus on the corresponding quantiles of the distribution of the
two indicators as illustrative cases. Hence, for each quantile t of the dependent variables Ae“, we estimate the
following equation:
Ae& =a+B-X+y-Z
k €{lockdown, recovery} (2)
t €[0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9]
where X = [x,1,r] is a matrix containing the socioeconomic variables explained in the classification section.
Inside X, we distinguish x, a matrix of socioeconomic indicators measured at the LLM level (Income per Capita,
Income Inequality, Population Density, Revenue Concentration, Essential and Remote Workers), and ! and r, two
matrices with, respectively, the number of employees and revenues per employee in each sector for every LLM.
Furthermore, to the first set of variables we add a matrix of territorial controls: Z = [z, zr’ | with r’ C r. Inside
Z, to measure the interplay between territorial and sector variables we employ territorial controls at the level of
Italian macroareas (i.e., a subdivision of the country among North-West, North-East, Center, South and Insular
Italy), Z, and we introduce a matrix of interaction terms, z - r’, between territorial controls and the revenue per
employee of a specific subset of sectors.
For the most relevant variables, Table 1 reports coefficients and standard errors estimated with Eq. 2, while
Tables S8 and S9 in the Supplementary Information report full results. Moreover, in Tables $10 and S11 in the
Supplementary Information we report results obtained with heteroskedastic-robust standard errors, obtained
via wild bootstrap (1000 replications). In general, our results remain unaffected with few exceptional cases which
we comment in the Supplementary Information. Next subsections are devoted to discuss separately the variables
reported in Table 1, distinguishing the separate relations among the performance of territories and each group
of variables: first, the main socioeconomic variables of interest; secondly, variables related to the productive
structure of LLMs; and, finally, the relation captured by territorial controls.
Main socioeconomic variables. We observe that the coefficient of Income per Capita is positive and statisti-
cally significant for both the lower (qo.10,lockdown = 0.303, SE = 0.077, qo.10,recovery = 0.226, SE = 0.074) and upper
part of the distribution of both indicators of mobility performance (q9.90,lockdown = 0.169, SE = 0.074, q0.90,recovery
= 0.281, SE = 0.058). This shows that LLMs with lower Income per Capita are associated with worse mobility
performance, while LLMs with higher income have better mobility performance.
The relation with Income per Capita remains almost constant between classes (i.e., for all quantiles), and both
during the lockdown and recovery periods. Moreover, it is robust, since we accounted for a wide range of controls
at the level of territories and sectors. This identifies Income per Capita as the main driver of our analysis and
supports the hypothesis of persistence of a segregation effect by income both across territories and over time. We
can safely conclude that, regardless of their class, poorer territories are always the most affected by restrictions
and the slowest to recover.
Moreover, we find evidence that during the recovery phase, in the upper quantiles of the distribution of
mobility the coefficient for Inequality is negative and statistically significant (qo.70,recovery = —0.107, SE = 0.029,
0.90,recovery = —0.090, SE = 0.030). This pattern suggests that, among LLMs in the upper quantiles of the mobility
distribution, territories with higher Inequality experience a slower recovery. This result highlights the relevance of
the quantile methodology: in the previous sections we have shown that inequality among the most affected LLMs
is greater than the one of the least affected LLMs (cf. Fig. 4B). However, by considering all variables together
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 nature portfolio
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
q0.10 q0.20 q0.30 q0.70 q0.80 q0.90 OLS
Dependent variable: lockdown indicator
0.303∗∗∗ 0.234∗∗∗ 0.167∗∗ 0.243∗∗ 0.243∗∗∗ 0.169∗∗ 0.208∗∗
Income Per Capita
(0.077) (0.069) (0.078) (0.097) (0.064) (0.074) (0.090)
0.019 − 0.054 − 0.046 − 0.071 − 0.005 0.055 − 0.059
Income Inequality
(0.041) (0.036) (0.041) (0.051) (0.033) (0.039) (0.047)
0.155∗∗∗ 0.136∗∗∗ 0.147∗∗∗ 0.226∗∗∗ 0.146∗∗∗ 0.109∗∗ 0.179∗∗∗
Population Density
(0.045) (0.040) (0.046) (0.057) (0.037) (0.043) (0.053)
0.022 0.064 0.095∗∗ 0.043 − 0.007 0.033 0.051
Revenue Concentration
(0.045) (0.040) (0.046) (0.057) (0.037) (0.043) (0.053)
− 0.011 − 0.016 0.025 − 0.003 − 0.069 − 0.018 − 0.076
Essential Workers
(0.061) (0.054) (0.061) (0.076) (0.050) (0.058) (0.071)
0.134∗∗ 0.096 0.106 0.036 0.092 ∗ 0.004 0.069
Remote Workers
(0.068) (0.060) (0.068) (0.085) (0.056) (0.064) (0.079)
0.872∗∗∗ 0.421 0.771∗∗∗ 0.723∗∗ 0.486∗∗ 0.349 0.550
North-Eastearn Italy
(0.289) (0.257) (0.291) (0.362) (0.239) (0.275) (0.337)
− 0.047 − 0.095 − 0.139 − 0.264 − 0.351∗∗ − 0.030 − 0.227
Central Italy
(0.199) (0.177) (0.200) (0.249) (0.164) (0.189) (0.232)
0.455 0.215 − 0.099 0.220 0.386 0.921∗∗∗ 0.154
Southern Italy
(0.285) (0.253) (0.286) (0.356) (0.235) (0.271) (0.332)
0.237 0.147 0.071 − 0.191 − 0.247 ∗ − 1.025∗∗∗ − 0.253
Insular Italy
(0.166) (0.148) (0.167) (0.208) (0.137) (0.158) (0.194)
− 0.868∗∗∗ − 0.628∗∗∗ − 0.428∗∗∗ 0.039 0.223 ∗ 0.073 − 0.269
Constant
(0.160) (0.142) (0.161) (0.200) (0.132) (0.152) (0.186)
AIC 1077.58 1072.87 1108.63 1261.38 1373.51 1453.74 1256.68
BIC 1325.65 1320.94 1356.7 1509.45 1621.58 1701.81 1136.68
Dependent variable: recovery indicator
0.226∗∗∗ 0.182∗∗∗ 0.162∗∗ 0.217∗∗∗ 0.223∗∗∗ 0.281∗∗∗ 0.217∗∗
Income Per Capita
(0.074) (0.065) (0.068) (0.055) (0.062) (0.058) (0.087)
0.004 − 0.040 − 0.086∗∗ − 0.107∗∗∗ − 0.110∗∗∗ − 0.090∗∗∗ − 0.079 ∗
Income Inequality
(0.039) (0.034) (0.036) (0.029) (0.033) (0.030) (0.046)
0.119∗∗∗ 0.101∗∗∗ 0.082∗∗ 0.103∗∗∗ 0.118∗∗∗ 0.080∗∗ 0.125∗∗
Population Density
(0.043) (0.038) (0.040) (0.032) (0.037) (0.034) (0.051)
0.075 ∗ 0.056 0.065 0.029 0.031 − 0.031 0.041
Revenue Concentration
(0.043) (0.038) (0.040) (0.032) (0.037) (0.034) (0.051)
− 0.077 − 0.107∗∗ − 0.026 − 0.129∗∗∗ − 0.125∗∗ − 0.178∗∗∗ − 0.193∗∗∗
Essential Workers
(0.058) (0.051) (0.053) (0.043) (0.049) (0.045) (0.068)
0.148∗∗ 0.145∗∗ 0.090 0.078 0.051 − 0.012 0.082
Remote Workers
(0.064) (0.057) (0.059) (0.048) (0.055) (0.051) (0.076)
− 0.052 − 0.199 − 0.183 − 0.038 0.092 0.244 − 0.095
North-Eastearn Italy
(0.275) (0.244) (0.254) (0.204) (0.233) (0.216) (0.325)
− 0.711∗∗∗ − 0.793∗∗∗ − 0.709∗∗∗ − 0.706∗∗∗ − 0.732∗∗∗ − 0.690∗∗∗ − 0.639∗∗∗
Central Italy
(0.189) (0.168) (0.175) (0.140) (0.160) (0.149) (0.223)
− 0.737∗∗∗ − 0.845∗∗∗ − 0.484 ∗ − 0.376 ∗ − 0.497∗∗ − 0.634∗∗∗ − 0.436
Southern Italy
(0.271) (0.240) (0.250) (0.201) (0.229) (0.212) (0.319)
− 0.385∗∗ − 0.381∗∗∗ − 0.394∗∗∗ − 0.869∗∗∗ − 1.282∗∗∗ − 1.938∗∗∗ − 1.152∗∗∗
Insular Italy
(0.158) (0.140) (0.146) (0.117) (0.134) (0.124) (0.187)
− 0.308∗∗ − 0.072 − 0.040 0.114 0.116 − 0.021 − 0.279
Constant
(0.152) (0.135) (0.140) (0.113) (0.129) (0.119) (0.179)
AIC 1039.41 965.67 927.63 1067.09 1219.97 1348.98 1218.72
BIC 1287.47 1213.74 1175.7 1315.15 1468.04 1597.05 1098.72
Table 1. Results for quantile regression of the lockdown (top) and recovery (bottom) indicators with respect
to economic, sectorial and geographic explanatory variables, including interaction of macroareas with sectorial
variables. Regression obtained with the Iterative Weighted Least Squares method on standardized variables.
Last column shows OLS regression as a reference. Number of observations: 495. Coefficients shown for a
subset of variables, full regression table reported in Tables S8 and S9 in the SI. Results with heteroskedastic-
robust standard errors, obtained via wild bootstrap (1000 replications) reported in Tables S10 and S11 in the
SI. ∗ p < 0.1; ∗∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗∗ p < 0.01.
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 9
Vol.:(0123456789)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
and analyzing separately the two classes of LLMs, we find that inequality is more important for the recovery of
the least affected LLMs.
Finally, regarding Population Density we observe a pattern similar to Income per Capita, signaling that both
during and after lockdown, the mobility contraction is higher for less densely populated territories.
Productive structure of LLMs. We find that the aggregated share of remote workers available in each LLM
has a positive and significant coefficient during both the lockdown (q0.10,lockdown = 0.134, SE = 0.068) and recovery
phases (q0.10,recovery = 0.148 , SE = 0.064) for the most affected territories, meaning that among them the effect
of restrictions was stronger and the recovery was slower where the pre-existing potential availability of remote
workers was lower.
We also observe that the number of workers employed in essential sectors is not a key driver for mobility
during the lockdown. This evidence is consistent with the results of our previous tests, where we showed that
the Essential Workers variable was not statistically different between the most and the least affected LLMs (See
Fig. 4D). Interestingly, we find also a negative and statistically significant coefficient across (almost) all quantiles
of the distribution during the recovery. These results, rather than signaling the absence of an effect on mobility
from workers in essential sectors, are instead explainable by the level of detail of our data. Our measurements
of mobility, in fact, are not suited to capture brief short-range movements, occurring for instance within neigh-
borhoods of the same city. Urban movements of this kind are those more related to essential sectors of the
economy, which were allowed to operate in order to provide necessary services to citizens (as shown in other
studies13,35,36). Since we are not able to capture the higher mobility induced by essential sectors, we do not see a
significant relation during lockdown. The same phenomenon yields a negative coefficient during recovery because
it causes LLMs where the share of Essential Workers is higher to show lower levels of mobility in comparison
to other LLMs.
Regarding the last aggregated measure, Revenue Concentration, we find a positive and significant coefficient
during recovery (q0.10,recovery = 0.075, SE = 0.043) among the most affected LLMs, signaling that for these ter-
ritories a faster rebound in mobility is denoted by a more concentrated economy.
In addition to results on aggregated variables, we introduce sector-specific effects to reinforce our main results,
i.e., matrices l and p which report Employees and Revenues per Employees for 16 NACE Rev. 2 aggregated sec-
tors. The role of these variables is to control for the relation between mobility performance and mobility-intensive
sectors and separate it from the one between mobility and income. We find coefficients in line with our expecta-
tions, i.e., we observe a positive coefficient from mobility-intensive sectors and a negative coefficient from sectors
where remote work is more available. This confirms that controlling for these variables is indeed necessary. For
full details, we refer the reader to Tables S8 and S9 in the Supporting Information.
Territorial controls. The last type of controls we introduce address the presence of territorial biases. These
may affect the estimates either directly, signaling the existence of persistent differences among territories, or
indirectly via an interaction with specific sectors. In the latter case, we are testing whether some industries have
a different impact on mobility depending on the LLMs in which they are located.
With matrix z, we introduce dummy variables related to the five Italian geographical macroareas using North-
West of Italy as reference area, given its role during the current epidemics and relevance for the whole Italian
economic system (North-West is both the richest Italian macroarea and the one most affected by COVID-19
contagion). Moreover, we use matrix z · r′ to test interaction effects among such macroareas and four sectors
which we deem relevant regarding mobility restrictions: Manufacturing, Constructions, Arts and Entertainment
and the Health sector. We report in Table 1 the main macroarea effects and in the Supplementary Information
the macroarea interaction effects (Tables S8 and S9).
Territorial controls capture unobserved effects affecting all LLMs belonging to the same macroarea. This
allows us to test also the hypothesis of the role of contagion on the reduction of mobility, since the impact of the
COVID-19 was unevenly distributed across Italy affecting North-Eastern and North-Western Italy more than
the rest of the country, especially during the first wave of the epidemic19,20. While there is mounting evidence
that the nexus of causality runs in the other direction, i.e., it is mobility restriction which reduces the spread of
contagion8–12, we still perform a robustness check and look for a relation between contagion and mobility reduc-
tion. First, Figs. S16–S19 in the Supplementary Information show that the difference among the most affected
and the least affected LLMs in the number of infections and deaths due to the COVID-19 is not statistically
significant. Second, we find a better mobility performance in macroareas where contagion was more intense.
During the lockdown, in fact, we observe a positive coefficient only for territories in North-Eastern Italy, both
among the most affected (q0.10,lockdown = 0.872, SE = 0.289) and the least affected LLMs (q0.80,lockdown = 0.486,
SE = 0.239), even though with a lower coefficient. This means that LLMs in this macroarea, especially among
the most affected class, had a better mobility performance with respect to the North-Western macroarea, even
though the intensity of contagion among the two macroareas was comparable. On the contrary, the other Italian
macroareas, where the intensity of contagion was lower, did not have a performance significantly different from
North-Western. During the recovery phase, instead, we find a negative and significant coefficient of the Center,
South and Insular macroareas showing a slower rebound with respect to the North-Western macroarea. This is
consistent with the geographic representation of the most and the least affected LLMs reported in Fig. 2A and
highlights the presence of territorial effects which, however, are not related to the spread of the virus.
Finally, regarding interaction effects between sectors and macroareas, i.e., z · r′ in Eq. 2, we find that they are
usually not significant (cf. Tables S8 and S9 in the Supplementary information). Among the few exceptions, it is
worth focusing on the Health sector, due to its strategic role during the pandemic. In fact, we notice a positive
coefficient during lockdown among least affected LLMs and across all macroareas (and especially in the insular
area), signaling that those macroareas with higher concentration of revenues per employee from firms in the
Health sector, experienced lower variation in mobility with respect to the reference macroarea. In the recovery
phase, these effects are no longer significant.
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 10
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Discussion
In this paper, we investigate the interplay between human mobility and the socioeconomic composition of Italian
territories, with a specific focus on persistent effects which characterized mobility during and after the national
lockdown put in place by Italian authorities in March 2020 to prevent the spread of the COVID-19. To this aim,
we leverage a massive dataset of near real-time observations of movements for approximately 4 million daily
individuals in a period of 32 weeks, from March to October 2020, and we rely on detailed information on the
composition of the Italian productive system by sector, using official census statistics on the number of employees
and revenues, and on the socioeconomic characteristics of Italian administrations.
We show that pre-existing economic disparities among Italian territories can explain their reaction to lock-
down restrictions and that two specific classes of territories emerge: the most affected and the least affected
territories by interventions. The two classes show persistent behaviours, with income disparities driving their
reaction both in the lockdown and recovery periods, and with income inequality playing a relevant role during
the latter. Moreover, we observe that our estimates are robust once controlling for several relevant confounding
factors, such as the composition of productive sectors of the economy, the share of remote workers and the share
of workers from sectors exempted from restrictions by the government, and, finally, common features among
territories belonging to the same geographic macroarea.
We reveal at a microeconomic level that a stable separation exists between the most affected and the least
affected territories of Italy. These findings are of utmost importance for policy decisions aimed to balance the
need to limit the spread of the contagion and the negative effects of restrictions on socioeconomic conditions. In
particular, lockdown effects, combining with preexisting disparities, are more intense for the most disadvantaged
territories, which yield a slower recovery, leading to further segregation of already deprived areas. To compensate
economic losses deriving from the COVID-19 epidemic and avoid a longer path of recovery for the most penal-
ized territories, our analysis supports the urgency of a differentiated policy response, targeting the most affected
territories with intervention reducing the persistence of the effects of mobility restrictions.
Methods
Network efficiency. Network efficiency®** is a measure traditionally employed to study man-made and
other communication networks. It combines the information deriving from network cohesiveness and the dis-
tance between nodes to assess how efficiently information/individuals travel over the network®*°.
Given a weighted undirected network G(V, E) with n = |V|nodes and m = |E| edges, the connections of G
are represented by the weighted adjacency matrix W with elements {w,}, where w;; > 0 Vi, j. In our analysis, we
use the reciprocal of the number of individuals traveling between two locations to specify weights only when
computing the efficiency measure of the network (and the nodes). Given that our network resembles a com-
muting network, we assume that two locations are closer if many individuals travel between them. The global
network efficiency is thus computed as:
1 1
Egob(@) = ——y ys
i#jeG dij
where dj is the shortest path distance between two generic nodes i and j. When nodes i and j cannot be connected
by any path, then dj; = +00.
Following the methodology of Latora et al.® , Egiop(G) is normalized in order to assume the maximum value
in the case of perfect efficiency, i.e., in a fully connected graph where all nodes are connected to each other via
the shortest possible distance. In our framework, this corresponds to the shortest distance between two nodes
in the network, namely we assume that min(dj;) = min(wj) = wmin Vi, j. The normalized global efficiency can
be thus computed as:
Egtov(G) ) _
Eideal(G)
where Ejdeqi(G) = aD = y; 4ieG W ——. The shortest distance between two nodes, namely wmin, varies
depending on the time window of 14 aot in which the network is built.
In addition, we define the nodal efficiency as the contribution of each node i to Egioy (G):
1 1
n—l i¢jeG dij
Enorm(G) = ‘glob (G) - Wmin
1
a=
and, accordingly, the normalized nodal efficiency of node i as e7"™
= €j + Wmin-
ASIA database. The Italian National Registry of Active Firms (ASIA) is managed by Istat and reports infor-
mation on all economic units on the national territory exercising industrial, commercial and services activities.
It collects and updates annually identification information (name and address) and structure (economic activity,
dependent and independent employees, legal form, date start and end activities, turnover) of firms within the
register. Even though the data is collected at a granular level, for privacy reasons it has been provided to us by
Istat at the province level and for each NACE Rev. 2 business sector which we aggregate in 21 macrocategories
(see Table S6 in the Supporting Information for details).
Scientific Reports |
(2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 nature portfolio
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Matching procedure for economic variables. Our analyses integrate data measured at the municipal
level with information regarding the productive structure of the Italian economy at the level of provinces, ie. at a
more aggregate level. In order to ensure a reliable number of observations we bridge the two datasets towards the
intermediate level of analysis of Local Labour Market (LLMs) which are comparable sub-regional geographical
areas defined by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istat). As a result, our economic data cover different
dimensions of the local socioeconomic context of each Italian LLM, in total 495 areas. Our three main variables
of interest are Income per Capita, Inequality in the distributions of incomes and Population Density. These vari-
ables have been collected at the municipal level and then aggregated at the level of LLMs mapping each Italian
municipality to a unique LLM. We then integrate these variables with sector related ones (employees and rev-
enues per employee) obtained from the ASIA database at the province level. Using publicly available data from
Istat on the number of employee at municipal level, we were able to redistribute province level data to the LLM
level of aggregation using the share of province employees for each municipality as partition coefficient and the
municipality-to-LLM mapping to aggregate the municipality data.
Description of economic variables. Declared income. This variable is the tax base of the personal
income tax declared by tax payers in the 2018 tax return to the Revenue Agency for the 2017 financial year. The
distribution at the municipal level is provided by the Ministry of Economic and Finances (MEF) and can be
recovered from Istat. We calculate Income per Capita as the ratio of total declared taxable income in a municipal-
ity divided by number of declarants with taxable income.
Income inequality. We measure income inequality at the municipal level as the ratio between average and
median values of the distribution of the declared income, without taking into account cadastral incomes. If the
distribution of income is skewed, as is the case for 98% of Italian municipalities, the average municipal income
will be consistently greater than the median municipal income. Hence municipalities with greater mean to
median ratio will have a more unequal distribution than municipalities with lower ratio.
Density of population. We use population density to account for concentration individuals in a certain ter-
ritory. It is calculated as the ratio of total population calculated at the first of January divided by the extension
of the territory in squared kilometers.
Concentration of revenues by sector. We calculate this variable as the Herfindahl—-Hirschman concentration
index of the revenues of sectors in each LLMs. Let us define the revenue of LLM i in sector j as rj and all its
72
revenues R; then the HHI of each LLM is defined as HHI; = yj lz]
Percentage of workers who are able to work from remote. We use estimates of remote workers by sector
from” and adapt them to Italian firms. We obtain the LLMs share of potential remote worker as the weighted
sum of each sector employees number multiplied by each sector-specific remote share estimate. The obtained
estimates are also in line with those of”.
Percentage of workers in sectors declared essential by the government . Essential sectors are obtained from
official Government decrees. We obtain the LLMs share of essential sector workers as the percentage of employee
from essential sectors over all employees from all sectors.
Territorial controls. Our regression sample provides a good representation of the entire set of Italian munici-
palities, both in terms of population size and geographical location, including 2,387 observations corresponding
to 30% of Italian municipalities. Nevertheless, to exclude spatial spillovers effect we control for territorial con-
founding factors using macroarea controls corresponding to NUTS] areas, which represent the most aggregated
geographical classification of national administrative units provide by Eurostat (see Table S7 in the Supporting
Information for details). We use macroarea controls to make the estimation of interaction effects in our regres-
sion easier and avoid inflating the regression with too many covariates.
Clustering, classification, multiple test analysis and quantile regression. We rely on several
open-source packages to perform our analysis of the most and the least affected territories. We encode each
LLM with a vector of socioeconomic covariates (see previous section) and we assign them a binary label, based
on the lockdown and recovery indicators defined in the main text.
We employ scipy”® to carry out a hierarchical clustering of LLMs based on their standardized socioeconomic
variables, using a cosine distance and average linkage to obtain clusters. We report similar results when using
euclidean distance or other linkage approaches, e.g., complete or Ward linkage.
We use scikit-learn”’ to train several binary classifiers, namely Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine,
Random Forest and K-Nearest Neighbors, in the task of classifying most vs least affected LLMs based on their
socioeconomic variables. We apply standardization of features and use default hyperparameters as specified in
the package, and we use stratified shuffle-split cross-validation to evaluate their performance.
We employ scikit-posthocs’* to perform multiple test comparisons and assess statistical differences in the
distribution of features of the most and the least affected LLMs (and remaining ones). In particular, we apply
Kruskal-Wallis test with Conover procedure and Bonferroni correction for p-values.
Finally, all quantile regression results have been performed with the quantreg R package’’ on standardized
variables with default options. Results in the Supplementary Information are obtained with heteroskedastic
robust standard errors obtained via wild bootstrap with 1000 iterations.
Data availability
Data describing movements of individuals in Italy during the period of observation were provided under an
academic license agreement with Facebook through its “Data for Good” program (available at: https://dataf
orgood.fb.com/tools/disease-prevention-maps/). All observations are released in an aggregated and de-identified
Scientific Reports |
(2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 nature portfolio
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
manner to ensure privacy and anonymization of single users. Origin-destination matrices which describe traffic
between tiles in non-overlapping windows of 14-day can be provided upon request to the corresponding author.
With the only exception of the median income used to calculate the inequality index, all economic variables
have been provided by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (I.stat). Municipal data on income, population
and employee by sector are all available from the Istat website (http://dati.istat.it/). Data at the province level
regarding revenues by sector have been obtained from the National Registry of Active Firms (ASIA database) and
are available to researchers upon request. Finally, median income has been provided by the Italian Ministry of
Economy and Finances (MEF). For further details we refer the reader to Table S1 in the Supporting Information.
Received: 15 July 2021; Accepted: 24 September 2021
References
1. Davies, N. G. et al. Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 cases, deaths, and demand for hospital services in
the UK: A modelling study. Lancet Public Health https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30133-X (2020).
2. Flaxman, S. et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature https://doi.org/10.
1038/s41586-020-2405-7 (2020).
3. Li, Y. et al. The temporal association of introducing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time-varying repro-
duction number (R) of SARS-CoV-2: A modelling study across 131 countries. Lancet Infect. Dis. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-
3099(20)30785-4 (2020).
4. Maier, B. F. & Brockmann, D. Effective containment explains subexponential growth in recent confirmed COVID-19 cases in
China. Science 368, 742–746 (2020).
5. Dehning, J. et al. Inferring change points in the spread of COVID-19 reveals the effectiveness of interventions. Science https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.abb9789 (2020).
6. Brauner, J. M. et al. Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19. Science 371, eabd9338. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.abd9338 (2020).
7. Aleta, A. et al. Modelling the impact of testing, contact tracing and household quarantine on second waves of COVID-19. Nat.
Hum. Behav. 4, 964–971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0931-9 (2020).
8. Kraemer, M. U. G. et al. The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.abb4218 (2020).
9. Xiong, C., Hu, S., Yang, M., Luo, W. & Zhang, L. Mobile device data reveal the dynamics in a positive relationship between human
mobility and COVID-19 infections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 27087–27089. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010836117 (2020).
10. Kissler, S. M. et al. Reductions in commuting mobility correlate with geographic differences in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in New
York City. Nat. Commun. 11, 4674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18271-5 (2020).
11. Jia, J. S. et al. Population flow drives spatio-temporal distribution of COVID-19 in China. Nature 582, 389–394. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41586-020-2284-y (2020).
12. Nouvellet, P. et al. Reduction in mobility and COVID-19 transmission. Nat. Commun. 12, 1090. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-
021-21358-2 (2021).
13. Glaeser, E. L., Gorback, C. & Redding, S. J. JUE insight: How much does COVID-19 increase with mobility? Evidence from New
York and four other U.S. cities. J. Urban Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2020.103292 (2020).
14. Chinazzi, M. et al. The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak. Science
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9757 (2020).
15. Hsiang, S. et al. The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-020-2404-8 (2020).
16. Haug, N. et al. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41562-020-01009-0 (2020).
17. Galeazzi, A. et al. Human mobility in response to covid-19 in France, Italy and UK. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–10 (2021).
18. Friedman, E., Friedman, J., Johnson, S. & Landsberg, A. Transitioning out of the coronavirus lockdown: A framework for evaluat-
ing zone-based social distancing. Front. Public Health https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00266 (2020).
19. Bertuzzo, E. et al. The geography of COVID-19 spread in Italy and implications for the relaxation of confinement measures. Nat.
Commun. 11, 4264. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18050-2 (2020).
20. Scala, A. et al. Time, space and social interactions: Exit mechanisms for the COVID-19 epidemics. Sci. Rep. 10, 13764. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-020-70631-9 (2020).
21. Della Rossa, F. et al. A network model of Italy shows that intermittent regional strategies can alleviate the COVID-19 epidemic.
Nat. Commun. 11, 5106. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18827-5 (2020).
22. Davies, N. G. et al. Association of tiered restrictions and a second lockdown with COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions in
England: A modelling study. Lancet Infect. Dis. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30984-1 (2020).
23. Ge, J., He, D., Lin, Z., Zhu, H. & Zhuang, Z. Four-tier response system and spatial propagation of COVID-19 in China by a network
model. Math. Biosci. 330, 108484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2020.108484 (2020).
24. Kaufman, B. G., Whitaker, R., Mahendraratnam, N., Smith, V. A. & McClellan, M. B. Comparing associations of state reopening
strategies with COVID-19 Burden. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 35, 3627–3634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06277-0 (2020).
25. Warren, G. W., Lofstedt, R. & Wardman, J. K. COVID-19: The winter lockdown strategy in five European nations. J. Risk Res.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2021.1891802 (2021).
26. Polyakova, M., Kocks, G., Udalova, V. & Finkelstein, A. Initial economic damage from the COVID-19 pandemic in the United
States is more widespread across ages and geographies than initial mortality impacts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 27934–27939.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014279117 (2020).
27. Zhang, J. et al. Changes in contact patterns shape the dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Science 368, 1481–1486.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb8001 (2020).
28. Pullano, G., Valdano, E., Scarpa, N., Rubrichi, S. & Colizza, V. Evaluating the effect of demographic factors, socioeconomic factors,
and risk aversion on mobility during the COVID-19 epidemic in France under lockdown: A population-based study. Lancet Digit.
Health https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30243-0 (2020).
29. Schlosser, F. et al. COVID-19 lockdown induces disease-mitigating structural changes in mobility networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012326117 (2020).
30. Alwan, N. A. et al. Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: We need to act now. Lancet 396, e71–e72. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32153-X (2020).
31. Mitjà, O. et al. Experts’ request to the Spanish Government: Move Spain towards complete lockdown. Lancet 395, 1193–1194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30753-4 (2020).
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 13
Vol.:(0123456789)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
32. Saltelli, A. et al. Five ways to ensure that models serve society: A manifesto. Nature 582, 482–484. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-
020-01812-9 (2020).
33. Guan, D. et al. Global supply-chain effects of COVID-19 control measures. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41562-020-0896-8 (2020).
34. Jay, J. et al. Neighbourhood income and physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Nat. Hum.
Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00998-2 (2020).
35. Carvalho, V. M. et al. Tracking the COVID-19 crisis with high-resolution transaction data. R. Soc. open sci. 8, 210218. https://doi.
org/10.1098/rsos.210218 (2021).
36. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N. & Stepner, M. The Economic Impacts of COVID-19: Evidence from a New Public Database
Built Using Private Sector Data. Tech. Rep, National Bureau of Economic Research (2020).
37. Fernández-Villaverde, J. & Jones, C. I. Macroeconomic outcomes and covid-19: A progress report. Working Paper number 28004,
National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28004 (2020).
38. Buckee, C. O. et al. Aggregated mobility data could help fight COVID-19. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb8021 (2020).
39. Grantz, K. H. et al. The use of mobile phone data to inform analysis of COVID-19 pandemic epidemiology. Nat. Commun. 11,
4961. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18190-5 (2020).
40. Kogan, N. E. et al. An early warning approach to monitor COVID-19 activity with multiple digital traces in near real time. Sci.
Adv. 7, eabd6989. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd6989 (2021).
41. Acosta, R. J., Kishore, N., Irizarry, R. A. & Buckee, C. O. Quantifying the dynamics of migration after Hurricane Maria in Puerto
Rico. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 32772–32778. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001671117 (2020).
42. Eyre, R., De Luca, F. & Simini, F. Social media usage reveals recovery of small businesses after natural hazard events. Nat. Commun.
11, 1629. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15405-7 (2020).
43. Kryvasheyeu, Y. et al. Rapid assessment of disaster damage using social media activity. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500779. https://doi.org/10.
1126/sciadv.1500779 (2016).
44. Preis, T., Moat, H. S., Bishop, S. R., Treleaven, P. & Stanley, H. E. Quantifying the digital traces of Hurricane Sandy on Flickr. Sci.
Rep. 3, 3141. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03141 (2013).
45. Bonaccorsi, G. et al. Economic and social consequences of human mobility restrictions under COVID-19. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
117, 15530–15535. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2007658117 (2020).
46. Chang, S. et al. Mobility network models of COVID-19 explain inequities and inform reopening. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-020-2923-3 (2020).
47. Gregory, V., Menzio, G. & Wiczer, D. G. Pandemic Recession: L or V-Shaped? Tech. Rep., National Bureau of Economic Research
(2020).
48. Guerrieri, V., Lorenzoni, G., Straub, L. & Werning, I. Macroeconomic Implications of COVID-19: Can Negative Supply Shocks Cause
Demand Shortages? Tech. Rep., National Bureau of Economic Research (2020).
49. Kaplan, G., Moll, B. & Violante, G. L. The great lockdown and the big stimulus: Tracing the pandemic possibility frontier for the
U.S. Working Paper 27794, National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27794 (2020).
50. Eichenbaum, M. S., Rebelo, S. & Trabandt, M. Epidemics in the neoclassical and new keynesian models. Working Paper 27430,
National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27430 (2020).
51. Deb, P., Furceri, D., Ostry, J. D. & Tawk, N. The Economic Effects of COVID-19 Containment Measures. Tech. Rep., CEPR Discussion
Paper No. DP15087 (2020).
52. Martin, A., Markhvida, M., Hallegatte, S. & Walsh, B. Socio-economic impacts of covid-19 on household consumption and poverty.
Econ. Disasters Clim. Change 4, 453–479 (2020).
53. Blundell, R., Dias, M. C., Joyce, R. & Xu, X. COVID-19 and inequalities. Fisc. Stud. 41, 291–319 (2020).
54. Adams-Prassl, A., Boneva, T., Golin, M. & Rauh, C. Inequality in the impact of the coronavirus shock: Evidence from real time
surveys. J. Public Econ. 189, 104245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104245 (2020).
55. Hagberg, A., Swart, P. & Chult, D. S. Exploring Network Structure, Dynamics, and Function Using Networkx. Tech. Rep., Los Alamos
National Lab. (LANL) (2008).
56. Facebook Data for Good. Accessed 03 February 2021 https://dataforgood.fb.com.
57. Bing Maps. Accessed 03 February 2021 https://www.bing.com/maps.
58. Maas, P. et al. Facebook disaster maps: Aggregate insights for crisis response and recovery. In Proceedings of the 16th International
Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM), Valencia, Spain 2019 (2019).
59. Sistemi locali del lavoro, Istat. Accessed 03 February 2021 https://www.istat.it/it/informazioni-territoriali-e-cartografiche/siste
mi-locali-del-lavoro.
60. Franconi, L., Ichim, D. & D’Aló, M. Labour market areas for territorial policies: Tools for a European approach. Stat. J. IAOS 33,
585–591. https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-160343 (2017).
61. Barabási, A.-L. et al. Network Science (Cambridge University Press, 2016).
62. Newman, M. Networks (Oxford University Press, 2018).
63. Latora, V. & Marchiori, M. Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 198701 (2001).
64. Latora, V. & Marchiori, M. A measure of centrality based on network efficiency. New J. Phys. 9, 188 (2007).
65. Crucitti, P., Latora, V. & Marchiori, M. Model for cascading failures in complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 69, 045104. https://doi.org/
10.1103/PhysRevE.69.045104 (2004).
66. Crucitti, P., Latora, V. & Porta, S. Centrality measures in spatial networks of urban streets. Phys. Rev. E 73, 036125 (2006).
67. Achard, S. & Bullmore, E. Efficiency and cost of economical brain functional networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e17. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030017 (2007).
68. Pedauga, L., Sáez, F. & Delgado-Márquez, B. L. Macroeconomic lockdown and smes: The impact of the covid-19 pandemic in
Spain. Small Bus. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00476-7 (2021).
69. Barrot, J.-N., Grassi, B. & Sauvagnat, J. Sectoral effects of social distancing. Available at SSRN (2020).
70. Spelta, A., Flori, A., Pierri, F., Bonaccorsi, G. & Pammolli, F. After the lockdown: Simulating mobility, public health and economic
recovery scenarios. Sci. Rep. 10, 16950. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73949-6 (2020).
71. Friedman, J. et al. The Elements of Statistical Learning Vol. 1 (Springer Series in Statistics, 2001).
72. Kruskal, W. H. & Wallis, W. A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 47, 583–621 (1952).
73. Koenker, R. & Hallock, K. F. Quantile regression. J. Econ. Perspect. 15, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.143 (2001).
74. Espinoza, R. & Reznikova, L. Who can log in? The importance of skills for the feasibility of teleworking arrangements across OECD
countries. OECD Soc., Employ. Migr. Work. Pap. https://doi.org/10.1787/3f115a10-en (2020).
75. Dingel, J. I. & Neiman, B. How Many Jobs Can be Done at Home? Tech. Rep., National Bureau of Economic Research (2020).
76. Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat. Methods 17, 261–272. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 (2020).
77. Buitinck, L. et al. API design for machine learning software: Experiences from the scikit-learn project. In ECML PKDD Workshop:
Languages for Data Mining and Machine Learning 108–122 (2013).
78. Terpilowski, M. Scikit-posthocs: Pairwise multiple comparison tests in python. J. Open Sour. Softw. 4, 1169. https://doi.org/10.
21105/joss.01169 (2019).
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 14
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Author contributions
G.B., F.Pi, F.S., A.F., F.Pa. designed the research. G.B., F.Pi. and F.S. collected data. G.B., F.Pi. and F.S. analyzed
data and performed research. All authors discussed research results, wrote and reviewed the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to G.B. or F.P.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2021
Scientific Reports | (2021) 11:21174 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99548-7 15
Vol.:(0123456789)
File and source
- File
- socioeconomic-differences-and-persistent-segregation-of-italian-territories-during-covid-19-pandemic.pdf
- Size
- 2,549,719 bytes
- SHA-256
- f4bdf9dd5ae52a1d80c23a327dee82218b78989775fae9faaf22f62fa2dd96fa
- Original
- doi.org