Search

This study investigated the effectiveness and future orientation of the way in which the Dutch government communicates risks to the general public. Research questions focused on the extent that the communication aims were reached and fulfilled the information needs of the general public. It was further investigated to what extent the communication aims corresponded to relevant governmental policy documents and to what extent the development and execution of risk communication processes were adequate and efficient, and complied with the scientific knowledge on risk communication. The study had a mixed-methods design and consisted of a literature review, three empirical investigations among citizens (a survey, a secondary analysis of panel studies related to the corona crisis, and a content analyses of the reactions on social media to press conferences announcing behavioural guidelines) and a set of in-depth interviews with national and regional governmental risk communication professionals. Results showed that a large proportion of the public considers itself well-informed regarding risks in the local environment, but less well-informed with respect to adequate actions that they can take themselves to reduce these risks. Participants indicated to have recently taken a number actions that were easy to implement to reduce risks, such as those posed by the corona virus. Citizens seem to have a need for information that is personally relevant. The information provided by the government regarding the risks mentioned in the “Regionaal Risicoprofiel” was considered to be clear and well-articulated. Citizens further indicated that, in the spring of 2020, the government explained their motivations behind the corona related advices, rules and regulations well. The interviews with the professionals made clear that the addressed risk communication topics conformed to regional and national policy documents (the “Regionale Risicoprofielen” and the “Nationale Veilig¬heid Stra¬tegie”). The addressed risks were however not restricted to the topics mentioned in those policy documents. The risk communication professionals collaborated with many other relevant communicators. The way their risk communication is designed, partly corresponds to scientific advice to enhance effectiveness. The risk communication activities mentioned by the professionals do correspond, however, with the criteria for a future orientated risk communication practice as laid down in the “Plan van aanpak toekomst¬besten¬dige risico- en crisiscommuni¬catie”. A note of caution relates to the generalisation of the findings. Governmental risk communication entails that 1) a governmental organisation 2) communicates a message 3) to a particular audience 4) by means of a (combination of) media 5) to reach a particular aim 6) among a particular target group. This means that there is a large diversity in the design and implementation of risk communication in the Netherlands. In view of this diversity, it is difficult to generalise the empirical findings on the effectiveness and future orientation of the way in which the Dutch government communicates risks to the general public.

This study investigated the effectiveness and future orientation of the way in which the Dutch government communicates risks to the general public. Research questions focused on the extent that the communication aims were reached and fulfilled the information needs of the general public. It was further investigated to what extent the communication aims corresponded to relevant governmental policy documents and to what extent the development and execution of risk communication processes were adequate and efficient, and complied with the scientific knowledge on risk communication. The study had a mixed-methods design and consisted of a literature review, three empirical investigations among citizens (a survey, a secondary analysis of panel studies related to the corona crisis, and a content analyses of the reactions on social media to press conferences announcing behavioural guidelines) and a set of in-depth interviews with national and regional governmental risk communication professionals. Results showed that a large proportion of the public considers itself well-informed regarding risks in the local environment, but less well-informed with respect to adequate actions that they can take themselves to reduce these risks. Participants indicated to have recently taken a number actions that were easy to implement to reduce risks, such as those posed by the corona virus. Citizens seem to have a need for information that is personally relevant. The information provided by the government regarding the risks mentioned in the “Regionaal Risicoprofiel” was considered to be clear and well-articulated. Citizens further indicated that, in the spring of 2020, the government explained their motivations behind the corona related advices, rules and regulations well. The interviews with the professionals made clear that the addressed risk communication topics conformed to regional and national policy documents (the “Regionale Risicoprofielen” and the “Nationale Veilig¬heid Stra¬tegie”). The addressed risks were however not restricted to the topics mentioned in those policy documents. The risk communication professionals collaborated with many other relevant communicators. The way their risk communication is designed, partly corresponds to scientific advice to enhance effectiveness. The risk communication activities mentioned by the professionals do correspond, however, with the criteria for a future orientated risk communication practice as laid down in the “Plan van aanpak toekomst¬besten¬dige risico- en crisiscommuni¬catie”. A note of caution relates to the generalisation of the findings. Governmental risk communication entails that 1) a governmental organisation 2) communicates a message 3) to a particular audience 4) by means of a (combination of) media 5) to reach a particular aim 6) among a particular target group. This means that there is a large diversity in the design and implementation of risk communication in the Netherlands. In view of this diversity, it is difficult to generalise the empirical findings on the effectiveness and future orientation of the way in which the Dutch government communicates risks to the general public.

The government is responsible for emergency and disaster management. It is, however, important that citizens, companies and social organisations also feel responsible for keeping society safe during emergencies and disasters. A resilient society can help in averting crisis situations or limit the impact of these. The government would like to facilitate and empower resilience building in citizens in order for them to be better prepared before, during and after an emergency. The issue is how to coordinate and direct this in the best way. The study focused on the following topics: 1. the extent in which citizens are resilient and will act as spontaneous volunteers in the event of emergencies or disasters 2. the way in which the government can effectively facilitate and empower resilience and spontaneous volunteering 3. the control tools available to the government to prevent resilience and spontaneous volunteering from leading to (unmanageable) undesired or even adverse side effects

The government is responsible for emergency and disaster management. It is, however, important that citizens, companies and social organisations also feel responsible for keeping society safe during emergencies and disasters. A resilient society can help in averting crisis situations or limit the impact of these. The government would like to facilitate and empower resilience building in citizens in order for them to be better prepared before, during and after an emergency. The issue is how to coordinate and direct this in the best way. The study focused on the following topics: 1. the extent in which citizens are resilient and will act as spontaneous volunteers in the event of emergencies or disasters 2. the way in which the government can effectively facilitate and empower resilience and spontaneous volunteering 3. the control tools available to the government to prevent resilience and spontaneous volunteering from leading to (unmanageable) undesired or even adverse side effects

In this report a measles outbreak with a total of 37 patients has been studied in a well vaccinated secondary school in Bilthoven, with 949 students (aged 12-20 years). The vaccination coverage was over 90%. The students were asked to report disease symptoms and vaccination history. On the basis of reported clinical signs suggestive for measles they were selected for further laboratory studies. We were not allowed to include pupils without clinical symptoms as a control group. The majority of patients had been vaccinated with live attenuated measles vaccine after their first birthday. We found that measles infection among vaccinated individuals does not always present with classical symptoms. We do not know the extent of spread of measles virus among the school population without clinical symptoms. Within the school the virus spread was facilitated by the good possibilities for the pupils to mix and regroup between lessons in the central hall and corridors. During the outbreak there was no spread of infection in the population outside the school. Complications of measles have not occurred in this outbreak.

In this report a measles outbreak with a total of 37 patients has been studied in a well vaccinated secondary school in Bilthoven, with 949 students (aged 12-20 years). The vaccination coverage was over 90%. The students were asked to report disease symptoms and vaccination history. On the basis of reported clinical signs suggestive for measles they were selected for further laboratory studies. We were not allowed to include pupils without clinical symptoms as a control group. The majority of patients had been vaccinated with live attenuated measles vaccine after their first birthday. We found that measles infection among vaccinated individuals does not always present with classical symptoms. We do not know the extent of spread of measles virus among the school population without clinical symptoms. Within the school the virus spread was facilitated by the good possibilities for the pupils to mix and regroup between lessons in the central hall and corridors. During the outbreak there was no spread of infection in the population outside the school. Complications of measles have not occurred in this outbreak.