Just Inclusion Through Bottom-up Wellbeing Measurement: Case Study in Venserpolder,Amsterdam

Abstract

Multi-dimensional ‘wellbeing’ is used to assess micro-level development across Global South settings. We explore the added value of ‘wellbeing’ to understand urban marginality in a high-income context, and how a bottom-up approach can contribute to just development. From a study in Amsterdam, we conclude that (a) ‘wellbeing’ allows for comprehensive measurement of ‘development’ by inclusion of material, subjective and relational needs. These need analysis in relation to local socioeconomic and relational (institutional) reference points, and (b) the bottom-up methodology generates credible indicators that do more justice to the lived realities of marginalized communities. Therefore, the co-created Wellbeing Dashboard forms a potential stepping-stone towards epistemic and procedural justice.

Keywords

Urban marginality Bottom-up methodology Wellbeing Epistemic and procedural justice

I. Introduction

‘You work with models that are not about economic growth, right? We should talk!’. I (Anonymous) am being approached by another parent when our daughters play together in an Amsterdam playground. It is May 2020, and in this early stage of the COVID-19 epidemic, the air simmers with ideas that ‘things’ will be different. Naima works as an economist and urban strategist for an Amsterdam think tank and explores novel ideas and approaches that value economic change in the city in a way other than by focusing on economic growth alone and that strengthen democracy and community involvement. She puts us in contact with a marginalized community in Amsterdam Zuidoost that has worked with ‘Community Wealth Building’ (i.e., economic values flow back to communities where it is generated) (Dubb, 2016) and seeks collaboration to develop a broader measurement of their local wellbeing vision and guarantee scientific rigour. My colleague and I are researchers at the University of Amsterdam. We have a background in (development and feminist) economics and in (urban and development) geography. Our work focuses, broadly, on alternative economic approaches and urban justice issues in the ‘Global South’.¹ Being invited to share our knowledge to foster change in a ‘Global North’ location was new to both of us. The initial contact developed, with some sidesteps and detours, into a research programme in three communities in Amsterdam Zuidoost and (since 2024) three more in Amsterdam Nieuw-West, where we work in collaboration with residents, (local) governments, social organizations, entrepreneurs and other professionals on the development and implementation of a Wellbeing Dashboard (van Beek et al., 2025). This bottom-up research programme builds on a ‘Wellbeing Economics’ framework as put forward by Pouw (2020).

Elsewhere, we discuss the framing and findings of this research (Pouw and Perotti, 2025; van Beek et al., 2025) and discuss the added value of the concept and associated approach in comparison with existing economic or broader measurement approaches (e.g., income-based measurement; Broad Welfare Monitor; Doughnut economy) (Verrest et al., 2021). This article discusses how a concept that mainly emerged from International Development Studies (Gough and McGregor, 2007; McGregor, 2018), and has been developed, applied, and rethought through (urban) contexts in the Global South, can be applied in a marginalized urban area in a high-income context, that is, Venserpolder in Amsterdam.

The particular focus is firstly on the (added) value of the wellbeing concept for understanding the material, relational and subjective dimensions of quality of life in marginal areas in high-income cities. Here, we also consider the importance of the contextual factor of the absence (or presence) of reliable data. The research was conducted in a context where data are available in abundance. However, we know there are blind spots in terms of local needs, priorities and access constraints (see also de Vrieze et al., 2022). In particular, residents in deprived neighbourhoods and/or with a migration background experience a mismatch between their needs and aspirations and public service support and access to economic opportunities (Burgers and Musterd, 2001; Finlay and Finn, 2021; Tonkens and Verhoeven, 2019; Uitermark et al., 2005). The shift towards neoliberal policies of privatization, state withdrawal and reduction in public support has contributed to these mismatches, as many public services became marketized, less accessible or conditional on individual capacities to navigate complex systems. Such data, collected at municipal or national level and in addition to the state also by many other actors, are often considered to be telling an objective or true story without credible theoretical and methodological grounding. The power of data or data as infrastructure has been discussed in much scholarship, for example, in critical data studies or decolonial approaches where the production of and power inequalities in knowledge are considered (D’Ignazio and Klein, 2023; Eubanks, 2018; Kitchin, 2021). This article addresses this issue in relation to the development and importance of a locally conceived wellbeing interpretation and operationalization.

Secondly, we reflect on a co-creation methodology to address substantive gaps in knowledge and foster recognitional, epistemic and procedural justice (Gupta et al., 2023). Epistemologically, there is increasing attention to the politics of knowledge, and how to foster representation of marginalized groups and build democracy through epistemic, procedural, recognitional and substantive justice in development (Dutta et al., 2022; Liveriero, 2020; Mohan, 2007; Ottinger, 2013). In concrete terms, this implies not only acknowledging the needs and rights of marginalized groups (recognition justice), mobilizing and valuing their knowledges (epistemic justice) but also including these in procedures of decision-making (procedural justice), and putting these on a political agenda of policy and action (substantive justice). As such, with this article we not only position ourselves in current debates in development studies, on human wellbeing, just and inclusive development (Gupta et al., 2023; Pouw and Gupta, 2017), but also engage with global urbanism, emphasizing the need for more grounded, contextualized and provincialized conceptualization of, in this case, urban wellbeing (Lawhon and Truelove, 2020; Robinson, 2022).

II. Justice, Inclusive Development and Global Urbanisms

In international development studies, in the past decades, the attention shifted from paradigms that prioritized economic considerations over social or environmental goals, towards multidimensional human wellbeing and inclusive development, emphasizing the need for social, environmental and relational inclusiveness and defining development as ‘enhancing ecological and social wellbeing’ (Pouw and Gupta, 2017). This meant a need to include the needs, priorities and perspectives of marginalized groups in particular, and especially in the context of the Anthropocene. We define urban marginality as exclusion and social–spatial inequalities of multiple sorts, being subject to different dynamics (Sevelius et al., 2020; van Beek et al., 2025; van Gent et al., 2009; Van Kempen and Murie, 2009). This implies that ‘marginality’ is conceived as a relational concept, which aligns with our relational wellbeing approach, and is centred around human wellbeing in relation to others and a lived environment (Pouw, 2020). Whereas in a high-income urban setting, in general, public provisions and private opportunities are widespread, access and social, economic and political participation are limited among marginalized groups (Sevelius et al., 2020), who lack social (legal) status, educational opportunities, networks or capabilities to find their way in a highly digitalized institutional context.

In her groundbreaking text Ordinary Cities (2006), Jennifer Robinson condemns claims to universal theory building in urban studies, for this excludes the experiences of many cities across the world. She calls for an ‘ordinary cities’ approach that considers cities globally in a similar analytical framework, focusing on the role of relationality, local context and social–political histories. The past two decades in urban scholarship saw the development of a worlding of urban studies (Lawhon and Truelove, 2020; Robinson, 2022). As part of this worldling we witnessed the strengthening and deepening of urban concepts—such as gentrification—as they travelled to cities outside of Europe and the USA, as well as the limits thereof (Ghertner, 2014; Lees, 2012); we learnt that informality by no means is a practice of poor people when a state fails or is absent but as much practice by rich people and as well when a state is very strong (Roy, 2009). Scholarship also embarked on comparative work across cities that used to be considered ‘incomparable’. Such comparative tactics also support the development of conceptual and theoretical thinking, allowing for distinguishing local specificity from global applicability, and emphasizing the role of (conjunctural) local conditions. (Jacobs, 2012; Teo, 2022).

In this article we add to these debates by asking how a broader measurement of wellbeing sheds light on the needs and priorities of marginalized groups in a high-income, data-rich and institutionalized context, and how this can be operationalized in a robust and just bottom-up methodology centred around co-creation with resident groups. Below, we first provide a historical genealogy of scholarship on understanding economic lives of marginalized communities in the Global South through a wellbeing lens, consisting of a material, relational and subjective dimension and introduce the concepts of just and inclusive development. Thereafter, we introduce the bottom-up methodology that operationalizes wellbeing inductively from the perspective of residents themselves, including the case of Amsterdam, Venserpolder. The presentation of the data describes both the process of conception of a ’Wellbeing Dashboard’ designed as a democratizing tool and the analysis and interpretation of the wellbeing concept within a Global North context. In the subsequent discussion and conclusion, we will reflect on the two questions above.

III. Understanding Hardship and Wellbeing

Historically, understanding the economic lives of individuals, households and communities across rural and urban areas has been an important field of attention in the discipline of development studies. There is a legacy of approaches and scholarship that attempt to measure increasingly broader notions of prosperity. Well-known approaches range from a narrowly defined money metric poverty approach (Chen and Ravallion, 2007; Lampman, 1965; Orshansky, 1969; Ravallion, 2016), to the basic needs approach (Townsend, 1987), sustainable livelihoods approach (Chambers, 1995; Scoones, 1998), the capabilities approach (Sen, 1999) and multi-dimensional poverty (Alkire and Foster, 2011). However, the subsequent connection between broader measurement and the epistemic and procedural justice experienced by research subjects has not yet been made.

Across these approaches, we see a widening notion of wellbeing, but with an emphasis on the material factors. While a few relational aspects are typically measured indirectly by a ‘social capital’ (count) variable in the sustainable livelihoods approach, it does not measure relational needs such as basic social connections or access to public goods. Subjective measurement is implied only under the capability approach. Sen’s (1999) capabilities approach refrains from a predefined list of indicators and comes closest to a contextualized inductive measurement, going beyond the material domain. The capability approach inspired the wellbeing approach to measure community wellbeing without preconceived theoretical operationalizations of ‘poverty’ (or ‘illbeing’ for that matter). Building forth on the scholarship of capabilities and entitlements (Anand et al., 2005; Nussbaum, 2002; Sen, 1999), Allistar McGregor introduced the concept of wellbeing as ‘a state of being with others, where human needs are met, and where one can act meaningfully to pursue one’s goals, and where one enjoys a satisfactory quality of life’ (Gough and McGregor, 2007; McGregor, 2004) into the field of community wellbeing studies in the Global South. The wellbeing approach suggests operationalizing ‘wellbeing’ bottom-up by identifying basic needs and priorities in the material, relational and personal domain depending on context. The Venn diagram in Figure 1 is a first analytical step to distinguish between people’s needs and priorities in three broad wellbeing dimensions, as well as their intersections (McGregor and Pouw 2017; Pouw 2020).

Figure 1.

Source: McGregor and Pouw (2017).

Material wellbeing refers to resources that can be objectively measured (e.g., housing, income, assets, education, and infrastructure). Relational wellbeing refers mainly to access and relationships, such as access to green spaces, energy, family relations and social acceptance. Finally, subjective wellbeing refers to personal balance and mental wellbeing, to life satisfaction (McGregor, 2004; McGregor et al., 2009; McGregor and Pouw, 2017). These are broad definitions that enable inductive identification of wellbeing factors, such as those done in our case study in Amsterdam Venserpolder (Section IV). The above theoretical categorization occurs ex-post, creating room for subsequent correlational analysis and integrated model building (Pouw and Perotti, 2025). McGregor referred to wellbeing data/indicators as a ‘form of communication between the local needs of people and the needs of policymakers’ (McGregor, 2004: 337). In a developing context, community wellbeing studies aimed to inform local policy and action in a context where public policy was found to be unresponsive to marginalized voices (McGregor, 2004). However, to use wellbeing measurement as a democratizing tool in the hands of research subjects (the studied communities) themselves was not part of this consideration. Furthermore, in determining relative priorities, McGregor also argued for subjective measurement of wellbeing needs and setting priorities, as people assign value and meaning to different goals and realizations. We have adopted this approach and further operationalized it through a bottom-up standardized procedure with follow-up steps in terms of local capacity building and policy dialogue to foster procedural justice (see Section IV).

Within a broadly high-income urban context with geographically concentrated areas of (relative) deprivation, access to public and private goods and services is often assumed, but not part of the daily reality of people who struggle to make ends meet (van Beek et al., 2025). For example, access to ‘free’ government public services and information is conditional on digital literacy, (language) and computer access, which not everybody has. Access to (subsidized) museums and art is conditional on mobility and transport, which is difficult to afford both time- and money-wise (Pouw, 2020). Moreover, many basic needs in the social and personal domains cannot be acquired with monetary resources alone (e.g., informal support systems, social acceptance, dignity and respect, access). Yet, this is the underlying assumption in many high-income countries where ‘poverty’ is generally measured by a lack of income or material deprivation (Fusco et al., 2011; Hagenaars, 1991; Pouw, 2020; Stiglitz et al., 2009). As such, income at the level of households and GDP at the level of nation states do not capture well enough what matters to basic wellbeing for marginalized groups.

Through adopting the broader wellbeing approach, we aim to do more epistemic and substantive justice to people’s own experiences and values. Our focus on measurement of wellbeing among marginalized groups does entail a bottom-up bias towards those wellbeing aspects that are considered most primary by residents themselves. In terms of its operationalization, we build further on Pouw (2020) to develop a credible and robust methodology that is coherent with a Wellbeing Economic Framework. This implies that wellbeing is ultimately modelled in multi-dimensional ‘Wellbeing Dashboards’ that are co-created with residents as part and parcel of this methodology, and are used as a ‘communication tool’ with local policymakers and other local stakeholders.

IV. Research Methodology and Case Study

Co-creation Process

Our research methodology departs from the theory of wellbeing economics, which centres the economy around human wellbeing, instead of marginal utility (Pouw, 2020; Pouw and Perotti, 2025). People are assumed to optimize wellbeing, in multiple domains of life, by making trade-offs and setting priorities, to the extent they have a choice and the freedom/capability to do so.

The study followed an action-oriented and community-based participatory research (CBPR) design (Israel et al., 2005; Minkler and Wallerstein, 2008; van Beek et al., 2025), to ensure that the local community of Venserpolder was engaged throughout the entire process, from defining wellbeing indicators to policy dialogues.

The process consisted of multiple components: preparatory interviews, three sequential co-creation workshops, a face-to-face neighbourhood survey, validation sessions and experimental dialogues with policymakers (van Beek et al., 2025; Table 1). We describe these in detail in Section V and analyse them in relation to the questions posed in this article in Section VI.

Table 1.

Core Indicators Venserpolder (Based on Municipal Data Sources: BBGA Amsterdam and O&S Datasets).

Theme	Indicator	Venserpolder	Amsterdam
Housing	% housing corporations (2023)	59%	40%
Housing	Satisfaction with neighbourhood (1–10) (2021)	6.5	7.6
Housing	Expected development neighbourhood (1–10) (2021)	6.7	7.2
Public space	Clean-up state streets and pavements (1–10) (2021)	6.2	6.3
Safety	% Occasional sense of unsafety in own neighbourhood (2022)	35%	25%
Traffic	Parking facilities (1–10) (2021)	7.3	6.5
Commercial activities: Retail	Food shops (1–10) (2021)	6	7.7
Income	% Minimum income households (2019)	26%	16%
Wellbeing and youth care	Child-friendly environment (1–10) (2021)	5.9	7.2
Education	% School advice havo or vwo (CBS) (2019)	20%	52%
Sports	Sports facilities (1–10) (2021)	6.3	6.6
Socioeconomic status	Most vulnerable (% 66+) (2021)	39%	26%
Sustainability	Energy label A/B (%) (2023)	30%	33%
Socioeconomic status	Social cohesion (1–10)	5.6	6
Socioeconomic status	Low (2023)	46%	30%
	Midrange (2023)	32%	27%
	High (2023)	22%	44%
Population	Population size (2024)	8,491	918,941
	Disposable income (2023)	€32.400	€48.700

Source: Kerncijfers Amsterdam (2024).

In our recently published paper (van Beek et al., 2025), we reflect extensively on our methodology in detail and propose—based on our experiences and learnings in Venserpolder—a transferable comprehensive CBPR design. This design, presented in Figure 2, shows the different stages (numbered) of the research process, and the roles various actors play in these. The various components discussed in Section V (Table 2) are logically part of this CPBR. A key learning was that the bottom-up mixed methodology we developed relied on building trusted relationships with the community. This required us to invest much time and engagement with the neighbourhood platform and in the community itself, communicate extensively about the research activities in an accessible language and maintain a frequent presence and solid relationship with trusted local counterparts, whom residents could turn to for questions and concerns (Verloo, 2017, 2023).

Figure 2.

Source: Van Beek et al. (2025, Figure 1).

Table 2.

Overview of Methods of Data Collection.

	Method	Sample	Location
1	Interviews for a first understanding of key wellbeing issues and needs in the neighbourhood and residents’ willingness to participate and their attitudes towards research and how to approach this	8 representatives of care and wellbeing organization in Venserpolder; Purposive sampling	Online and at social organizations in Venserpolder
2	Three sequential co-creation workshops to co-create the content, function and design of a Wellbeing Dashboard for citizens	7 residents, all female, ages from 35 to 65, similar ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds; Snowball sampling	Neighbourhood centre ‘Stichting SES’ in Venserpolder
3	Face-to-face surveys to collect data on the wellbeing experiences and perspectives from a wider, representative sample of residents	261 residents, representative of neighbourhood population (tested against municipal demographic and socioeconomic data); Stratified sampling and quota sampling	Different locations in Venserpolder, including community centres, public spaces (incl. shopping street), elderly home, youth organization and online (20% of sample)
4	Validation of survey results and Wellbeing Dashboard	7 residents, all female, ages from 35 to 65, similar ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds	Neighbourhood centre ‘Stichting SES’ in Venserpolder
5	Two sequential capacity-building sessions with residents to practice prioritization of needs and using the Wellbeing Dashboard for vocalizing policy needs	8 residents, all female, ages from 40 to 65+, mixed ethnic backgrounds, varying socioeconomic backgrounds.; Purposive and snowball sampling	The University of Amsterdam
6	Two sequential experimental dialogue sessions to practice and test using the Wellbeing Dashboard for formulating policy actions	8 residents, all female, ages from 40 to 65+, mixed ethnic backgrounds, varying socioeconomic backgrounds4 policy professionals: municipal area broker, district manager of housing association, neighbourhood judge, owner of ‘Stichting SES’; Purposive sampling	Municipal community centre in Venserpolder

Source: Van Beek et al. (2025: 4).

Case Study Venserpolder

Venserpolder, in Amsterdam Zuidoost, is the first neighbourhood where we conducted the research project, following a demand by community residents themselves. Table 1 lists ‘core indicators’ about the neighbourhood from existing municipal data.² This shows that Venserpolder belongs to the neighbourhoods with the lowest disposable income within the Amsterdam municipality and that on most other indicators it scores (significantly) below the Amsterdam average.

Venserpolder is situated in Amsterdam Zuidoost. This area of Amsterdam has been subject to multiple policies and interventions over the past decades addressing neighbourhood safety, quality of the living environment, labour opportunities and the energy transition. In 2021, the Masterplan Zuidoost was initiated. The Masterplan has a duration of 18 years and is initiated as part of ‘Het National Programme Leefbaarheid en Veiligheid’ by the Ministry of Housing and Spatial Planning (www.leefbaarenveilig.nl). This programme is a collaboration of six ministries, 19 municipalities, residents and local partners and aims to improve the safety and living conditions in 20 urban areas throughout the Netherlands. The programme emphasizes the ambition to have residents in a very central (participating) position in the programme. Venserpolder is a key area in this plan (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2020).

V. Learning About Hardship: Co-creating a Wellbeing Dashboard in Venserpolde

This section discusses each step of the bottom-up creation of the Wellbeing Dashboard in Venserpolder in detail. The process consisted of multiple components: preparatory interviews, three sequential co-creation workshops, a face-to-face neighbourhood survey, validation sessions and experimental dialogues with policymakers (van Beek et al., 2025, Table 1). See Table 2 for details.

Building on What Is There

The exploration of wellbeing in Venserpolder started with eight interviews with active members of the local CSO ‘Cooperating Organizations Venserpolder’, which served as both a knowledge partner and a recruitment gatekeeper in the co-creation process (method 1 in Table 2). These women, all leaders of community-based social and/or care organizations in Venserpolder, had been part of a trajectory to develop a wellbeing vision for Venserpolder as part of the start of the Masterplan Zuidoost. We were asked by the coordinator of this trajectory to explore opportunities and demands for a measurement tool to accompany their collaboration with the municipality. These interviews not only showed a rich picture of challenges and opportunities in Venserpolder as visioned by these women but also brought to the fore the often-negative experiences they had with government programmes and participation trajectories. It showed the limited power they—and (other) residents—experienced in decision-making regarding their community: ‘Hence, we are invited to share ideas and concerns and then when you see what has been decided you think: so, where are our concerns?’ They made clear that a potential measurement tool should not only measure what was considered important by residents but be also used by the municipality in their policy practice, be communicated to residents in a suitable manner and be co-owned by the community.

In many of the recent interventions designed by the state, residents and community leaders are often provided with opportunities to participate. However, many experience very little actual decision-making in these processes: ‘so, we are invited to participate. So, you invest your time and share ideas and experiences. And then you see what they come up with after all and you think: where are our ideas?’ (interview with community leader 1, spring 2021). Moreover, they experience substantial power differences: ‘you sit at the table with everybody, and everybody is paid, and we need to contribute our time and knowledge for free’ (interview with community leader 2, fall 2021). Hence, while the government might feel that the Masterplan is a fresh start, bringing new ideas, another approach and often new staff, this is not what the community experienced. Hence, we joined forces with this existing CSO for three reasons: (a) we preferred to build on existing strength and energy (whilst being aware of power and bias); (b) we could capitalize on their knowledge and trust relations within the community; (c) we included their demand for measurable wellbeing indicators in the research design from the start. These interviews not only provided substantive input on local wellbeing challenges but also guided the design of the co-creation process, for example, in terms of how to approach residents, avoid overburdening participants and ensure trust-building (van Beek et al., 2025). The community leaders were invited to the workshops (two accepted) and asked for the names of potential participants.

Operationalizing Wellbeing: Co-creative Workshops

We developed three co-creation workshops with residents of the community. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling, building on the CSO network. The final group consisted of seven residents, all female, aged between 35 and 65, from diverse ethnic but similar socioeconomic backgrounds (see method 2 in Table 2). People were approached through community leaders to participate in the workshops for three Saturday mornings. Their time and knowledge were rewarded financially (€100 per session) and paid to them in cash at the end of the three workshops.

Workshops were facilitated by two anthropologists specialized in participatory methods, using creative exercises to translate personal experiences into collective wellbeing topics. Group discussions were carefully moderated to ensure balanced participation and avoid dominance effects (van Beek et al., 2025).

By means of various creative methods, they supported the participants to share experiences and ideas about Venserpolder and stimulated the transformation of individual experiences into neighbourhood broad collective wellbeing considerations and topics. A few key issues that kept returning were the high levels of stress that many people experienced, the lack of access to educational opportunities (including internships) for youth and the poor quality of the shopping centre. The latter signified not only the limited availability of fresh food and daily needs, requiring frequent visits to the main mall in Zuidoost, but also the lack of a welcoming public space in the community, and general feelings of exclusion and loss. The development of the Amsterdam Arena area from the late 1990s onwards, to draw in and concentrate business, retail and leisure activities, was presented as an economic and social boost for Amsterdam Zuidoost. However, in Venserpolder, it is seen as a cause for the loss of local facilities, the creation of parking problems without significant improvement of labour or other economic opportunities. The researchers then distilled, together with participants, a list of 16 wellbeing variables and 35 concrete indicators covering material, relational and subjective dimensions. This classification was cross-validated with participants after the workshops (see method 4, Table 2).

From Workshop to Questionnaire, Survey and Dashboards

The workshops resulted in a list of 16 topics (variables) and 35 issues (indicators), which the participants agreed constituted their wellbeing (see Table 3). Most of these indicators are about basic needs, such as housing, education, feeling socially connected, free from daily stress to get food on the table. The indicators cover all three wellbeing dimensions, thus reflecting the multidimensionality of ‘wellbeing’. The ex-post categorization of wellbeing indicators in the three dimensions is more difficult in reality than theory; some indicators are positioned at the interfaces (van Beek et al., 2025). The indicators were operationalized into a structured questionnaire, combining open questions, Likert scales and closed questions. Questionnaire design and formulation of items were discussed, reviewed and tested for accessibility together with participants (Table 1, method 3). Subsequently, a neighbourhood survey was conducted. This was done face to face and not online to avoid low response rates and to allow for as high and diverse a succession rate as possible. Participants were selected using convenience and (multiple) snowball sampling. Whilst starting as a randomized sample, representativeness was accommodated by combining street interviews (during diverse moments of the day and week), with sessions in community centres and other social institutes. Face-to-face interviews were crucial for the inclusion of residents with lower digital literacy or language barriers and facilitated trust-building and deeper responses beyond the survey format (van Beek et al., 2025). The questionnaires were designed to last for 15–20 minutes, but many respondents shared additional information related to the question, which not only increased validity and was highly informative to our understanding of wellbeing but also meant that conducting an interview took much longer in practice.

Table 3.

Wellbeing in Venserpolder—Final Set of 35 Wellbeing Indicators, Combining Results of Survey and Co-creation Workshops.

Fulfilment	Satisfaction Life	67% satisfied
Fulfilment	Satisfaction work situation	48% satisfied
Healthy lifestyle	Possibilities for exercise and healthy food in neighbourhood	46% thinks these are sufficient
Healthy lifestyle	Amount of free time	56% is satisfied
Connection	Experiences of loneliness	67% feels seldom or never lonely
Connection	Sense of connection with other residents	44% feels connected
Mental wellbeing	Experience of emotional stability	67% feels emotionally stable
Mental wellbeing	How often is stress experienced	48% experiences stress seldomly or rarely
Social services	The offer of social services in Venserpolder meets my needs	63% is satisfied
Social services	The number of social services in Venserpolder	58% thinks this is sufficient
Neighbourhood activities	The offer of neighbourhood activities in Venserpolder is sufficient	49% is satisfied
Neighbourhood activities	The amount of neighbourhood activities in Venserpolder	32% thinks this is sufficient
Built environment	In the environment of Venserpolder, nothing is lacking (like art or culture)	41% thinks nothing is lacking
Liveability	Frequency of nuisance experience	53% experiences nuisance seldom or never
	Satisfaction with the neighbourhood	60% is satisfied
	Feeling of safety on the streets	62% feels safe
Housing	Amount of housing	54% thinks it suffices
	Cost of housing	29% thinks it is acceptable
	Quality of housing	40% thinks this suffices
	Satisfaction own home	65% is satisfied
Municipality and policy	Municipal policies match what the neighbourhood needs	19% agrees
	Feeling involved in decisions about Venserpolder	18% feels involved
	Feels heard by the municipality	14% feels heard
Political participation	Participation in political activities (e.g., voting, demonstrating/protesting, getting informed about political decisions and debates)	63% is politically active
Training opportunities	The number of educational opportunities offered in Venserpolder and its surroundings	52% thinks it is enough
	Experience of own educational opportunities	49% is satisfied
	The educational opportunities offered in Venserpolder and its surroundings align with what I am looking for	39% agrees
Economic activity	Satisfaction with the range of shops in Venserpolder	26% is satisfied
Economic activity	Satisfaction with facilities in Venserpolder, such as the library or restaurants	26% is satisfied
Employment	Having a paid job	56% has a paid job
Employment	The jobs offered in Venserpolder and the immediate surroundings fit what I am looking for	29% agrees
Financial Health	Financial problems because of fixed expenses	42% experiences no financial difficulties
Financial Health	Making ends meet on income	53% gets by well
Digitalization	A computer and the internet at home	82% owns a computer and has access to the internet
Digitalization	Self-assessment: rating on scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high)	73% rates a 4–5

Source: Neighbourhood survey Venserpolder (2021–2022).

In total, 261 respondents participated, representing roughly 3% of Venserpolder’s population (van Beek et al., 2025). We compared the composition of our sample on five key-variables in the database (BBGA³) from the municipality for this area (gender, migration background, age, level of education and house ownership/rent) and found the sample to be representative.

The list of variables and indicators with their survey scores was converted into a graphic design presented as a prototype Wellbeing Dashboard to a broader group of residents. User experience designers co-created the Dashboard’s design with residents, leading to iterative adjustments to ensure clarity, accessibility and policy relevance (van Beek et al., 2025). The design, experiences and findings were discussed and validated at a community session with both stakeholders and residents. It had to be redesigned multiple times until it satisfied the demands from participants: visually attractive, clear and reflecting not only negative aspects but also positive ones. The final design can be viewed in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Wellbeing Dashboard Venserpolder.

The community session (Table 2, method 4), on the one hand, confirmed the relevance of the chosen indicators for the lives of residents in the area. On the other hand, it also generated discussion regarding the meaning of the various scores. Such discussion reflected the shortcomings not only of policy frameworks but also in the formulation of the questionnaire. For example, while the area is generally considered a crime hotspot, the overall experience of safety among residents is high, indicating a more granular approach to safety may be needed. And while residents reported being digitally very skilled, the discussion showed that they are very experienced in using social media but not when it comes to using online formal forms and applications. Hence, the questionnaire was not well suited to measure these different dimensions of digital skills.

Towards Procedural Justice: Mobilizing the Dashboard in the Daily Policy Practice

The above-discussed validation meeting at the end of the survey-data gathering period functioned as a kick-off for dialogues between the governmental and social actors, on the one hand, and the community, on the other. This first meeting led to several meetings with a selection of community members and representatives of social and governmental institutions. In addition, we organized two experimental Dashboard Dialogues where ‘professional’ stakeholders and residents discussed. In preparation for these dialogue sessions, residents participated in two capacity-building workshops where they practised presenting their priorities and learned techniques for constructive dialogue with policy professionals (van Beek et al., 2025). In these sessions (method 5, Table 2), facilitated by the trainers, the residents identified the most urgent urban dimensions of Wellbeing Dashboard in their opinion and practised with talking to municipal policy workers and other professionals. In the joint meetings (method 6, Table 2), they discussed the importance of the chosen variables and how these should be addressed by the respective organizations. The chosen variables were ‘financial health’ and a ‘healthy living environment’. As a next and final step, we work towards the structural embedding of the Dashboard in the Masterplan Zuidoost, meaning that someone will be appointed to stimulate and guard the Dashboard. However, we do experience administrative hurdles from the side of the municipal organization here that prevent longer-term (i.e., longer than 1 year) investment in the structural embedding of the Wellbeing Dashboards as a permanent data collection and policy influence tool.

VI. Discussion: The Added Value of ‘Wellbeing’: New Reference Points and Steppingstones to Justice

New Reference Points

In Amsterdam, multiple databases on the economy and social life are available and annually updated at national, regional, city/town level and (partially) more granular levels. These data constitute important input into and reference points of social and economic policy and planning, monitoring and evaluation. For example, the annual Economic Outlook of the Metropolitan Region Amsterdam uses the municipal official Research and Statistics (O&S) database that contains a broad range of indicators on the urban economy, housing and social inequality (Verrest et al., 2021). Besides the O&S data, there are multiple (public and private) databases with data on specific themes, such as those of the housing corporations, energy companies and the public health service (GGD). Although some of these databases collect subjective data on people’s satisfaction with, for example, housing or neighbourhood-level data, or include self-reported health values, none of the databases collects indicators that have been identified by residents themselves. Moreover, the indicators are biased towards the formal economy and shed little light on basic needs and priorities of people operating at the interface of the formal and informal economy. For example, the O&S data contain data on unemployment and the number of years distance from the labour market, but not on the actual economic activities or relationships that people engage in while being formally unemployed (Verrest et al., 2021). Furthermore, these data are all digitally collected. This implies an inherent bias towards residents who are digitally skilled, speak the language, have internet access, time and who want to report to an official institution. Residents registered and non-registered, and their issues and concerns in marginalized communities are not well represented in such samples, which undermines representative justice.

It is relevant, therefore, to assess the added value of the self-identified wellbeing indicators. For that purpose, we compared the 35 Wellbeing Dashboard indicators in Venserpolder with those in the BBGA of Amsterdam. This dataset contains data for 800 variables at multiple levels of analysis representing the most often used spatial demarcations or levels of scale (community, neighbourhood, city region, etc.). The comparison focused on the similarity in thematic scope and methodological approach (level of scale and measurement (binary/scalar)). Nine of the 35 indicators in the Wellbeing Dashboard are identical to the BBGA, both thematically and methodologically. These can be found mainly in the material and subjective dimension of wellbeing and include, for example, ‘feelings of safety’ and ‘satisfaction with the home’. Eight indicators are partly comparable: the thematic scope may be broader or narrower, the variable may be subjective and not objective in nature, the geographical scale of analysis is different or the measurement is different (scalar versus binary). These variables are mostly in the subjective dimension of wellbeing and include, for example, the extent to which social services fit the needs of residents, or financial problems are experienced. As such, 18 indicators of the Wellbeing Dashboard are unique and do not have a counterpart in the BBGA. These are particularly in the relational and subjective dimensions of wellbeing and include, for example, feelings of stress, being involved in local decision-making or perception of digital skills. Hence, the unique variables of the Wellbeing Dashboard are mostly those related to subjective evaluations and relational aspects of wellbeing, and ambitions and opportunities at the level of the individual and of the neighbourhood. Many of these unique relational and subjective indicators (e.g., stress, local involvement, and digital access) remain underrepresented in existing wellbeing frameworks, even in the broader literature (see McGregor and Pouw, 2017; Pouw, 2020; Veenhoven, 2007), which often still privilege objective indicators. Where indicators in the Wellbeing Dashboard are complementary, they add subjective dimensions, for example, regarding financial programmes or neighbourhood activities on offer. Alternatively, they broaden the scope of a question, e.g., by asking about housing quality and not only the maintenance of the house. Overall, few of the indicators provide validation to the BBGA (similar variables and similar scores), but mostly they provide depth by deploying a scale for answers, provide information at a lower level of scale, broaden the scope of the variable or add a subjective dimension, or provide insights into new themes, relevant to the community. Although the basic question of what constitutes ‘wellbeing’ across Global South and Global North contexts remains the same, inductive operationalization of wellbeing within a high-income urban marginality context provides us with different reference points. The Venserpolder case study demonstrates that the majority (>50%, see Pouw and Perotti, 2025) of the 35 self-identified indicators concern basic safety issues in the material, social and personal domains, which is indicative of our empirical focus. We would expect a different distribution across levels of wellbeing in high-income neighbourhoods.

Stepping-stone Towards Justice?

For many residents in Venserpolder, the government plays a key role in their lives. They depend on the government not only for access to basic infrastructure, such as housing, education and health care, but also for income, either directly or through subsidies. Second, the government also controls (part of) their lives; whether they are rightful recipients of social welfare, whether they send their children to school and keep them on track. Finally, the government is a key actor in the design and implementation of interventions to change conditions for households and individuals, on the one hand, and the broader community, on the other. Hence, the fact that residents, as reflected in variables in the Venserpolder Wellbeing Dashboard, during the interviews conducted, and expressed in the workshops, are not satisfied with both the interventions done by the municipality and generally do not feel heard or involved in decision-making, is significant for their wellbeing. However, for the scope of this special issue, it is also discussed in relation to recognition and procedural justice. The co-creative nature of the development of the Wellbeing Dashboard provides opportunities to allow for recognition of the different needs and interests of marginalized groups. Similarly, the involvement of the community in the design of the Dashboard, the role it is thought to play in local policy practice, and the foreseen ownership by the community agreed upon in a Protocol,⁴ is to signify potential procedural justice benefits. However, the case study also shows that not all of these have been realized. First, while the composition of the participants in the workshops went beyond the classic community leaders, it was fairly limited in terms of class, gender, ethnicity and age. This may have not only impacted epistemic justice but also limited the procedural justice benefits. The included moments of validation of the measurement tool and the strong attempts to realize a diverse, inclusive and representative survey response are therefore necessary elements to realize recognition justice. Furthermore, the role of the Wellbeing Dashboard in the daily policy practice in Venserpolder is still limited to date; administrative hurdles by the Municipality to support structural embedding have not been resolved. Hence, while there is support from diverse stakeholders to start using the Wellbeing Dashboards, financial commitments to solidify local embedding are still being negotiated. Despite these administrative hurdles, the substantive and procedural added value of the Wellbeing Dashboards is increasingly recognized in public policy and research. This has translated into a further demand for systematizing Wellbeing Dashboards across the City of Amsterdam. We are currently co-creating Wellbeing Dashboards in four new neighbourhoods situated in Nieuw-West (Wegener-Sleeswijkbuurt and Dobbebuurt) and Zuidoost (Reigersbos and G-buurt). This will provide not only a substantive base for comparison across location and scale but also negotiation spaces for strengthening channels of procedural justice further.

VII. Conclusions

This article first explored the added value of the wellbeing concept for understanding the material, relational and subjective dimensions of quality of life in marginal areas in high-income, data-rich contexts with strong institutions. In these settings, dominant narratives of marginalized communities are constructed mainly around material deprivations and measured as such by a lack of income. This article shows that a wellbeing approach, with its focus on material, subjective and relational variables, and operationalized through a robust bottom-up methodology, provides substantive input into a different narration of urban marginality centred around lack of access, recognition, social acceptance and personal imbalance, aside from material deprivations. Specifically, the case study in Amsterdam Venserpolder brings to the fore that only a minority of the self-identified wellbeing indicators by residents match existing data (9 out of 35), whereas it generates 8 complementary and 18 unique indicators. These are mainly in the relational and subjective domains, thus providing breadth and depth to local inclusive development challenges. There is an ‘urgency’ (short-term perspective) bias in the data towards basic safety needs and priorities, causing environmental indicators that do not have immediate and present impact on income or expenditure to drop off the radar, apart from direct factors such as access to green spaces and affordability of energy.

Second, the co-creation of a robust bottom-up methodology led to a neighbourhood Wellbeing Dashboard consisting of 35 self-identified indicators by residents. This formed the starting point of joint interpretation and priority setting in relation to local (institutional) actors and conditions through Dialogue sessions, bringing residents and official stakeholders together. By embedding the Wellbeing Dashboard as a ‘way of work’ within the local policy context, co-owned by neighbourhood platforms, the aim of procedural justice can become integrally connected to epistemic justice. Whereas the basic question of ‘wellbeing’ stays the same across Global South and North contexts, wellbeing reference points and contexts differ. Within a Global North urban setting, we identify better opportunities to embed and channel the co-created Wellbeing Dashboards as a democratizing tool, thus connecting epistemically to procedural justice. The conceptual inclusion of relevant contextual dimensions is key to understanding barriers, opportunities and aspects of just and inclusive development across diverse contexts, within and across (urban) areas globally. In addition to socioeconomic conditions or the features of the data and institutional environment, this also pertains to broader relational experiences and histories, such as those that have developed over time between the (local) state in different functions and communities or households. The latter is a specific conceptual contribution of the process of applying the wellbeing in a non-Global South context. Hence, we subscribe to Lawhon and Trueloves’s (2020) idea that the ‘Southern critique’ questions the universalization of (urban) theory and calls for the importance of contextualization of all knowledge and theory. With an increasing database of Wellbeing Dashboards over time, we shall in future research be able to explore wellbeing trajectories over time, looking into persistent discriminatory data and policy practices following the recent work of Zhou and Brown (2024), and accumulate further insights on the implementation and use of Wellbeing Dashboards in local policy practices and frameworks.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This work was supported by the Centre for Urban Studies at the University of Amsterdam and the private–public partnership project Masterplan Zuidoost.

Notes

References

Alkire

and Foster

2011: Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), 476–87.

Anand

, Hunter

and Smith

2005: Capabilities and well-being: Evidence based on the Sen–Nussbaum approach to welfare. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 9–55.

Burgers

and Musterd

2001: Global and local determinants of social exclusion: Amsterdam versus Rotterdam. In Governing European Cities. Routledge.

Chambers

1995: Poverty and livelihoods: Whose reality counts? Brighton: IDS/University of Sussex.

Chen

and Ravallion

2007: Absolute poverty measures for the developing world, 1981–2004. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(43), 16757–62.

de Vrieze

A.G.M.

, Koppelmäki

K.V.

, Morrow

. 2022: Circularity by design: Governance landscape of the Metropolitan Region Amsterdam. 2278. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/597593

D’Ignazio

and Klein

L.F.

2023: Data feminism. MIT Press.

Dubb

2016: Community wealth building forms: What they are and how to use them at the local level. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(2), 141–52.

Dutta

, Azad

A.K.

and Hussain

S.M.

2022: Counterstorytelling as epistemic justice: Decolonial community-based Praxis from the global south. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(1–2), 59–70.

10.

Eubanks

2018: Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Publishing Group.

11.

Finlay

J.M.

and Finn

B.M.

2021: Geography’s blind spot: The age-old urban question. Urban Geography, 42(8), 1061–78.

12.

Fusco

, Guio

and Marlier

2011: Income poverty and material deprivation in European countries. https://doi.org/10.2785/1144.

13.

Gemeente Amsterdam. 2020: Verkenning van kansen Venserpolder (Principenota Venserpolder). Gemeente Amsterdam.

14.

Ghertner

D.A.

2014: India’s urban revolution: Geographies of displacement beyond gentrification. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(7), 1554–71.

15.

Gough

and McGregor

J.A.

2007: Wellbeing in developing countries: From theory to research. Cambridge University Press.

16.

Gupta

, Liverman

, Prodani

. 2023: Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 6(6), 630–38.

17.

Hagenaars

A.J.M.

1991: The definition and measurement of poverty. In: Economic inequality and poverty. Routledge.

18.

Jacobs

J.M.

2012: Commentary—Comparing comparative urbanisms. Urban Geography, 33(6), 904–14.

19.

Kitchin

2021: Data lives: How data are made and shape our world. Policy Press.

20.

Lampman

R.J.

1965: Approaches to the reduction of poverty. The American Economic Review, 55(1/2), 521–29.

21.

Lawhon

and Truelove

2020: Disambiguating the southern urban critique: Propositions, pathways and possibilities for a more global urban studies. Urban Studies, 57(1), 3–20.

22.

Lees

2012: The geography of gentrification: Thinking through comparative urbanism. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 155–71.

23.

Liveriero

2020: Epistemic injustice in the political domain: Powerless citizens and institutional reform. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 23(5), 797–813.

24.

McGregor

J.A.

2004: Researching well-being. Global Social Policy, 4(3), 337.

25.

McGregor

J.A.

2018: Reconciling universal frameworks and local realities in understanding and measuring wellbeing. In Bache

and Scott

editors, The politics of wellbeing. Palgrave Macmillan, 197–224.

26.

McGregor

J.A.

, Camfield

and Woodcock

2009: Needs, wants and goals: Wellbeing, quality of life and public policy. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 4(2), 135–54.

27.

McGregor

J.A.

and Pouw

2017: Towards an economics of well-being. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(4), 1123–42.

28.

Mohan

2007: Participatory development: From epistemological reversals to active citizenship. Geography Compass, 1(4), 779–96.

29.

Nussbaum

2002: Capabilities and social justice. International Studies Review, 4(2), 123–35.

30.

Orshansky

1969: How poverty is measured. Monthly Labor Review, 92(2), 37–41.

31.

Ottinger

2013: Changing knowledge, local knowledge, and knowledge gaps: STS insights into procedural justice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 38(2), 250–70.

32.

Pouw

2020: Wellbeing economics: How and why economics needs to change. Amsterdam University Press. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130288048122589077

33.

Pouw

and Gupta

2017: Inclusive development: A multi-disciplinary approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 24, 104–08.

34.

Pouw

N.R.M.

and Perotti

E.C.M.

2025: A framework for broad wellbeing measurement. Journal of Human Capabilities and Development. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21417.61284/1

35.

Ravallion

2016: Toward better global poverty measures. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 14(2), 227–48.

36.

Robinson

2006: Ordinary cities: Between modernity and development. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84917098178&partnerID=40&md5=2902326ff66c8f92c4a11124d15fa753

37.

Robinson

2022: Comparative urbanism: Tactics for global urban studies. John Wiley & Sons.

38.

Roy

2009: Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–87.

39.

Scoones

1998: Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. University of Sussex/IDS.

40.

Sen

1999: Development as freedom. Anchor Books.

41.

Sevelius

JM.

, Gutierrez-Mock

, Zamudio-Haas

. 2020: Research with marginalized communities: Challenges to continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic. AIDS and Behavior, 24(7), 2009–12.

42.

Stiglitz

J.E.

, Sen

and Fitoussi

2009: Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf

43.

Teo

S.S.K.

2022: Doing comparative urbanism: Comparative conversation as tactic. Urban Geography, 44(5), 896–917.

44.

Tonkens

and Verhoeven

2019: The civic support paradox: Fighting unequal participation in deprived neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 56(8), 1595–1610.

45.

Townsend

1987: Deprivation. Journal of Social Policy, 16(2), 125–46.

46.

Uitermark

, Rossi

and Van Houtum

2005: Reinventing multiculturalism: Urban citizenship and the negotiation of ethnic diversity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(3), 622–40.

47.

van Beek

, Pouw

and Verrest

H.J.L.M.

2025: Co-creation to measure what matters: The case of Venserpolder, Amsterdam. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2025.2480806

48.

van Gent

W.P.C.

, Musterd

and Ostendorf

2009: Disentangling neighbourhood problems: Area-based interventions in Western European cities. Urban Research & Practice, 2(1), 53–67.

49.

Van Kempen

and Murie

2009: The new divided city: Changing patterns in European cities. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100(4), 377–98.

50.

Verloo

2017: Learning from informality? Rethinking the mismatch between formal policy strategies and informal tactics of citizenship. Current Sociology, 65(2), 167–81.

51.

Verloo

2023: Ignoring people: The micro-politics of misrecognition in participatory governance. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 41(7), 1474–91.

52.

Verrest

H.J.L.M.

, Pouw

and van Beek

2021: Welzijnsindex voor de stad Amsterdam: Verkennende studie. Gemeente Amsterdam.

53.

Zhou

R. (Kevin)

and Brown

2024: Epistemic justice and critical minerals: Towards a planetary just transition. The Extractive Industries and Society, 18, 101463.