The intelligent lockdown: Compliance with COVID-19 mitigation measures in the Netherlands

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch government has introduced an “intelligent lockdown” with stay at home and social distancing measures. The Dutch approach to mitigate the virus focuses less on repression and more on moral appeals and self-discipline. This study assessed how compliance with the measures have worked out in practice and what factors might affect whether Dutch people comply with the measures. We analyzed data from an online survey, conducted between April 7-14, among 568 participants. The overall results showed reported compliance was high. This suggests that the Dutch approach has to some extent worked as hoped in practice. Repression did not play a significant role in compliance, while intrinsic (moral and social) motivations did produce better compliance. Yet appeals on self-discipline did not work for everyone, and people with lower impulse control were more likely to violate the rules. In addition, compliance was lower for people who lacked the practical capacity to follow the measures and for those who have the opportunity to break the measures. Sustained compliance, therefore, relies on support to aid people to maintain social distancing and restrictions to reduce opportunities for unsafe gatherings. These findings suggest several important practical recommendations for combating the COVID-19 pandemic.

Download Full-text

Social distancing in America: Understanding long-term adherence to COVID-19 mitigation recommendations

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0257945 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (9) ◽

pp. e0257945

Author(s):

Christopher P. Reinders Folmer ◽

Megan A. Brownlee ◽

Adam D. Fine ◽

Emmeke B. Kooistra ◽

Malouke E. Kuiper ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Norms ◽

Disease Outbreaks ◽

The United States ◽

Mitigation Measures ◽

Personal Factors ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Social Distancing ◽

Infectious Disease Outbreaks ◽

Practical Capacity ◽

Major Factors

A crucial question in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks is how to ensure that people continue to adhere to mitigation measures for the longer duration. The present paper examines this question by means of a set of cross-sectional studies conducted in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, in May, June, and July of 2020. Using stratified samples that mimic the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population, it seeks to understand to what extent Americans continued to adhere to social distancing measures in the period after the first lockdown ended. Moreover, it seeks to uncover which variables sustained (or undermined) adherence across this period. For this purpose, we examined a broad range of factors, relating to people’s (1) knowledge and understanding of the mitigation measures, (2) perceptions of their costs and benefits, (3) perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice, (4) personal factors, (5) social environment, and (6) practical circumstances. Our findings reveal that adherence was chiefly shaped by three major factors: respondents adhered more when they (a) had greater practical capacity to adhere, (b) morally agreed more with the measures, and (c) perceived the virus as a more severe health threat. Adherence was shaped to a lesser extent by impulsivity, knowledge of social distancing measures, opportunities for violating, personal costs, and descriptive social norms. The results also reveal, however, that adherence declined across this period, which was partly explained by changes in people’s moral alignment, threat perceptions, knowledge, and perceived social norms. These findings show that adherence originates from a broad range of factors that develop dynamically across time. Practically these insights help to improve pandemic governance, as well as contributing theoretically to the study of compliance and the way that rules come to shape behavior.

Download Full-text

Compliance in the 1.5 Meter Society: Longitudinal Analysis of Citizens’ Adherence to COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in a Representative Sample in the Netherlands

10.31234/osf.io/dr9q3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Christopher Reinders Folmer ◽

Malouke Kuiper ◽

Elke Olthuis ◽

Emmeke Barbara Kooistra ◽

Anne Leonre de Bruijn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Distance Measures ◽

Mitigation Measures ◽

Social Distancing ◽

General Duty ◽

Future Success ◽

Nationally Representative ◽

The One ◽

Representative Samples ◽

Do So

In the month of May, the Netherlands moved out of the “intelligent lockdown”, and into the “1.5 meter society”, which aims to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic by means of safe-distance measures. This paper assesses how Dutch citizens have complied with these social distancing measures. It analyses data from two surveys conducted in May (between 8-14 and between 22-26) among nationally representative samples (N = 984 and N = 1021). We find that a combination of factors explain social distancing compliance. On the one hand we see that people are more likely to comply if they have an intrinsic motivation to do so, when they have the capacity to comply, when they have good impulse control, when they think compliance is normal, and when they see a general duty to obey rules generally. The paper also assesses how compliance has changed over time, assessing changes in May as well as how these are different from compliance with lockdown measures in April. During this period, there has been a gradual decline in compliance that coincides with a decline in intrinsic motivations and capacity for compliance, and there has been an increase in opportunities to violate the measures. The paper assesses what these changes may mean for current and future success of Covid-19 mitigation measures.

Download Full-text

Compliance with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in the United States

10.31234/osf.io/qymu3 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Benjamin van Rooij ◽

Anne Leonore de Bruijn ◽

Christopher Reinders Folmer ◽

Emmeke Barbara Kooistra ◽

Malouke Esra Kuiper ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Social Norms ◽

Human Behavior ◽

Online Survey ◽

The United States ◽

Self Control ◽

Mitigation Measures ◽

Social Distancing ◽

Intrinsic Motivations ◽

Fundamental Shift

The COVID-19 mitigation measures require a fundamental shift in human behavior. The present study assesses what factors influence Americans to comply with the stay at home and social distancing measures. It analyzes data from an online survey, conducted on April 3, 2020, of 570 participants from 35 states that have adopted such measures. The results show that while perceptual deterrence was not associated with compliance, people actually comply less when they fear the authorities. Further, two broad processes promote compliance. First, compliance depended on people’s capacity to obey the rules, opportunity to break the rules, and self-control. As such, compliance results from their own personal abilities and the context in which they live. Second, compliance depended on people’s intrinsic motivations, including substantive moral support and social norms. This paper discusses the implications of these findings for ensuring compliance to effectively mitigate the virus.

Download Full-text

Social Distancing in America: Understanding Long-term Adherence to Covid-19 Mitigation Recommendations

10.31234/osf.io/457em ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Christopher Reinders Folmer ◽

Megan Brownlee ◽

Adam Fine ◽

Malouke Esra Kuiper ◽

Elke Olthuis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Disease Outbreaks ◽

The United States ◽

Mitigation Measures ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Situational Influences ◽

Social Distancing ◽

Short Period ◽

Practical Capacity ◽

Nationally Representative ◽

Motivational Influences

A crucial question in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks is how to ensure that people continue to adhere to mitigation measures for the longer duration of the pandemic. The present paper examines this question by means of a nationally representative cross-sectional set of studies conducted in the United States in May, June, and July 2020. It seeks to understand to what extent Americans continued to adhere to social distancing measures in the period after the first lockdown ended during the first wave of COVID-19. Moreover, it seeks to uncover which situational and motivational variables sustained (or undermined) adherence. Our findings reveal a mix of situational and motivational variables that contributed to adherence in the period after the first lockdown: individuals’ knowledge of social distancing measures, their practical capacity to adhere to them, their opportunities for not doing so, and their impulsivity (situational influences), as well as their moral alignment with mitigation measures against the virus, perceptions of its health threat, and perceived norms for adherence in their community (motivational influences). The results also reveal, however, that adherence among Americans declined during this period, as did important situational and motivational processes that sustained this. The findings show that adherence does not just originate in motivations and that situational variables play a central role. Moreover, they show that adherence is dynamic, as the core variables that sustain can change over a short period of time. These insights help to advance understanding of pandemic governance, as well as illuminating the interaction between rules and human conduct and compliance more generally. Moreover, they identify important avenues for policy to promote and sustain adherence to mitigation measures during the COVID-19 pandemic and in future outbreaks.

Download Full-text

Sustaining Compliance with Covid-19 Mitigation Measures? Understanding Distancing Behavior in the Netherlands during June 2020

10.31234/osf.io/xafwp ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Christopher Reinders Folmer ◽

Malouke Kuiper ◽

Elke Olthuis ◽

Emmeke Barbara Kooistra ◽

Anne Leonre de Bruijn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Social Norms ◽

Intrinsic Motivation ◽

Impulse Control ◽

Mitigation Measures ◽

Nationally Representative ◽

Singular Trajectory ◽

Representative Samples ◽

Do So

In the month of June, the Netherlands had continued its singular trajectory in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. After the transition from the “intelligent lockdown” into the “1.5 meter society,” the month of June heralded further relaxations of the prior mitigation measures. Building on our previous surveys during the month of May, this paper reports the findings of two additional survey waves collected in June (between 8-11 and between 22-26) among nationally representative samples (N = 1041 and N = 1033). The results show that the processes that sustained compliance during the month of May continued to be influential, especially citizens’ intrinsic motivation to comply, their capacity to do so, their impulse control, and social norms that sustained compliance. Furthermore, there were some indications that extrinsic reasons, such as the likelihood of punishment and the fairness of enforcement, may have become more influential in shaping compliance. A comparison to the findings from May revealed, however, that compliance was gradually declining in the Netherlands, as were the resources that sustain it.

Download Full-text

Maintaining Compliance when the Virus Returns: Understanding Adherence to Social Distancing Measures in the Netherlands in July 2020

10.31234/osf.io/vx3mn ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Christopher Reinders Folmer ◽

Malouke Kuiper ◽

Elke Olthuis ◽

Emmeke Barbara Kooistra ◽

Anne Leonre de Bruijn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Social Norms ◽

Distance Measures ◽

Mitigation Measures ◽

Safe Distance ◽

Social Distancing ◽

Working Paper ◽

Nationally Representative ◽

Singular Trajectory ◽

Representative Samples

After its relative lenient, “intelligent lockdown” approach to the COVID-19 coronavirus, the Netherlands has continued its singular trajectory in combating the pandemic. The month of July introduced further relaxations to prior mitigation measures, but also saw a resurgence of infections. This working paper examines how these developments are reflected in Dutch citizens’ compliance with safe-distance measures during this period. Building on our previous surveys during the months of May and June, we report the findings of two additional survey waves collected in early (7-10) and late (21-23) July among nationally representative samples (N = 1064 and N = 1023, respectively). The results show that the decline in compliance that was observed from May to June seems to have halted. At the same time, important predictors of compliance – such as citizens’ capacity to comply, perceptions of the threat of the virus, and support for mitigation measures – have ceased to decrease, or are increasing. Taken together, these findings suggest that Dutch citizens’ compliance with mitigation measures may be on the rise again. However, our findings also suggest that social norms for compliance continue to be eroding, which may continue to dampen citizens’ tendency to comply.

Download Full-text

Human Responses to Covid-19: The Role of Optimism Bias, Perceived Severity, and Anxiety

10.31234/osf.io/w4k9m ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Iro Fragkaki ◽

Dominique F. Maciejewski ◽

Esther Weijman ◽

Jonas Feltes ◽

Maaike Cima

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Psychological Factors ◽

Online Survey ◽

Behavioral Changes ◽

Perceived Severity ◽

Optimism Bias ◽

Social Distancing ◽

Pharmaceutical Interventions

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, the governments are trying to contain the spread with non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as social distancing rules, restrictions, and lockdowns. In an effort to identify factors that may influence population adherence to NPIs, we examined the role of optimism bias, anxiety, and perceived severity of the situation in relation to engagement in protective behavioral changes and satisfaction with governments’ response to this pandemic. We conducted an online survey in 935 participants (Mage = 34.44; 68.88% females) that was disseminated in April and May 2020 in the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, and USA. Individuals with high optimism bias engaged less in behavioral changes, whereas individuals with high levels of anxiety and high perceived severity engaged more in behavioral changes. Individuals with high optimism bias and individuals with high levels of anxiety were less satisfied with the governments’ response, albeit for different reasons. Individuals who reported low perceived severity and low government satisfaction engaged the least in behavioral changes, whereas participants who reported high perceived severity and low government satisfaction engaged the most in behavioral changes. This study contributes to a better understanding of the psychological factors that influence people’s responses to NPIs.

Download Full-text

Public perspectives on social distancing and other protective measures in Europe: a cross-sectional survey study during the COVID-19 pandemic

10.1101/2020.04.02.20049676 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Karien Meier ◽

Toivo Glatz ◽

Mathijs C Guijt ◽

Marco Piccininni ◽

Merel van der Meulen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

The Netherlands ◽

Online Survey ◽

Communication Channels ◽

European Countries ◽

Stage Iii ◽

Survey Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Protective Measures ◽

Social Distancing

ABSTRACTObjectivesThe extent to which people implement government-issued protective measures is critical in preventing further spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Our study aimed to evaluate the public belief in the effectiveness of protective measures, the reported implementation of these measures in daily life, and to identify communication channels used to acquire relevant information on COVID-19 in European countries.DesignA cross-sectional online survey available in multiple languages was disseminated on social media starting March 19th, 2020. After five days, we computed descriptive statistics for countries with more than 500 respondents. Each day, we compiled and categorized community containment measures enacted in each country by stringency (stage I-IV). Response collection continued for one week to explore possible dynamics as containment strategies intensified.ParticipantsIn total, 9,796 adults responded, of whom 8,611 resided in the Netherlands (stage III), 604 in Germany (stage III), and 581 in Italy (stage IV). An additional 1,365 respondents completed the survey in the following week.ResultsParticipants indicated support for governmental measures related to avoiding social gatherings, selective closure of public places, and hand hygiene and respiratory measures (range for all measures: 95.0%-99.7%). Respondents from the Netherlands were less likely to consider a complete social lockdown effective (59.2%), compared to respondents in Germany (76.6%) or Italy (87.2%). Italian residents did not only apply enforced social distancing measures more frequently (range: 90.2%-99.3%, German and Dutch residents: 67.5%-97.0%), but also self-initiated hygienic and social distancing behaviors (range: 36.3%-96.6%, German and Dutch residents: 28.3%-95.7%). Respondents largely reported being sufficiently informed about the COVID-19 outbreak and about behaviors to avoid infection (range across countries: 90.2%-91.1%). Information channels most commonly reported included television (range: 53.0%-82.0%), newspapers (range: 31.0%-63.0%), official health websites (range: 39.0%-54.1%), and social media (range: 40.0%-55.8%). We observed no major changes in answers over time.ConclusionsIn European countries, the degree of public belief in the effectiveness of protective measures was high and residents reported to be sufficiently informed by various communication channels. In March 2020, implementation of enacted and self-initiated measures differed between countries and were highest among Italian respondents, who were subjected to the most elaborate measures of social lockdown and greatest COVID-19 burden in Europe.

Download Full-text

Management of the Dutch Waddensea

Water Science & Technology ◽

10.2166/wst.1984.0081 ◽

1984 ◽

Vol 16 (3-4) ◽

pp. 485-495 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

D Vreugdenhil

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Middle Ages ◽

Human Activities ◽

Nature Reserve ◽

The Other ◽

Hydrological Processes ◽

Dutch Government ◽

Shallow Sea ◽

Management Objectives ◽

Late Middle Ages

It was not until the late Middle Ages that the sea penetrated far into the interior of The Netherlands, thus flooding three quarters of a million hectares of land. Since then half a million hectares have been reclaimed from the sea. The Dutch Government chose to preserve the remaining quarter of a million hectares of shallow sea with mudflats of the Waddensea as a nature reserve. The management objectives are at one hand to preserve all characteristic habitats and species with a minimal interference by human activities in geomorphological and hydrological processes, and at the other hand to guarantee the safety against the sea of the inhabitants of the adjacent mainland and islands and to facilitate certain economic and recreational uses of the Waddensea without jeopardizing the natural qualities. These objectives are being elaborated in managementplans.

Download Full-text

Kaiserdämmerung

10.1093/oso/9780198833857.003.0003 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

William A. Schabas

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Dutch Government ◽

Foreign Office ◽

The Hague

As the war ends, Kaiser Wilhelm leaves Berlin for German military headquarters in Spa, Belgium, where his generals tell him that the troops will not follow him and that his life may even be threatened. He flees to the Netherlands in his private train, possibly after receiving an ‘all clear’ from Queen Wilhelmina. The Dutch Government persuades a local aristocrat, Count Bentinck, to take him in for a few days to his castle in Amerongen, but the visit ends up lasting nearly eighteen months. Britain’s Ambassador to The Hague sends his wife to spy on the Kaiser’s arrival, but attempts without success to conceal her identity from the Foreign Office.

Download Full-text