Background

CBS publishes the Monitor of Well-being & the Sustainable Development Goals annually at the request of the House of Representatives. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been included in the publication since its second edition in 2019. Well-being and the SDGs have a great deal in common and complement each other: whereas the former expresses a general intention, the SDG agenda translates this into concrete objectives for 2030. The aim of the monitor is to provide politicians and society with information on the development of well-being in the Netherlands and on the country’s performance with regard to the SDGs.

The monitor is based on a structured set of indicators showing the medium-term trend and the Netherlands’ position in the European Union. We can then see whether well-being in the areas described is rising or falling and whether we are moving closer to the SDG targets.

International recommendations

The is compiled on the recommendation of the Temporary Committee on a Broad Definition of Welfare in accordance with the Conference of European Statisticians (CES) Recommendations on Measuring Sustainable Development.noot1 The CES measuring system is based on the report by Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi.noot2 The measurements of well-being based on these recommendations serve to support policy and the political sphere, but without providing direction.

The CES measuring system draws a distinction between well-being ‘here and now’ and well-being ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’. The themes measured for ‘here and now’ are determined on the basis of national and international literature, as well as surveys asking citizens which topics they consider important for their quality of life. But it is also important in this respect to take into account how the pursuit of well-being her and now impacts the well-being of future generations (‘later’) and of people in other parts of the world (‘elsewhere’).

In the monitor, the SDGs are integrated into this CES measuring system. The SDGs were drawn up by the UN in 2015 and signed by 193 countries.noot3 These goals are consistent with the pursuit of well-being: the underlying principles of the SDG agenda, such as ‘leave no one behind’, the attention devoted to our carbon footprint and the five Ps (people, planet, peace, prosperity & partnership), are very relevant to our quality of life and to ensuring that it is future-proof.

Definition of well-being

The definition of well-being used in the monitor is in line with common international definitions and is as follows:

Well-being refers to the quality of life here and now and the extent to which it is or is not achieved at the expense of the well-being of future generations and/or people elsewhere in the world.

Based on these three dimensions of well-being, three dashboards have been developed in this monitor:

• well-being ‘here and now’;
• well-being ‘later’;
• well-being ‘elsewhere’.

Well-being ‘here and now’

Well-being ‘here and now’ concerns the personal characteristics of people and the quality of the environment in which they live; more generally, it relates to their material well-being and general well-being, and how they perceive these. Since well-being is a broad concept, we approach it through eight themes.

• Subjective well-being. Personal well-being is central to reflections on well-being in a broad sense. Subjective well-being is defined here as the way a person values his or her life. It is measured by gauging people’s satisfaction with their lives and the extent to which they feel they have control over their lives.
• Material well-being. Material well-being encompasses the disposable income that people have, together with the goods and services that they can buy with it and with which they can add fulfilment and colour to their lives.
• Health. Health – both actual and perceived – is a key determinant of quality of life. Among other things, a chronic illness restricts a person’s ability to participate fully and actively in society. Quality of life is also determined to a large extent by nutrition and whether a person has a healthy diet. One of the biggest problems in this context is the overweight population.
• Labour and leisure time. For many people, well-being depends greatly on having appropriate paid employment. On the other hand, leisure time also has a major influence on people’s perceived quality of life. A balance therefore needs to be struck between labour and leisure time. Many factors are important in this regard. For example, a good education is important for a person to have good prospects in the labour market.
• Housing. Decent and affordable accommodation is one of our basic needs. The Dutch spend a large part of their income on housing.
• Society. A society in which everyone can participate and in which people can trust one another and trust institutions such as the government and the judicial system is also part of well-being. Other important well-being aspects are the number and quality of social contacts and hence the degree to which people participate in social life.
• Safety. Crime and perceived safety – or the lack of it – have a direct impact on quality of life. Both the actual risk of being a victim and the feeling of safety or a lack of safety have an effect.
• The environment. Clean air, clean drinking water and surface water, clean soil and sufficient healthy natural spaces and biodiversity are key basic needs. High concentrations of particulate matter in the air can lead to serious health problems, such as asthma and COPD. In a densely populated country such as the Netherlands it is important for specific areas to be primarily left natural, so that flora and fauna can survive and thrive there.

Well-being ‘later’

Well-being ‘later’ refers to the resources that future generations need in order to achieve the same level of well-being as the current generation. The choices that the Dutch make collectively ‘here and now’ have consequences for future generations in the Netherlands. All manner of resources are needed to maintain quality of life. These are referred to here as ‘capital’, which is broken down into four types: economic, natural, human and social. The amount of capital per capita must at least stay the same if future generations are to achieve the same level of well-being.

The four types of capital for well-being ‘later’ are:

• Economic capital. This comprises the machinery and tools, ICT, knowledge capital and infrastructure that are necessary to create material well-being and generate economic growth. In addition to physical capital goods, the Dutch economy has the necessary knowledge capital, sustained in part by investment in research and development, in order for it to function. Debt is considered to be negative economic capital.
• Natural capital. This refers not only to raw materials (in the case of the Netherlands mainly fossil energy carriers such as crude oil and natural gas), but also to the quality of nature and the environment. This includes biodiversity (measured on the basis of land fauna and fresh water and marsh fauna, which are standards for species diversity), the general quality of the atmosphere (linked to CO₂ emissions) and the quality of soil, water and air in the local area. Natural capital is also deemed to include the capacity for renewable energy, because it can counter the use of fossil energy sources as well as greenhouse gas emissions. Natural capital is a basic necessity for life.
• Human capital. The ‘labour’ factor is central to this theme. It comprises the number of hours that people work, as well as the quality of the labour potential measured in terms of health and education level. These are also aspects that partly determine the productivity of labour.
• Social capital. This represents the quality of social connections in society. It is measured as the extent of the trust that citizens have in one another and in the most important institutions. In addition to the trust felt by all citizens, we also examine trust between various different groups using an indicator for feelings of discrimination. This describes the extent to which people see themselves as part of a group that cannot participate fully in the social process or are not fully accepted for who they are.

Well-being ‘elsewhere’

Well-being ‘elsewhere’ concerns the effects of choices that Dutch people make on jobs, income, resources (renewable and non-renewable) and the environment in other countries. Many choices that the Dutch make have consequences for people elsewhere. It is true that goods and services produced in other countries and imported into the Netherlands generate jobs and income elsewhere, but they also put pressure on renewable and non-renewable resources and the environment in those countries. Following the example of the report of the Brundtland Commissionnoot4, the monitor devotes particular attention to the world’s poorest countries. This group is represented here by the 46 poorest countries based on UN criteria, referred to as the ‘least developed countries’ (LDCs).

The two main themes in relation to well-being ‘elsewhere’ are:

• Trade and aid. The trade conducted between the Netherlands and other countries can increase well-being in those countries. The continents from which imports are sourced, namely Europe, America, Asia, Africa and Oceania, are detailed separately. Development aid that the Netherlands provides for developing countries can increase well-being in those countries. The same applies to money that migrants transfer to family members in their country of origin. Such remittances do not necessarily lead to greater well-being, as this money is spent on things that do not necessarily benefit the well-being of society as a whole.
• Environment and resources. Non-renewable resources are imported and used to produce goods and services. This leads to the depletion of these resources abroad, which has a major impact on well-being – now or later – particularly in the poorest countries. The production of goods and services imported from other countries may be associated locally with CO₂ emissions, for example, which are then directly related to Dutch consumption and hence one of the factors determining our greenhouse gas footprint.

Measuring well-being and the SDGs

Key points

This monitor presents a structured set of indicators, ranked on the basis of the above three dimensions – ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’ – and underlying themes. Together these indicators provide a picture of the current state and development of well-being.

Combining the CES framework for the measurement of well-being and the monitoring of the SDGs has major advantages. Both agendas have the same content and policy objectives: a sustainable or more sustainable world and the pathway to achieve it. While the approach related to well-being expresses a general intention (well-being that is inclusive and sustainable ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’), the SDG agenda translates this into specific goals to be achieved by 2030. This gives policy-makers more practical guidance.

Linking the well-being framework to the SDGs has also helped to translate the SDG agenda in a more specific and practical way to the Dutch context. The well-being indicators enable us to make key underlying principles of the SDG agenda clearer and more comprehensible, even when they are difficult to measure. The integration of the two measuring systems also helps to identify and document progress better in the various policy areas thanks to the specific goals of the SDGs.

Lastly, the well-being indicators from the ‘here and now’ dashboard show clearly whether individuals or groups can benefit from developments in well-being or are actually disadvantaged. This detailed breakdown in Chapter 3 helps to fulfil the ‘leave no one behind’ principle of the SDG agenda.

Statuses and positions versus trends

The dashboards of the well-being trends and SDGs show the latest status for each indicator together with the calculated medium-term trend over the 2014–2021 period. The outer ring of the well-being trend ‘wheels’ also includes the year-on-year change in the latest reporting year. In this edition that is 2021 as far as possible. The wheels also give the position of the Netherlands in the EU27. The colours show whether the trend is positive (green), neutral (grey) or negative (red). For the position in the EU the colours show whether it is high (green), medium (grey) or low (red).

N.B. The monitor shows medium-term trends (over the last eight years), whereas other CBS publications sometimes cover shorter or longer trend periods. This means the picture presented in the monitor may differ slightly from that described elsewhere by CBS. It is also important to understand what rising or falling trends mean from a well-being perspective. The determination of the trend and position using the indicators in the dashboards is based on the primary or first-order effect on well-being.

The dashboards use arrows to indicate the direction of the trend (up: rising; down: falling) as well as colours (green: increasing well-being; red: decreasing well-being). It is therefore possible that a downward arrow (e.g. a decreasing number of victims of crime) will be coloured green, since a decrease in the number of victims is seen as an improvement in well-being.

Positive developments in one area are sometimes associated with negative developments in another. For instance, stimulating economic growth can cause higher emissions of harmful substances. Conversely, measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions can lead to lower economic growth. In such cases, the monitor expressly makes no statements about which developments are desirable. CBS has explored the potential synergies and trade-offs between the various sustainability goals and is continuing this research.

Selection of indicators

The indicators for well-being themes were selected on the basis of the CES measuring system. This provides a clear and traceable link with this international framework. Every indicator in the monitor is relevant within a theme from the measuring system. The developments and statuses of these indicators are presented in Chapter 1 (Trends in well-being). These are averages or totals for the Netherlands as a whole.

Chapter 3 then shows the distribution of indicators in the well-being ‘here and now’ dashboard among population groups. Where it was not possible to break indicators down between the chosen groups, an alternative indicator was selected or the particular theme was not included.

The indicators in Chapter 4 present the development of the 17 SDGs against the background of relevant Dutch policy. In addition to the SDG monitoring in the Monitor of Well-being, in 2021 CBS published the reflection paper entitled ‘Vijf jaar implementatie SDG’s in Nederland’ (‘Five years of implementing SDGs in the Netherlands) at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2021.noot5 At this intermediate stage, five years after the national SDG implementation and ten years before the targets are due to be met, outcomes were presented together with details of the policy conducted by the ministries to achieve the targets in 2030.

Chapter 4 draws no distinction between ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’, because the SDG agenda similarly does not do so. The indicators in Chapter 4 are classified by SDG and by policy theme. The following categories of indicators have been included:

• A selection of the internationally agreed set of SDG indicators, specifically those of relevance to the Dutch context. This builds on earlier work by CBS in the area of the SDGs.noot6 The current edition also does not include all SDG indicators relevant to the Netherlands. Additional research needs to be conducted for a number of indicators, because the data quality is not good enough for use in the monitor’s system. For example, the available information is not always sufficiently up to date. Furthermore, CBS does not always have consistent time series, which are necessary to determine whether indicators show a significant upward or downward trend. In this respect, it should also be noted that the SDG agenda places a strong emphasis on ‘here and now’ indicators, while few indicators convey information on the consumption of resources. There are also a relatively large number of ‘input indicators’ in the SDG list, while indicators of outcomes are less common.
• Virtually all indicators that describe the state of well-being in Chapter 1 and that have been drawn from the CES framework. These cover some policy themes better than others. The CES indicators have been added to ensure balance in the set of indicators.
• Additional indicators that support the system used in the SDG dashboards, namely resources that are used, the opportunities that these create, the use made of opportunities, the outcomes related to that use and the perceptions of citizens.

Quality and timeliness of the data

Data quality is an important criterion when selecting indicators. Do the data match the theme? Do they come from a reliable source? Are they complete? Are they consistent over time? It is also important that the indicator is also available for the other EU countries, as the Netherlands’ position in the EU rankings for the various themes related to well-being is a key feature of the monitor.

The preference is for indicators that are also available for different demographic groups (e.g. young people and elderly people, men and women, low-skilled and highly educated people). This makes it possible to describe features related to the distribution of well-being (see Chapter 3). The introduction of the Regional Monitor of Well-being also opens the way to a geographic breakdown in the determination of data quality.

Considerable care was taken in selecting indicators, particularly with regard to their timely availability. In some cases good indicators are available but the most recent figure is too old to be relevant for a Parliamentary debate. CBS has made considerable efforts to improve the timeliness of the indicators and to ensure that as much information as possible is available for the most recent reporting year (in this edition: 2021). Figures for 2021 in the dashboards accompanied by the note (A) is an initial indication to facilitate the political debate. These rapid figures, often produced especially for the monitor, may be adjusted at a later date.

In a few cases, there are too few data points in the 2014–2021 period to calculate a trend. If there are fewer than three data points, a note (B) has been entered in the dashboards to indicate that it is not a stable or neutral trend and that in fact no trend has been determined.

Since standard methods have been used to calculate developments and year-on-year changes for all indicators, there may be differences compared to other CBS publications.

The data gathering for this monitor was completed on 24 March 2022. This means that in the time between this date and the publication of the monitor on Wednesday 18 May 2022 (Accountability Day) new figures have become available for a number of indicators which it was not possible to include.

Dataset: time series and regional distributions

CBS provides long time series for the indicators in the monitor by posting additional Excel tables on the website. These tables include time series from 1995 onwards where possible. The Netherlands’ position can be tracked interactively over time using the ‘wheels’ in the Summary. Not all data included in this publication originate from CBS. The Excel tables contain further information on the indicators used. These metadata also include all sources.

In the 2018–2022 period the Dutch government is investing in ‘Regio Envelop’ regional funding, supporting Regio Deals. These Regio Deals address major social challenges and all have the purpose of contributing to the development of well-being. In order to assess this, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality wants to monitor the development of well-being at regional level. For this purpose CBS has developed a monitor in which the basic information is presented coherently in a way that is consistent with the Monitor of Well-being & the SDGs. A second Regional monitor was published on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality in December 2021. It presents a picture of well-being ‘here and now’ and ‘later’ in municipalities, provinces and COROP regions. Together, the indicators present a broader picture of regional society than economic aspects alone.