Trends in well-being
Coronavirus again dominated our lives in 2021, first and foremost with major consequences for public health and the care sector. COVID-19 was the cause of 12 percent of deaths in 2020 and 11 percent in 2021. Overall, from the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 to December 2021 inclusive, almost 40,000 people died of COVID-19 in the Netherlands. In the first instance the government took measures to counter the spread of the virus so that health care would not be overwhelmed. As the pandemic persisted, the focus increasingly shifted to the economic impact of the measures. Parts of the business community were hit hard; such as hospitality, hairdressing and the culture sector. But whereas non-food retail experienced difficulties, food retail saw a sharp increase in turnover. Both physical and online stores saw growth, particularly in revenues from online activities.
The measures taken to curb the virus limited the number of contacts between people: those who were still able to work worked from home, children and students received education online, shopping and going out was no longer possible. Consequently there was an increased risk of unequal opportunities, loneliness and mental problems. In the final months of 2021 more attention was devoted to social dislocation as a result of the lockdown measures. There were growing calls for informed assessments with more focus on the longer term. An example is the joint recommendation by the Netherlands Institute for Social Research and the Council of Public Health & Society to the governmentnoot1: in combating the pandemic do not focus only on the medical consequences of coronavirus, but listen more closely to the public and take their interests into account.
In the longer term too Dutch society faces fundamental choices in which well-being is central. These choices are addressed particularly by the SDG agenda: fundamental principles such as the key tenet of ‘leave no one behind’, attention to our carbon footprint elsewhere in the world and the five Ps (people, planet, peace, prosperity & partnerships) are all very relevant to our quality of life and to ensuring that it is future-proof.
The figure shows in a nutshell the task facing society. First, a well-functioning economy is necessary to meet the main material needs such as food, clothing and a roof over one’s head. But in many cases economic development has impaired social and ecological well-being and sustainability. The main task of the SDG agenda is therefore to embed economic development in society – where it must not lead to an imbalance in growth or social exclusion – and in the biosphere – where it must not exceed vital ecological limits. Only then can the economic development provide sustainable material well-being and decent work, providing people with good quality of life in the broad sense. This is explicitly about building well-being that benefits all groups in society and respects the limits of the planet – after all, there is only one earth. SDG 17, which calls for international partnerships to encourage global cooperation in each of the other 16 SDGs, is vitally important in this regard.
When they were adopted, the SDGs provided important guidelines for the continued monitoring of well-being in the Netherlands by CBS. For e few years now they have been fully integrated into the description of well-being in the monitor. This allows a more contextual presentation of all the measured indicators and enables the SDG agenda – an important policy framework for the Netherlands – to be explicitly included in the analysis of well-being. The SDGs were agreed at UN level in 2015, since when the SDG agenda has been implemented by 193 countries. We are now halfway through the period for attainment of the goals (2030).
With the trends in well-being ‘here and now’, ‘later’ and ‘elsewhere’, the Monitor of Well-being & the SDGs provides a quantitative basis for analysing where we stand as a society and the choices we face in terms of well-being.
Well-being ‘here and now’
Well-being ‘here and now’ is described on the basis of eight themes. For each theme a dashboard shows the development of the medium-term trend (2014–2021) and the Netherlands’ position in the EU. We discuss particularly the indicators in the dashboard with a green arrow (increase in well-being) or a red arrow (decrease in well-being), and place the developments in the wider context of indicators in the SDG agenda.
Colour codes and notes to the dashboards in the Monitor of Well-being
The monitor uses colours to enable the results of the various indicators to be compared. For each indicator two aspects are illustrated: the medium-term trend (and trend direction) in the Netherlands in the 2014–2021 period and the Netherlands’ position in the EU27 in the most recent year with sufficient observations.
| For trends and the most recent annual changes the colours show the following: | For positions, the colours mean as follows: |
|---|---|
| GREEN | GREEN |
| The indicator is moving in the direction associated with an increase in well-being. | The Netherlands is in the top quartile of the EU ranking. |
| GREY | GREY |
| No significant rise or fall in the indicator. | The Netherlands is in the middle of the EU ranking. |
| RED | RED |
| The indicator is moving in the direction associated with a decrease in well-being. | The Netherlands is in the bottom quartile of the EU ranking. |
The colours are allocated only on the basis of the first-order effect. For example, in the first order, an increase in individual consumption is good for the consumer. In the second order, however, higher consumption may cause environmental pollution, obesity, water use and CO2 emissions in other countries, for example.
The colour code signals to the reader that he or she should take a close look at the phenomenon highlighted by the indicator, as there is clearly something of note. If an indicator shows a trend in the Netherlands, for example, that is moving in the direction associated with a decline in well-being, and the Netherlands’ position in Europe is in the lowest quartile, this is illustrated in the monitor as a ‘red’ trend and a ‘red’ position. In the case of a completely green indicator, something is clearly going well.
The colour codes serve only as signals and are expressly not normative interpretations. The monitor indicates where the Netherlands stands in terms of various aspects of well-being, showing the trade-offs that we face as a society. It is the task of political decision-makers and policy-makers to consider the issues and draw conclusions on policy. For some indicators provisional estimates have been made for 2021 specially for the monitor; these may be adjusted at a later stage.
Notes in the dashboards mean the following:
- For the Monitor of Well-being, CBS has estimated an annual figure for the most recent year in order to facilitate the political debate. This is an preliminary provisional estimate.
- For this indicator, there are insufficient data for the 2014–2021 period to calculate a trend.
- The data quality is insufficient to determine a trend.
- Preliminary provisional results from the Dutch ecosystem accounts.
Subjective well-being
Material well-being
Health
Labour and leisure time
Housing
Society
Safety
Environment
Subjective well-being: less satisfied with life since 2019, but relatively high compared to rest of EU
In 2021 83.6 percent of the population rated their life with a score of 7 or over, the lowest percentage since CBS started this measurement in 1997. In 2020, the figure was 84.8 percent. Satisfaction in both ‘coronavirus years’ was therefore markedly lower than in 2019 (87.3 percent), although the trend has not risen or fallen significantly. Satisfaction with life nevertheless differs among groups in the population. In a more uncertain and increasingly globalised world, with large-scale use of technology and continuing flexibilisation of the economy, people may feel they no longer have control over their lives. According to the Netherlands Institute for Social Research almost half of the population feel that they no longer have much control over their own lives. For both indicators of subjective well-being the Netherlands occupies a high position within the EU.
Material well-being: prosperous GDP growth, but household purchasing power lagging
Since 1995 the economy has developed strongly in most years, although households’ purchasing power in this period has lagged behind the rise in per capita GDP.noot2 The index of per capita GDP during 2020’s severe economic contraction was just below the purchasing power index. Overall, the volume of per capita GDP just before the outbreak of the coronavirus crisis was 44 percent higher than in 1995 and households’ purchasing power rose by 38 percent over this period.
The economy was therefore severely affected in 2020: the volume of GDP per capita fell by 4.3 percent and individual consumption per capita contracted by 5.5 percent. 2021 was a year of economic recovery. The initial estimate of economic growth in 2021 (the estimate used for this monitor) shows a growth of 4.2 percent, which almost compensated for the contraction of per capita GDP: volume was just 0.3 percent below the 2019 level. The volume of individual consumption per capita in 2021 was still 2.1 percent below the 2019 level according to an initial estimate. Households particularly spent less on recreation and culture, on hospitality and on transport and communication than before the coronavirus outbreak. The Netherlands is in the leading group in the EU for both individual consumption and median household disposable income.
The engine of the economy is in good shape, according to capital and productivity indicators in the dashboards for SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth: economy and factors of production) and SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: sustainable business). The trends in these two dashboards point to increasing or stable well-being.
An important task facing society is embedding economic growth in society: from the perspective of well-being and the SDG agenda, economic development must not lead to a growth imbalance, unequal opportunities or social exclusion. The goals of SDG 1 (No poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities) are therefore closely associated with the theme of material well-being ‘here and now’ and the ‘leave no one behind’ principle of the SDG agenda. The dashboard for SDG 1 shows that, apart from median disposable income, average disposable income and median household wealth show a rising trend. The percentage of the population worried about their financial future is trending lower, but still amounts to 22.5 percent. These developments point to an increase in well-being. The steadily rising value of owner-occupied homes is a key driver of increased wealth, although it should be noted that not every form of wealth can be directly accessed by households in difficult times.
Another positive development in the case of SDG 1 is the declining trend in the poverty risk of minors (the percentage of minors belonging to a family with income below the low-income threshold). The dashboard for SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities: social cohesion and inequality) shows that the long-term trend in income inequality and relative poverty in the Netherlands remained stable over the past trend period (2014–2021). The Netherlands did nevertheless fall to 11th place in the EU ranking for the income ratio between the highest and lowest 20 percent and the Gini coefficient for income inequality. Income inequality has recently increased because director majority shareholders were able to benefit from tax measures.noot3 A favourable factor from the perspective of well-being in the case of SDG 10 is the decline in trends among the vulnerable group of households having both low income and little wealth (5.4 percent of households in 2020), and in the risk of poverty of self-employed people (5.9 percent of self-employed people in 2020). The trend can be seen as positive from a well-being perspective, but the absolute level may be problematic.
Obviously, social inequality is determined by more than just the distribution of income and assets. Aspects of social inequality and distribution are therefore relevant not only to the theme of material well-being but also to the theme of Society under well-being ‘here and now’.
Health: large majority feel well, but mental well-being has declined
The healthy life expectancy of both men and women shows a stable trend. A stable trend can also be seen in the overweight population, where previously it was rising. The overweight population is relatively smaller in the Netherlands than in other EU countries, as can be seen from the relatively high position in the European ranking.
The figures for SDG 3 (Good health and well-being) show that the Netherlands has a healthier lifestyle than many other EU countries. The Netherlands ranks fifth with its relatively low percentage of smokers and fourth with its relatively modest alcohol consumption in 2019. The percentage of smokers is not only low compared to other EU countries, but the trend is also declining.
The Dutch generally consider that they are healthy. Between 2019 and 2020 the percentage of the population describing their own health as good or very good increased by 2.8 percentage points to 81.5 percent. In 2021 the percentage declined further, but it remains high (80.5 percent). Part of the population (4.3 percent) has to contend with serious limitations in their daily functioning due to health problems, but that share is relatively small compared to other EU countries. A person’s well-being depends not only on their physical condition, but also on their mental condition. The mentally healthy population has been decreasing for some time (red trend). The decrease accelerated in the second COVID year, 2021. The share of the population considered to have good mental health fell to 84.9 percent, 3.2 percentage points lower than in 2020.
The quality of the care system is measured in part by the number of hours worked in the care system per capita. That number averaged 104.9 in 2021 and the trend is rising (green). The trend in vaccine coverage for measles has turned from downward to neutral. This is favourable in itself from the perspective of well-being, but the Netherlands is among the laggards in the EU with low MMR vaccination coverage of 93.6 percent for children aged two. The average hospital stay for clinical admissions remained at just 5.3 days in 2020, the first COVID year; this is the shortest in the EU. In 2020 the waiting time for specialist care exceeded the ‘Treek’ limit (set by the government as the maximum acceptable delay for specialist interventions) in around one-third of cases.
Labour and leisure time: more people working; more work-related mental fatigue
The share of the employed labour force (net labour participation) rose to 70.4 percent in 2021. The increase followed a slight decrease in 2020, but the trend remains upward. Unemployment is historically low, at 4.2 percent in 2021. After an initial rise at the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, unemployment declined from October 2020 almost without interruption. Long-term unemployment – the percentage of the labour force unemployed for more than one year – stood at 1.0 percent in 2021. Here too the trend is downward. With these figures the Netherlands compares favourably with other EU countries.
In addition to the availability of work, the perceived balance between labour and leisure and satisfaction with various aspects of work are important pillars of well-being ‘here and now’. Satisfaction with work is high in the Netherlands: four out of five employees were very satisfied in 2021. Dutch workers are also content compared to employees in other EU countries. The dashboard for SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth: labour and leisure time) contains more indicators of employees’ perception. It is notable that 9.1 percent of employees consider that work and private life are not in balance. This percentage is the lowest in the EU according to a survey from 2016. Employees’ worries about job retention are gradually easing, partly due to the current tension on the labour market and low unemployment. The only unfavourable medium-term trend in SDG 8 is in mental fatigue caused by work. The percentage of employees experiencing mental fatigue due to work rose from 14.4 in 2014 (the first year of measurement) to 17.3 in 2021.
Information on time use is also important for well-being ‘here and now’, particularly in view of the trade-off between economic activity (work) and leisure time. Satisfaction with leisure time in the first COVID year increased considerably, from 74.2 percent in 2019 to 76.4 percent in 2020. In 2021 it fell back slightly to 76.1 percent. The measures limiting contact between people during the pandemic greatly reduced mobility, while the time lost due to traffic congestion – which people find annoying – fell by 67 percent in 2020 according to the Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (KiM). Satisfaction with commuting time rose considerably during the coronavirus pandemic. Large numbers of people worked at home, while others found that roads and public transport were much less busy. Compared to other EU countries few people in the Netherlands use public transport as compared to cars. More indicators on accessibility are included in the dashboard for SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: mobility).
Good education is crucial for well-being, both in an economic sense (as a component of human capital) and in a social sense (good education makes it easier for people to find their way in their lives and in society). Dutch people are relatively highly educated. The highly educated share of the population increased from 29.3 percent of 15–74‑year-olds in 2014 to 35.5 percent in 2021. We measure the contribution of education to well-being here as the relative size of the highly educated population, but that does not mean that other types of education, such as vocational training and craftsmanship, are not important. It is clear, however, that highly educated people generally achieve a higher level of well-being in numerous areas of society. See also the chapter on the distribution of well-being. The dashboard for SDG 4 (Quality education) additionally shows that participation in preschool education in the Netherlands is high (97.2 percent), the percentage of early school leavers is declining and one in five Dutch people aged 25–64 were in education in the four weeks prior to the survey. That puts the Netherlands among the leaders in the EU. Notably there has been a further improvement in satisfaction with educational opportunities: 84.8 percent of the population were satisfied with their educational opportunities, 2.1 percentage points more than in 2020. Tension on the labour market may also be a factor here and employers are giving their staff more opportunities to take part in education.
Housing: most people satisfied with their home; rents and house prices continue to rise
Over 85 percent of inhabitants have a home without major defects, and 85.6 percent are satisfied or very satisfied with their home. The trends are neutral and the Netherlands occupies a middle position in the EU. Satisfaction with the home was lower in 2021 than 2020, however (–1.9 percentage points).
The housing stock increased by 0.9 percent to over 8 million homes in 2021. The number of available dwellings per thousand inhabitants was 457, and the trend is rising. This indicates an increase in well-being. The housing market is nevertheless tight because the housing stock is still not keeping pace with demand. The figures for SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities: housing) show that a growing share of the population has a home that is too small, although this is not a major problem compared to other EU countries, as evidenced by the Netherlands’ third position in the EU ranking. The ratio of the median selling price to the median asking price for owner-occupied homes is trending higher and exceeded 1 for the first time in 2021 (1.06). This is a clear indication of the current tension on the housing market: homes are being sold for more than the asking price. The number of owner-occupied homes fell in 2021 to over 226,000, 4 percent fewer than in the previous year.
Other indicators of the affordability of homes point to decreasing well-being: actual rentals for housing and the price index expenditure for purchasing and ownership of owner-occupied homes are trending higher. Owner-occupied homes are becoming increasingly expensive. In 2021 the price index of existing owner-occupied dwellings reached its highest level since measurements began in 1995: an owner-occupied home was on average 15.2 percent more expensive than a year earlier, so the price rise was almost twice as large as in 2020. By comparison, households’ real disposable income in 2021 was 2.6 percent higher than a year before. This was primarily due to the rise in collectively agreed pay for employees and growth in the number of jobs and working people.
As well as the deterioration in affordability referred to above, there are favourable developments in total housing costs (expenditure on rented and owner-occupied homes as a percentage of disposable income) and perceived housing costs. Housing costs are trending lower but remain high by European standards. Perceived housing costs also show a downward trend. These costs are evidently viewed to a lesser extent as problematic. In this regard the Netherlands is even the leader in the EU.
With regard to the quality of the living environment, the figures for SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities: living environment) show that Dutch people experience a lot of noise nuisance from neighbours and traffic compared to inhabitants in other EU countries. Living space is becoming smaller. The 83 native breeding bird species characteristic of the urban environment are also having a hard time. Nevertheless, many indicators in this dashboard are moving in the direction of greater well-being: many trends are green.
Society: high and rising trust, fewer social contacts
In this theme it is notable that the Netherlands is in the leading group in the EU for many indicators. By contrast, the trends show a more mixed picture. The dashboard first of all provides information about how the Dutch participate in society. Both contact with relatives, friends and neighbours and the extent of voluntary work show a declining, red, trend for the period 2014–2021. There is tension between work and the activities to which ‘free’ time is devoted. In 2020, 7.6 percent of employees said they were missing or neglecting family activities as a result of work, and/or missing activities or neglecting work as a result of family responsibilities (SDG 8 Decent work and economic growth: labour and leisure time). This was notably less than in the years before the coronavirus pandemic. In 2021 the percentage increased again, to 9.1, but remained lower than before the coronavirus outbreak (9.7 percent in 2019).
The prevailing idea is that greater social participation leads to people having greater trust in each other and in important institutions, including the government. Both people’s trust in each other and the trust they have in institutions have been trending higher. Trust in institutions increased substantially (by 6.4 percentage points) in the first COVID year, 2020. In 2021 it fell by 2.6 percentage points, but at 66.9 percent it was still clearly higher than in 2019. People’s trust in each other increased substantially in both COVID years and was 4.5 percentage points higher in 2021 than in 2019.
In terms of well-being and of the SDG agenda a lot of attention is devoted to preventing unbalanced growth, social exclusion and inequality of opportunities. A considerable share of the population feel financially vulnerable: almost a quarter are very concerned about their financial future (22.5 percent in 2021), although the trend is downward. One-third of employees have a temporary employment contract or a contract for a flexible number of hours per week: the flex workers. This high share puts the Netherlands among the laggards in Europe. Unemployment is currently at a historically low level, so a decreasing share of employees are concerned about keeping their job.
The overall picture does not apply to all groups. The distribution of well-being by population groups shows which groups are above or below the national average. With regard to differences by sex, SDG 5 (Gender equality) also shows many indicators with a favourable trend: well-being is increasing across a broad front. The pay gap between men and women is narrowing, the proportion of highly educated women is rising, as are women’s participation in the labour market and the percentage of women that are economically independent. More than half of students in higher education are female (52.4 percent in 2020). But there are still major differences in the positions of men and women. The difference is narrowing – partly because female employees are increasingly highly educated – but women’s hourly pay was still 13.2 percent lower than that of men in 2021. This is partly due to differences in age, part-time work, occupational level and management responsibilities. With regard to economic independence – net annual income from labour and/or self-employment of at least 70 percent of the statutory minimum wage – 64.3 percent of women were economically independent in 2020, compared to 80.2 percent of men. Net labour participation among men and women is increasing, but in 2021 it was still almost 8 percentage points higher for men than for women. Women are also far from equally represented: in 2020 they occupied a quarter of management positions and a third of parliamentary seats.
Environment: more natural space, more environmental nuisance
To measure how people perceive environmental quality ‘here and now’, we look at the available amount and quality of natural resources and green and blue space, and at the quality of air, water and soil in general.
The picture emerging from the five indicators is fairly positive. The amount of natural land area managed within the Netherlands Nature Network (NNN) is increasing, in line with the agreement between the provincial governments to establish 80,000 hectares of new natural space by the end of 2027. A total of 44,000 hectares of new natural land area has been established. However, acquisition and development processes have been started for less than half of the remaining 36,000 hectares.
Emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen deposition put pressure on nature and affect our well-being. Volumes of the finest particulate matter in cities are continuing to decline, and for this indicator too the trend is green. The quality of inland bathing waters is good, with almost three-quarters rated as ‘excellent’. One in six people in the Netherlands experience problems with rubbish and pollution or other environmental problems in their immediate vicinity. The trend is neutral, but at 15.9 the percentage experiencing such nuisance in 2021 was markedly higher than the 14.3 percent in 2020. The nitrogen limit was exceeded on over 71 percent of the natural land in 2018. Here too the trend is neutral, but this high percentage is cause for concern. The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and Wageningen University and Research (WUR) are expected to publish new figures on nitrogen deposition in nature reserves in mid-2022.
Against the background of this rather positive picture of the trends in the environment ‘here and now’, it should be noted that the picture from the ‘later’ perspective on well-being is less bright. There, the various biodiversity indicators in the dashboard for SDG 15 (Life on land) and the Natural capital theme particular point explicitly to a decrease in well-being.
| Theme and indicator | Year-on-year change | Direction | Trend change | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WELL-BEING HERE AND NOW | ||||
| MATERIAL WELL-BEING | ||||
| Median disposable income | Green: 2.3% | increase in well-being | ||
| Individual consumption | Green: 3.6% | increase in well-being | ||
| HEALTH | ||||
| Overweight population | red to grey● → ● | improvement | ||
| LABOUR AND LEISURE TIME | ||||
| Satisfaction with work (employees) | grey to green● → ● | improvement | ||
| HOUSING | ||||
| Satisfaction with housing | Red: –1.9%pt | decrease in well-being | ||
| SOCIETY | ||||
| Voice and accountability | red to grey● → ● | improvement | ||
| Trust in institutions | Red: –2.6%pt | decrease in well-being | ||
| Trust in other people | Green: +3.3%pt | increase in well-being | ||
| Changes in values and norms | green to grey● → ● | deterioration | ||
| Voluntary work | Red: –4.9%pt | decrease in well-being | ||
| SAFETY | ||||
| Often feeling unsafe in the neighbourhood | green to grey● → ● | deterioration | ||
| Victims of crime | Green: –1.9%pt | increase in well-being | ||
| ENVIRONMENT | ||||
| Environmental problems | Red: +1.6%pt | decrease in well-being |
Source:Statistics Netherlands.
Distribution of well-being ‘here and now’ among population groups
Well-being ‘here and now’ is developing fairly positively in the Netherlands. The trends are generally stable or even point towards increasing well-being, and the Netherlands ranks high in the EU for many indicators. These overall national figures may nevertheless conceal important differences.
The distribution of well-being among various population groups was analysed in order to understand these differences. The analysis shows that well-being in the Netherlands is not evenly spread: there are many differences particularly in terms of migration background and education level. Low-skilled people and people with a migration background, both western and non-western, have a lower level of well-being, while highly educated people and people without a migration background have a higher level of well-being.
At an individual level it can be seen that the same people sometimes have an accumulation of favourable and unfavourable outcomes in this area. Unfavourable outcomes often accumulate in the case of people with a non-western migration background, low-skilled people and 65–74‑year-olds. An accumulation of positive outcomes is most common among highly educated people and 45–64‑year-olds.
Compared to 2019, the distribution of well-being has remained broadly unchanged. Relative declines have nevertheless been recorded among younger age groups, and among people aged 75 and over and highly educated people.
Indicators: situation in 2021
On the basis of 13 selected indicators we see that well-being is closely associated with migration background and education level, and to a lesser extent with differences in age and sex.
- Sex: well-being differs by sex in only a few indicators. Most indicators show no difference between men and women. In three indicators the situation for men is more favourable than for women, and in one indicator the opposite is true.
- Age: the 45–74 age groups quite often fare well relative to the average. The younger age groups up to 35 show a relatively large number of unfavourable outcomes.
- Education level: there are major differences in terms of education level. In the case of low- and medium-skilled people we see few positive outcomes. Low-skilled people often have unfavourable outcomes (nine times). Highly educated people come out above average in 10 out of 13 indicators.
- Migration background: the biggest differences in well-being can be seen between the groups with different migration backgrounds. The group with a non-western migration background is below average for all 13 indicators. The group with a western migration background also shows a less favourable picture, with eight indicators below average and not a single one above average. By contrast, the group without a migration background have a positive scores for 12 indicators.
Indicators: changes between 2019 and 2021
For the population as a whole changes can be seen for the 13 indicators compared to 2019. For each indicator an assessment has been made for each population group to determine whether the change for that group is more favourable or unfavourable than the average development for the population as a whole. In most cases that was not the case, but on some occasions there were divergent developments:
- Sex: there were no divergent developments for men and women
- Age: the groups up to age 35 showed a number of relatively unfavourable developments. In the 35–74 age groups there were a number of relatively favourable and a number of relatively unfavourable developments. In the group aged 75 and over there were mainly relatively unfavourable developments (three) and just one favourable development.
- Education level: for each education level the number of relatively favourable and relatively unfavourable developments, plus all cases of no divergent developments, were roughly in balance.
- Migration background: in the group with a non-western migration background there were two relatively unfavourable developments compared to a single relatively positive development. The position of this group, which was already faring poorly in terms of well-being, has therefore deteriorated further since 2019.
Indicators: overview
The figure below provides a single overview of the distribution of well-being in 2021 (2020 for income and wealth) and the relative developments since 2019. For each indicator the dots show where a population group has significantly higher (green) or lower (red) well-being than the national average. A grey dot means there is no deviation from the average. The diamonds show whether a population group’s score for an indicator has developed more favourably (green) or unfavourably (red) than the national average since 2019.
Sex
Age
Education level
Migration background
Accumulation: situation in 2021
The accumulation analysis involved an individual examination of how favourable and unfavourable outcomes, from the perspective of well-being, accumulated among the same people and what the characteristics of those persons were. Nine indicators were examined.
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
The top end of the distribution – people who have favourable well-being for seven or more indicators – consists of 25.7 percent of the adult population. The bottom end – people with three or more unfavourable outcomes – comprises 18.2 percent of the population. In the subpopulations we see the following differences:
- Sex: there is a limited difference between men and women in the accumulation of favourable outcomes. Men are slightly more often at the top end of the distribution.
- Age: people aged 45–64 are relatively often at the top end of the distribution. That is slightly less often the case among people aged 65 and over. Accumulations of unfavourable outcomes occur relatively often among 65–74‑year-olds.
- Education level: major differences can be seen here. Accumulations of unfavourable outcomes are very common among low-skilled people: 31.9 percent. Accumulations of favourable outcomes are very common among highly educated people: 38.9 percent.
- There are also differences in terms of migration background, with accumulations of unfavourable outcomes occurring relatively frequently (33.4 percent) among people with a non-western migration background and accumulations of favourable outcomes being most evident among people without a migration background.
The characteristics sex, age, education level and migration background are to some extent correlated. If we take this correlation into account, the education level turns out to have the greatest influence on the number of indicators for which people have a favourable or unfavourable outcome. Next come migration background and age. Migration background is somewhat more closely associated with the number of unfavourable indicators and age with the number of favourable indicators. Sex is the least important.
Accumulation: developments compared to 2019
Compared to 2019 the size of the group at the top of the distribution has increased slightly and the size of the group at the bottom has decreased slightly. If we look at the various population groups, it is notable that the number of young people (aged up to 45) at the top of the distribution has decreased. In the case of 45–74‑year-olds, this proportion has increased relatively strongly. In terms of education level a relatively unfavourable development can be seen among highly educated people. It should be noted that this group had a good starting position and despite the unfavourable development an accumulation of favourable outcomes is relatively common again in 2021. It is notable that in 2021 a larger share of the group with a non-western migration background moved to the middle of the distribution. In this group significantly fewer people were at the top or the bottom of the distribution in 2021.
Resilience and well-being ‘here and now’
Society has had to contend with a number of severe shocks in recent years, such as the coronavirus pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Particular attention has therefore been devoted to the extent to which vulnerable groups exist in the Netherlands that could be particularly sensitive to such shocks. How resilient is Dutch well-being ‘here and now’?
In order to answer this question, we use indicators for the livelihood of households and the size of vulnerable groups. The theme ‘livelihood of households’ measures the extent to which – on average – households have the resources to absorb a shock. To establish this we use median wealth, savings at banks in the Netherlands, the extent to which people have control of their own lives, their perception of their own health and the gross labour participation rate. For the ‘size of vulnerable groups’ theme we look specifically at certain vulnerable groups that would be the first to be affected in the event of a shock. These groups are low-skilled people, unemployed people, self-employed people with a risk of poverty, people with low incomes and little wealth and people with long-term limitations due to health problems.
The picture is positive: the trends over the 2014–2021 period for eight of the 10 measured indicators show a rise in well-being. The other two indicators (perceived control over own life and self-perceived health) point to stable well-being. This indicates an improvement in households’ ability to maintain their livelihood in the event of a shock. Furthermore, the Netherlands is high in the EU ranking for five of the six indicators for international comparison is possible. The only exception is the size of the low-skilled population.
The resilience of well-being ‘here and now’ has also improved in the most recent year. Between 2020 and 2021, households’ savings at Dutch banks rose by 3.4 percent and the low-skilled population decreased by 0.9 percentage points. The poverty risk of self-employed people fell by 0.6 percentage points between 2019 and 2020 (to 5.9 percent) and the share of people with serious long-term limitations due to health problems fell by 0.4 percentage points (to 4.3 percent). The possible consequences of the coronavirus crisis are not yet visible in the latest figures. It is true that the size of vulnerable groups is decreasing to some extent, both on a trend basis and in the latest year, but it remains significant.
For more information see Chapter 5 on Resilience.
Regional distribution of well-being ‘here and now’
Lastly we can assess how well-being ‘here and now’ has developed regionally. The regional Monitor of Well-being introduced by CBS uses 42 indicators to present a broad and diverse picture of well-being in municipalities and regions.
The biggest differences in well-being can be seen between the big cities and the countryside. The big cities are at the bottom of the regional well-being ranking according to many indicators. On average, city dwellers have less good health, lower disposable income, a less safe and clean living environment and experience less social cohesion. On the other hand they have advantages such as a higher level of education, shorter distances to facilities and a smaller overweight population.
| Gemeente | Indicators | |
|---|---|---|
| Aa en Hunze | 7 | |
| Aalburg | 0 | |
| Aalsmeer | 10 | |
| Aalten | 3 | |
| Achtkarspelen | 3 | |
| Alblasserdam | 7 | |
| Albrandswaard | 9 | |
| Alkmaar | 5 | |
| Almelo | 4 | |
| Almere | 6 | |
| Alphen aan den Rijn | 5 | |
| Alphen-Chaam | 10 | |
| Altena | 5 | |
| Ameland | 5 | |
| Amersfoort | 13 | |
| Amstelveen | 12 | |
| Amsterdam | 8 | |
| Apeldoorn | 7 | |
| Appingedam | 0 | |
| Arnhem | 7 | |
| Assen | 5 | |
| Asten | 6 | |
| Baarle-Nassau | 5 | |
| Baarn | 13 | |
| Barendrecht | 10 | |
| Barneveld | 9 | |
| Bedum | 0 | |
| Beek (L.) | 4 | |
| Beekdaelen | 1 | |
| Beemster | 6 | |
| Beesel | 6 | |
| Bellingwedde | 1 | |
| Berg en Dal | 2 | |
| Bergeijk | 10 | |
| Bergen (L.) | 6 | |
| Bergen (NH.) | 12 | |
| Bergen op Zoom | 4 | |
| Berkelland | 7 | |
| Bernheze | 13 | |
| Best | 10 | |
| Beuningen | 2 | |
| Beverwijk | 7 | |
| Binnenmaas | 0 | |
| Bladel | 9 | |
| Blaricum | 11 | |
| Bloemendaal | 14 | |
| Bodegraven-Reeuwijk | 9 | |
| Boekel | 8 | |
| Borger-Odoorn | 3 | |
| Borne | 11 | |
| Borsele | 5 | |
| Boxmeer | 4 | |
| Boxtel | 7 | |
| Breda | 7 | |
| Brielle | 7 | |
| Bronckhorst | 8 | |
| Brummen | 6 | |
| Brunssum | 7 | |
| Bunnik | 12 | |
| Bunschoten | 8 | |
| Buren | 7 | |
| Bussum | 1 | |
| Capelle aan den IJssel | 3 | |
| Castricum | 20 | |
| Coevorden | 4 | |
| Cranendonck | 3 | |
| Cromstrijen | 0 | |
| Cuijk | 4 | |
| Culemborg | 8 | |
| Dalfsen | 11 | |
| Dantumadiel | 2 | |
| De Bilt | 10 | |
| De Friese Meren | 0 | |
| De Fryske Marren | 4 | |
| De Marne | 2 | |
| De Ronde Venen | 14 | |
| De Wolden | 8 | |
| Delft | 8 | |
| Delfzijl | 2 | |
| Den Helder | 4 | |
| Deurne | 3 | |
| Deventer | 4 | |
| Diemen | 8 | |
| Dinkelland | 12 | |
| Doesburg | 7 | |
| Doetinchem | 2 | |
| Dongen | 9 | |
| Dongeradeel | 0 | |
| Dordrecht | 4 | |
| Drechterland | 6 | |
| Drimmelen | 5 | |
| Dronten | 6 | |
| Druten | 5 | |
| Duiven | 3 | |
| Echt-Susteren | 3 | |
| Edam-Volendam | 9 | |
| Ede | 10 | |
| Eemnes | 6 | |
| Eemsdelta | 0 | |
| Eemsmond | 1 | |
| Eersel | 10 | |
| Eijsden-Margraten | 7 | |
| Eindhoven | 7 | |
| Elburg | 14 | |
| Emmen | 0 | |
| Enkhuizen | 5 | |
| Enschede | 5 | |
| Epe | 5 | |
| Ermelo | 6 | |
| Etten-Leur | 5 | |
| Ferwerderadiel | 1 | |
| Franekeradeel | 0 | |
| Geertruidenberg | 6 | |
| Geldermalsen | 0 | |
| Geldrop-Mierlo | 9 | |
| Gemert-Bakel | 8 | |
| Gennep | 4 | |
| Giessenlanden | 0 | |
| Gilze en Rijen | 4 | |
| Goeree-Overflakkee | 6 | |
| Goes | 5 | |
| Goirle | 10 | |
| Gooise Meren | 7 | |
| Gorinchem | 3 | |
| Gouda | 7 | |
| Grave | 6 | |
| Groesbeek | 3 | |
| Groningen (gemeente) | 10 | |
| Grootegast | 0 | |
| Gulpen-Wittem | 3 | |
| Haaksbergen | 7 | |
| Haaren | 8 | |
| Haarlem | 12 | |
| Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude | 0 | |
| Haarlemmermeer | 11 | |
| Halderberge | 3 | |
| Hardenberg | 8 | |
| Harderwijk | 8 | |
| Hardinxveld-Giessendam | 9 | |
| Haren | 1 | |
| Harlingen | 2 | |
| Hattem | 9 | |
| Heemskerk | 7 | |
| Heemstede | 11 | |
| Heerde | 7 | |
| Heerenveen | 4 | |
| Heerhugowaard | 3 | |
| Heerlen | 4 | |
| Heeze-Leende | 8 | |
| Heiloo | 11 | |
| Hellendoorn | 10 | |
| Hellevoetsluis | 6 | |
| Helmond | 5 | |
| Hendrik-Ido-Ambacht | 14 | |
| Hengelo (O.) | 5 | |
| het Bildt | 1 | |
| Het Hogeland | 4 | |
| Heumen | 7 | |
| Heusden | 10 | |
| Hillegom | 7 | |
| Hilvarenbeek | 12 | |
| Hilversum | 10 | |
| Hoeksche Waard | 6 | |
| Hof van Twente | 9 | |
| Hollands Kroon | 2 | |
| Hoogeveen | 5 | |
| Hoogezand-Sappemeer | 1 | |
| Hoorn | 5 | |
| Horst aan de Maas | 10 | |
| Houten | 13 | |
| Huizen | 8 | |
| Hulst | 7 | |
| IJsselstein | 10 | |
| Kaag en Braassem | 9 | |
| Kampen | 8 | |
| Kapelle | 9 | |
| Katwijk | 14 | |
| Kerkrade | 5 | |
| Koggenland | 7 | |
| Kollumerland en Nieuwkruisland | 1 | |
| Korendijk | 1 | |
| Krimpen aan den IJssel | 7 | |
| Krimpenerwaard | 8 | |
| Laarbeek | 6 | |
| Landerd | 9 | |
| Landgraaf | 4 | |
| Landsmeer | 9 | |
| Langedijk | 11 | |
| Lansingerland | 13 | |
| Laren (NH.) | 11 | |
| Leek | 0 | |
| Leerdam | 0 | |
| Leeuwarden | 4 | |
| Leeuwarderadeel | 1 | |
| Leiden | 12 | |
| Leiderdorp | 11 | |
| Leidschendam-Voorburg | 10 | |
| Lelystad | 4 | |
| Leudal | 5 | |
| Leusden | 13 | |
| Lingewaal | 0 | |
| Lingewaard | 6 | |
| Lisse | 10 | |
| Littenseradiel | 0 | |
| Lochem | 9 | |
| Loon op Zand | 6 | |
| Lopik | 8 | |
| Loppersum | 1 | |
| Losser | 3 | |
| Maasdriel | 3 | |
| Maasgouw | 5 | |
| Maassluis | 8 | |
| Maastricht | 7 | |
| Marum | 0 | |
| Medemblik | 5 | |
| Meerssen | 4 | |
| Meierijstad | 9 | |
| Menameradiel | 1 | |
| Menterwolde | 0 | |
| Meppel | 2 | |
| Middelburg (Z.) | 5 | |
| Midden-Delfland | 13 | |
| Midden-Drenthe | 4 | |
| Midden-Groningen | 1 | |
| Mill en Sint Hubert | 8 | |
| Moerdijk | 4 | |
| Molenlanden | 14 | |
| Molenwaard | 0 | |
| Montferland | 4 | |
| Montfoort | 10 | |
| Mook en Middelaar | 13 | |
| Muiden | 2 | |
| Naarden | 2 | |
| Neder-Betuwe | 6 | |
| Nederweert | 5 | |
| Neerijnen | 0 | |
| Nieuwegein | 5 | |
| Nieuwkoop | 12 | |
| Nijkerk | 7 | |
| Nijmegen | 9 | |
| Nissewaard | 6 | |
| Noardeast-Frysl�n | 2 | |
| Noord-Beveland | 5 | |
| Noordenveld | 7 | |
| Noordoostpolder | 8 | |
| Noordwijk | 13 | |
| Noordwijkerhout | 1 | |
| Nuenen, Gerwen en Nederwetten | 9 | |
| Nunspeet | 7 | |
| Nuth | 1 | |
| Oegstgeest | 12 | |
| Oirschot | 7 | |
| Oisterwijk | 13 | |
| Oldambt | 2 | |
| Oldebroek | 5 | |
| Oldenzaal | 5 | |
| Olst-Wijhe | 2 | |
| Ommen | 6 | |
| Onderbanken | 2 | |
| Oost Gelre | 10 | |
| Oosterhout | 3 | |
| Ooststellingwerf | 5 | |
| Oostzaan | 9 | |
| Opmeer | 8 | |
| Opsterland | 7 | |
| Oss | 2 | |
| Oud-Beijerland | 1 | |
| Oude IJsselstreek | 6 | |
| Ouder-Amstel | 9 | |
| Oudewater | 9 | |
| Overbetuwe | 11 | |
| Papendrecht | 8 | |
| Peel en Maas | 6 | |
| Pekela | 3 | |
| Pijnacker-Nootdorp | 8 | |
| Purmerend | 4 | |
| Putten | 9 | |
| Raalte | 9 | |
| Reimerswaal | 6 | |
| Renkum | 6 | |
| Renswoude | 9 | |
| Reusel-De Mierden | 11 | |
| Rheden | 5 | |
| Rhenen | 7 | |
| Ridderkerk | 4 | |
| Rijnwaarden | 1 | |
| Rijssen-Holten | 14 | |
| Rijswijk (ZH.) | 8 | |
| Roerdalen | 6 | |
| Roermond | 5 | |
| Roosendaal | 3 | |
| Rotterdam | 6 | |
| Rozendaal | 11 | |
| Rucphen | 4 | |
| Schagen | 5 | |
| Scherpenzeel | 12 | |
| Schiedam | 5 | |
| Schiermonnikoog | 8 | |
| Schijndel | 1 | |
| Schinnen | 1 | |
| Schouwen-Duiveland | 5 | |
| 's-Gravenhage (gemeente) | 7 | |
| 's-Hertogenbosch | 11 | |
| Simpelveld | 5 | |
| Sint Anthonis | 10 | |
| Sint-Michielsgestel | 14 | |
| Sint-Oedenrode | 2 | |
| Sittard-Geleen | 4 | |
| Sliedrecht | 5 | |
| Slochteren | 1 | |
| Sluis | 2 | |
| Smallingerland | 3 | |
| Soest | 8 | |
| Someren | 7 | |
| Son en Breugel | 10 | |
| Stadskanaal | 4 | |
| Staphorst | 9 | |
| Stede Broec | 5 | |
| Steenbergen | 1 | |
| Steenwijkerland | 7 | |
| Stein (L.) | 5 | |
| Stichtse Vecht | 8 | |
| Strijen | 0 | |
| S�dwest-Frysl�n | 5 | |
| Ten Boer | 0 | |
| Terneuzen | 3 | |
| Terschelling | 12 | |
| Texel | 4 | |
| Teylingen | 15 | |
| Tholen | 6 | |
| Tiel | 2 | |
| Tilburg | 5 | |
| Tubbergen | 6 | |
| Twenterand | 4 | |
| Tynaarlo | 9 | |
| Tytsjerksteradiel | 3 | |
| Uden | 5 | |
| Uitgeest | 12 | |
| Uithoorn | 9 | |
| Urk | 13 | |
| Utrecht (gemeente) | 11 | |
| Utrechtse Heuvelrug | 11 | |
| Vaals | 6 | |
| Valkenburg aan de Geul | 4 | |
| Valkenswaard | 7 | |
| Veendam | 3 | |
| Veenendaal | 4 | |
| Veere | 10 | |
| Veghel | 0 | |
| Veldhoven | 14 | |
| Velsen | 7 | |
| Venlo | 8 | |
| Venray | 4 | |
| Vianen | 0 | |
| Vijfheerenlanden | 8 | |
| Vlaardingen | 6 | |
| Vlagtwedde | 1 | |
| Vlieland | 8 | |
| Vlissingen | 4 | |
| Voerendaal | 6 | |
| Voorschoten | 15 | |
| Voorst | 2 | |
| Vught | 15 | |
| Waadhoeke | 2 | |
| Waalre | 8 | |
| Waalwijk | 3 | |
| Waddinxveen | 7 | |
| Wageningen | 8 | |
| Wassenaar | 12 | |
| Waterland | 10 | |
| Weert | 8 | |
| Weesp | 5 | |
| Werkendam | 0 | |
| West Betuwe | 6 | |
| West Maas en Waal | 3 | |
| Westerkwartier | 7 | |
| Westerveld | 4 | |
| Westervoort | 7 | |
| Westerwolde | 0 | |
| Westland | 13 | |
| Weststellingwerf | 4 | |
| Westvoorne | 8 | |
| Wierden | 9 | |
| Wijchen | 5 | |
| Wijdemeren | 9 | |
| Wijk bij Duurstede | 14 | |
| Winsum | 1 | |
| Winterswijk | 4 | |
| Woensdrecht | 5 | |
| Woerden | 10 | |
| Wormerland | 3 | |
| Woudenberg | 13 | |
| Woudrichem | 1 | |
| Zaanstad | 4 | |
| Zaltbommel | 4 | |
| Zandvoort | 7 | |
| Zederik | 0 | |
| Zeevang | 0 | |
| Zeewolde | 10 | |
| Zeist | 9 | |
| Zevenaar | 0 | |
| Zoetermeer | 5 | |
| Zoeterwoude | 8 | |
| Zuidhorn | 0 | |
| Zuidplas | 10 | |
| Zundert | 6 | |
| Zutphen | 8 | |
| Zwartewaterland | 6 | |
| Zwijndrecht | 2 | |
| Zwolle | 13 | |
| * For each municipality, the map shows the number of regional well-being indicators (out of a total of 33) for which the municipality is in the top quarter of the municipal ranking. The municipal classification differs from 2022 as data for previous years are used. | ||
| Gemeente | Indicators | |
|---|---|---|
| Aa en Hunze | 7 | |
| Aalburg | 3 | |
| Aalsmeer | 6 | |
| Aalten | 2 | |
| Achtkarspelen | 11 | |
| Alblasserdam | 6 | |
| Albrandswaard | 3 | |
| Alkmaar | 8 | |
| Almelo | 12 | |
| Almere | 15 | |
| Alphen aan den Rijn | 7 | |
| Alphen-Chaam | 4 | |
| Altena | 3 | |
| Ameland | 4 | |
| Amersfoort | 6 | |
| Amstelveen | 4 | |
| Amsterdam | 16 | |
| Apeldoorn | 7 | |
| Appingedam | 11 | |
| Arnhem | 10 | |
| Assen | 7 | |
| Asten | 1 | |
| Baarle-Nassau | 8 | |
| Baarn | 3 | |
| Barendrecht | 3 | |
| Barneveld | 6 | |
| Bedum | 3 | |
| Beek (L.) | 9 | |
| Beekdaelen | 6 | |
| Beemster | 5 | |
| Beesel | 4 | |
| Bellingwedde | 1 | |
| Berg en Dal | 4 | |
| Bergeijk | 1 | |
| Bergen (L.) | 6 | |
| Bergen (NH.) | 2 | |
| Bergen op Zoom | 14 | |
| Berkelland | 6 | |
| Bernheze | 2 | |
| Best | 1 | |
| Beuningen | 3 | |
| Beverwijk | 7 | |
| Binnenmaas | 2 | |
| Bladel | 1 | |
| Blaricum | 3 | |
| Bloemendaal | 1 | |
| Bodegraven-Reeuwijk | 6 | |
| Boekel | 3 | |
| Borger-Odoorn | 11 | |
| Borne | 2 | |
| Borsele | 7 | |
| Boxmeer | 2 | |
| Boxtel | 2 | |
| Breda | 9 | |
| Brielle | 3 | |
| Bronckhorst | 8 | |
| Brummen | 5 | |
| Brunssum | 11 | |
| Bunnik | 1 | |
| Bunschoten | 5 | |
| Buren | 5 | |
| Bussum | 1 | |
| Capelle aan den IJssel | 12 | |
| Castricum | 0 | |
| Coevorden | 12 | |
| Cranendonck | 7 | |
| Cromstrijen | 2 | |
| Cuijk | 2 | |
| Culemborg | 3 | |
| Dalfsen | 6 | |
| Dantumadiel | 11 | |
| De Bilt | 4 | |
| De Friese Meren | 1 | |
| De Fryske Marren | 8 | |
| De Marne | 1 | |
| De Ronde Venen | 6 | |
| De Wolden | 6 | |
| Delft | 13 | |
| Delfzijl | 14 | |
| Den Helder | 12 | |
| Deurne | 5 | |
| Deventer | 6 | |
| Diemen | 4 | |
| Dinkelland | 5 | |
| Doesburg | 9 | |
| Doetinchem | 5 | |
| Dongen | 4 | |
| Dongeradeel | 1 | |
| Dordrecht | 17 | |
| Drechterland | 5 | |
| Drimmelen | 1 | |
| Dronten | 6 | |
| Druten | 2 | |
| Duiven | 5 | |
| Echt-Susteren | 10 | |
| Edam-Volendam | 5 | |
| Ede | 6 | |
| Eemnes | 4 | |
| Eemsdelta | 2 | |
| Eemsmond | 1 | |
| Eersel | 0 | |
| Eijsden-Margraten | 5 | |
| Eindhoven | 11 | |
| Elburg | 2 | |
| Emmen | 16 | |
| Enkhuizen | 4 | |
| Enschede | 13 | |
| Epe | 6 | |
| Ermelo | 3 | |
| Etten-Leur | 3 | |
| Ferwerderadiel | 1 | |
| Franekeradeel | 3 | |
| Geertruidenberg | 7 | |
| Geldermalsen | 2 | |
| Geldrop-Mierlo | 4 | |
| Gemert-Bakel | 3 | |
| Gennep | 3 | |
| Giessenlanden | 4 | |
| Gilze en Rijen | 2 | |
| Goeree-Overflakkee | 8 | |
| Goes | 3 | |
| Goirle | 2 | |
| Gooise Meren | 4 | |
| Gorinchem | 8 | |
| Gouda | 6 | |
| Grave | 4 | |
| Groesbeek | 1 | |
| Groningen (gemeente) | 14 | |
| Grootegast | 3 | |
| Gulpen-Wittem | 7 | |
| Haaksbergen | 1 | |
| Haaren | 3 | |
| Haarlem | 11 | |
| Haarlemmerliede en Spaarnwoude | 2 | |
| Haarlemmermeer | 10 | |
| Halderberge | 4 | |
| Hardenberg | 8 | |
| Harderwijk | 5 | |
| Hardinxveld-Giessendam | 0 | |
| Haren | 0 | |
| Harlingen | 11 | |
| Hattem | 1 | |
| Heemskerk | 3 | |
| Heemstede | 1 | |
| Heerde | 4 | |
| Heerenveen | 6 | |
| Heerhugowaard | 9 | |
| Heerlen | 17 | |
| Heeze-Leende | 0 | |
| Heiloo | 1 | |
| Hellendoorn | 3 | |
| Hellevoetsluis | 9 | |
| Helmond | 13 | |
| Hendrik-Ido-Ambacht | 3 | |
| Hengelo (O.) | 10 | |
| het Bildt | 1 | |
| Het Hogeland | 11 | |
| Heumen | 0 | |
| Heusden | 0 | |
| Hillegom | 3 | |
| Hilvarenbeek | 2 | |
| Hilversum | 3 | |
| Hoeksche Waard | 6 | |
| Hof van Twente | 6 | |
| Hollands Kroon | 10 | |
| Hoogeveen | 9 | |
| Hoogezand-Sappemeer | 1 | |
| Hoorn | 11 | |
| Horst aan de Maas | 6 | |
| Houten | 3 | |
| Huizen | 3 | |
| Hulst | 8 | |
| IJsselstein | 3 | |
| Kaag en Braassem | 5 | |
| Kampen | 2 | |
| Kapelle | 2 | |
| Katwijk | 3 | |
| Kerkrade | 16 | |
| Koggenland | 5 | |
| Kollumerland en Nieuwkruisland | 2 | |
| Korendijk | 1 | |
| Krimpen aan den IJssel | 3 | |
| Krimpenerwaard | 5 | |
| Laarbeek | 1 | |
| Landerd | 3 | |
| Landgraaf | 14 | |
| Landsmeer | 2 | |
| Langedijk | 2 | |
| Lansingerland | 4 | |
| Laren (NH.) | 3 | |
| Leek | 1 | |
| Leerdam | 2 | |
| Leeuwarden | 12 | |
| Leeuwarderadeel | 1 | |
| Leiden | 9 | |
| Leiderdorp | 3 | |
| Leidschendam-Voorburg | 5 | |
| Lelystad | 19 | |
| Leudal | 6 | |
| Leusden | 2 | |
| Lingewaal | 0 | |
| Lingewaard | 5 | |
| Lisse | 1 | |
| Littenseradiel | 4 | |
| Lochem | 7 | |
| Loon op Zand | 2 | |
| Lopik | 4 | |
| Loppersum | 12 | |
| Losser | 6 | |
| Maasdriel | 7 | |
| Maasgouw | 8 | |
| Maassluis | 8 | |
| Maastricht | 15 | |
| Marum | 2 | |
| Medemblik | 8 | |
| Meerssen | 5 | |
| Meierijstad | 1 | |
| Menameradiel | 3 | |
| Menterwolde | 0 | |
| Meppel | 7 | |
| Middelburg (Z.) | 4 | |
| Midden-Delfland | 2 | |
| Midden-Drenthe | 7 | |
| Midden-Groningen | 16 | |
| Mill en Sint Hubert | 2 | |
| Moerdijk | 8 | |
| Molenlanden | 3 | |
| Molenwaard | 3 | |
| Montferland | 6 | |
| Montfoort | 3 | |
| Mook en Middelaar | 0 | |
| Muiden | 0 | |
| Naarden | 0 | |
| Neder-Betuwe | 9 | |
| Nederweert | 5 | |
| Neerijnen | 2 | |
| Nieuwegein | 10 | |
| Nieuwkoop | 3 | |
| Nijkerk | 2 | |
| Nijmegen | 11 | |
| Nissewaard | 12 | |
| Noardeast-Frysl�n | 6 | |
| Noord-Beveland | 9 | |
| Noordenveld | 5 | |
| Noordoostpolder | 7 | |
| Noordwijk | 0 | |
| Noordwijkerhout | 0 | |
| Nuenen, Gerwen en Nederwetten | 0 | |
| Nunspeet | 1 | |
| Nuth | 1 | |
| Oegstgeest | 2 | |
| Oirschot | 3 | |
| Oisterwijk | 0 | |
| Oldambt | 16 | |
| Oldebroek | 3 | |
| Oldenzaal | 0 | |
| Olst-Wijhe | 6 | |
| Ommen | 4 | |
| Onderbanken | 1 | |
| Oost Gelre | 4 | |
| Oosterhout | 6 | |
| Ooststellingwerf | 8 | |
| Oostzaan | 3 | |
| Opmeer | 3 | |
| Opsterland | 4 | |
| Oss | 7 | |
| Oud-Beijerland | 2 | |
| Oude IJsselstreek | 8 | |
| Ouder-Amstel | 6 | |
| Oudewater | 5 | |
| Overbetuwe | 5 | |
| Papendrecht | 5 | |
| Peel en Maas | 4 | |
| Pekela | 11 | |
| Pijnacker-Nootdorp | 2 | |
| Purmerend | 11 | |
| Putten | 6 | |
| Raalte | 4 | |
| Reimerswaal | 8 | |
| Renkum | 6 | |
| Renswoude | 4 | |
| Reusel-De Mierden | 4 | |
| Rheden | 9 | |
| Rhenen | 2 | |
| Ridderkerk | 9 | |
| Rijnwaarden | 0 | |
| Rijssen-Holten | 1 | |
| Rijswijk (ZH.) | 13 | |
| Roerdalen | 8 | |
| Roermond | 13 | |
| Roosendaal | 13 | |
| Rotterdam | 20 | |
| Rozendaal | 1 | |
| Rucphen | 10 | |
| Schagen | 3 | |
| Scherpenzeel | 0 | |
| Schiedam | 14 | |
| Schiermonnikoog | 7 | |
| Schijndel | 0 | |
| Schinnen | 0 | |
| Schouwen-Duiveland | 4 | |
| 's-Gravenhage (gemeente) | 20 | |
| 's-Hertogenbosch | 9 | |
| Simpelveld | 10 | |
| Sint Anthonis | 4 | |
| Sint-Michielsgestel | 2 | |
| Sint-Oedenrode | 0 | |
| Sittard-Geleen | 16 | |
| Sliedrecht | 9 | |
| Slochteren | 2 | |
| Sluis | 11 | |
| Smallingerland | 12 | |
| Soest | 1 | |
| Someren | 3 | |
| Son en Breugel | 2 | |
| Stadskanaal | 13 | |
| Staphorst | 6 | |
| Stede Broec | 5 | |
| Steenbergen | 5 | |
| Steenwijkerland | 6 | |
| Stein (L.) | 9 | |
| Stichtse Vecht | 6 | |
| Strijen | 2 | |
| S�dwest-Frysl�n | 8 | |
| Ten Boer | 2 | |
| Terneuzen | 14 | |
| Terschelling | 3 | |
| Texel | 9 | |
| Teylingen | 4 | |
| Tholen | 7 | |
| Tiel | 14 | |
| Tilburg | 10 | |
| Tubbergen | 4 | |
| Twenterand | 6 | |
| Tynaarlo | 2 | |
| Tytsjerksteradiel | 3 | |
| Uden | 2 | |
| Uitgeest | 3 | |
| Uithoorn | 6 | |
| Urk | 3 | |
| Utrecht (gemeente) | 11 | |
| Utrechtse Heuvelrug | 1 | |
| Vaals | 7 | |
| Valkenburg aan de Geul | 7 | |
| Valkenswaard | 2 | |
| Veendam | 15 | |
| Veenendaal | 2 | |
| Veere | 2 | |
| Veghel | 1 | |
| Veldhoven | 0 | |
| Velsen | 7 | |
| Venlo | 14 | |
| Venray | 9 | |
| Vianen | 1 | |
| Vijfheerenlanden | 4 | |
| Vlaardingen | 14 | |
| Vlagtwedde | 2 | |
| Vlieland | 2 | |
| Vlissingen | 14 | |
| Voerendaal | 6 | |
| Voorschoten | 1 | |
| Voorst | 4 | |
| Vught | 2 | |
| Waadhoeke | 8 | |
| Waalre | 1 | |
| Waalwijk | 9 | |
| Waddinxveen | 3 | |
| Wageningen | 4 | |
| Wassenaar | 3 | |
| Waterland | 4 | |
| Weert | 6 | |
| Weesp | 4 | |
| Werkendam | 1 | |
| West Betuwe | 6 | |
| West Maas en Waal | 2 | |
| Westerkwartier | 4 | |
| Westerveld | 7 | |
| Westervoort | 6 | |
| Westerwolde | 13 | |
| Westland | 6 | |
| Weststellingwerf | 7 | |
| Westvoorne | 3 | |
| Wierden | 4 | |
| Wijchen | 4 | |
| Wijdemeren | 3 | |
| Wijk bij Duurstede | 0 | |
| Winsum | 3 | |
| Winterswijk | 5 | |
| Woensdrecht | 5 | |
| Woerden | 4 | |
| Wormerland | 2 | |
| Woudenberg | 1 | |
| Woudrichem | 1 | |
| Zaanstad | 13 | |
| Zaltbommel | 6 | |
| Zandvoort | 6 | |
| Zederik | 2 | |
| Zeevang | 3 | |
| Zeewolde | 3 | |
| Zeist | 5 | |
| Zevenaar | 13 | |
| Zoetermeer | 14 | |
| Zoeterwoude | 5 | |
| Zuidhorn | 3 | |
| Zuidplas | 6 | |
| Zundert | 6 | |
| Zutphen | 9 | |
| Zwartewaterland | 2 | |
| Zwijndrecht | 12 | |
| Zwolle | 8 | |
| * For each municipality, the map shows the number of regional well-being indicators (out of a total of 33) for which the municipality is in the bottom quarter of the municipal ranking. The municipal classification differs from 2022 as data for previous years are used. | ||
Well-being ‘later’
Sustainability of well-being over the longer term
One of the central questions in this monitor is how sustainable the current well-being is over the longer term. The constant demands made on exhaustible raw materials and auxiliary products put pressure on the availability of capital for future generations. For each of the four types of capital of the ‘later’ dashboard (economic, natural, human and social capital), we now examine in detail the trend in well-being (2014–2021) and the position of the Netherlands in the EU27. We discuss particularly the indicators in the dashboard with a green arrow (increase in well-being) or a red arrow (decrease well-being), and place the developments in the wider context of indicators in the SDG agenda.
Economic capital
Natural capital
Human capital
Social capital
Economic capital: physical and knowledge capital stable, high debt burden among households
Economic capital comprises the machinery and tools, ICT, knowledge capital and infrastructure required to create material well-being and generate economic growth. The indicators for the stock of physical and knowledge capital both show a neutral trend, and the Netherlands occupies a middle position within the EU.
The scores for SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth: economy and production factors) and SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: sustainable business) show that Dutch manufacturers are using raw materials increasingly efficiently.
Within the EU the Netherlands is even among the leaders in terms of raw materials productivity. Labour productivity (gross value added per hour worked) is also high in the Netherlands with its advanced knowledge economy compared to other EU countries. Gross fixed capital formation as a percentage of GDP and the number of hours worked per capita per year show a rising trend. The share of gross investments in tangible assets is nevertheless low by European standards. SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure: knowledge and innovation) shows that the Netherlands occupies a high and favourable position in the EU ranking for a large number of innovation indicators.
SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities: financial sustainability) also contains indicators relating to economic capital. Debt is considered to be negative economic capital. It is the opposite of wealth. Government finances were in relatively good shape when COVID-19 broke out. After peaking at 67.9 percent in 2014, debt fell to 48.5 percent at the end of 2019. During the ‘COVID years’ 2020 and 2021 debt successively amounted to 54.3 and 52.1 percent of GDP, still well below the formal European limit of a maximum of 60 percent of GDP. The European Commission temporarily suspended the budget rules because of the pandemic.
The Dutch government faces major social issues relating to well-being ‘later’. The ambitions in the coalition agreement relating to climate action, the nitrogen crisis, the housing market, health and safety, equality of opportunities and discrimination, imbalances in the labour market, poverty and debt, and investing in future well-being through education, innovation and the business climate for companies all come with price tag. These expenditures not only constitute a cost item, but are also substantial investments in the well-being of current and future generations.
As far as households are concerned, it can be noted that Dutch households had on average just over €102,000 of debt in 2020. The trend is rising and the Netherlands is at the bottom end of the EU ranking (22nd out of 24 measured countries in 2020). The average mortgage debt of households also shows a rising trend. Opposite the debts, households have financial assets (currency and deposits) and non-financial assets, such as their homes. Although households’ median wealth is trending higher due to the continued rise in value of owner-occupied homes, not every form of wealth can be directly accessed by households in difficult times.
Two demographic indicators show a red trend from the perspective of financial sustainability: the ratio of the number of people aged 65 and over relative to the population aged 20–64 is rising, while the ratio of the number of 0–19‑year-olds to the population aged 20–64 is falling. The number of pensioners has risen to 60 per 100 active participants in pension funds. The current coverage ratio of these funds improved strongly in 2021 and amounted to 114.3 percent compared to 100.3 percent at the end of 2020. The expected occupational pension (estimated on the basis of the median gross pension income of persons aged 65 to 74) was 51 percent of income from employment (approximated on the basis of the median gross income from employment of 50–59‑year-olds) in 2020. It only includes pension accrued during the working life, i.e. excluding state pension provision (the first pillar). The trend is stable.
Natural capital: renewable energy increasing; condition of natural space and ecosystems gives cause for concern
Energy consumption and climate change
The operational capacity for renewable electricity in the Netherlands rose in the 2014–2021 period from 231 to 1,256 megawatts per million inhabitants. The rise in recent years has been particularly strong. SDG 7 shows that energy consumption, converted into kilograms of oil equivalents per capita, is high by European standards (23rd in the EU27 in 2020). Energy is being used ever more efficiently, however, as shown by the downward trend in the energy intensity of the economy. Investments in renewable energy and savings are increasing. The share of renewable energy in total energy consumption continues to rise, although the Netherlands is still in the rearguard of the EU.
Mineral reserves also form part of the natural capital. Since the current energy supply is still largely dependent on the combustion of fossil fuels, we must have sufficient reserves. SDG 7 shows that Dutch oil and natural gas stocks are declining and that the dependence on energy imports is rising. This results in two red trends, as it is deemed to be a deterioration in the starting position for future generations.
Natural capital in the ‘later’ dashboard also shows a red trend in terms of climate action. Cumulative CO2 emissions, which give an indication of the Dutch share of global historical CO2 emissions, continue to rise. The amount of accumulated CO2 emissions is rising steadily, because more is now being emitted per capita than in the past. In addition, SDG 13 shows that greenhouse gas emissions per capita have recently decreased, to 9.6 tonnes in 2021. This downward trend is positive from the perspective of well-being, but compared to other EU countries emissions remain high (23rd position out of 27 countries in 2019).
Since 2015 the Netherlands has applied the Urgenda target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25 percent in 2020 compared to 1990. The Urgenda target was narrowly achieved in 2020, partly as a result of lower coal consumption in the electricity sector and less mobility due to the coronavirus crisis. The decrease in 2021 was nevertheless smaller again: higher emissions resulted in a decrease of 23.9 percent compared to 1990, according to initial calculations for 2021 by CBS and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment/national emissions register.
The Urgenda target is based on IPCC figures. However, CBS also calculates emissions based on other criteria: as emissions by the Dutch economy (in accordance with the environmental accounts) and as the greenhouse gas footprint. Greenhouse gas emissions from all Dutch economic activities according to the environmental accounts were around 22 percent higher than the IPCC emissions in 2021 according to an initial calculation. This is partly because, unlike in the IPCC figures, biomass combustion and emissions from Dutch air and sea transport are fully counted towards GHG emissions.
Quality of soil, water and air
The picture presented by the ‘later’ dashboard is not very bright for the quality of soil, water and air. Although the urban exposure to the finest particulate matter (PM2.5) is decreasing, other developments are thoroughly unfavourable. The availability and quality of water are under pressure. The percentage of surface water of good chemical quality is declining and an increasing volume of groundwater is being extracted. In the case of both the phosphorus and nitrogen surpluses, the Netherlands is among the worst performers in Europe.
In addition to these natural capital indicators, SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation) shows that water productivity, a benchmark for efficient water consumption by business, is still increasing. The dashboard for SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production) also shows that raw material productivity (euros of GDP per kilo of material consumed) is still rising. The Netherlands leads the way in Europe with this indicator. The Netherlands is also among the leaders in the EU with regard to the percentage of recycling of local authority collected waste. For recycling of industrial waste the trend has turned from stable to decreasing (red).
SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities: living environment) focuses on increasing the sustainability of the local living environment. Emissions of acidifying substances (sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and ammonia) are declining. Like the exposure to the finest particulate matter, the trend for this air quality indicator is green.
The Netherlands has committed to achieving the international SDGs, but at national level also aims to make the economy fully circular by 2050. By closing cycles we can limit both the volume of waste and emissions of polluting substances. The question is how the ambitious goal of a fully circular economy can be achieved in 2050. A previous CBS report showed that the circular economy affects many goals in the SDG agenda and that many ministries are involvednoot4, making it difficult to steer policy towards a circular economy.
In its recent report on the circular economy and the SDGs, CBS conducted an investigation as part of the work on the Monitor of Well-being and the SDGs into the relationship between the circular economy and the SDGs, and how these agendas influence each other.noot5 This produced a better picture of the components of the circular economy that contribute directly or indirectly to the policy goals in the SDG agenda (see also the figure below).noot6 The investigation also considered how the circular economy could be monitored on the basis of the SDGs.
The report shows which SDG indicators are directly related to the circular economy, and how the Netherlands is doing on that basis. It also offers a view of trade-offs and synergies, given that the components of the SDG agenda and the circular economy are not unrelated. An example of a trade-off is the water supply. The circular economy focuses on water conservation, with price increases providing an incentive to encourage a circular approach. On the other hand, accessibility to clean water is a prime objective of the SDG agenda, so the price must be low enough to guarantee access for everyone.
Sometimes the circular economy and the SDGs pursue the same goal, but trade-offs arise because of the way they seek to achieve it. For example, in the pursuit of increased use of renewable raw materials the circular economy focuses strongly on the use of biomass. On the basis of the SDG agenda this is a cause for concern, because large-scale use of biomass by commercial forests can entail damage to ecosystems and associated ecosystem services, as well as a loss of biodiversity. Under the SDG agenda it is important to encourage sustainable power generation. Here too there is a downside, in that avoidance of large-scale use of biomass pushes up demand for critical materials. This also gives rise to environmental pressure and has an impact on energy supply security.
Land plays a crucial role as a production factor, both in the circular economy and in the SDGs, for example in commercial forestry for biomass, land for circular agriculture and space for housing. Space is in short supply in the Netherlands. If land is used for one purpose, it may cease to be available for other purposes. This again is an argument for not approaching the goals of the SDGs and of the circular economy separately. Synergies can be exploited to ensure optimum use of the space available in the Netherlands.
State of natural space and ecosystems
The state of natural space and ecosystems in the Netherlands is a cause for concern. In the case of natural capital ‘later’, this state is measured on the basis of the state of land fauna and freshwater and marsh fauna. Both these biodiversity indicators show a downward trend. Other biodiversity indicators, namely urban birds in SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities: living environment) and red-list and farmland birds in SDG 15 (Life on land), show a downward trend. The trends are red.
A bright spot is perhaps the upturn the trend in the score for the Clean Water Index in SDG 14 (Life in water) from ‘not decreasing or increasing significantly’ to ‘increasing’. It should be noted that in 2021 the Netherlands was near the bottom of the EU ranking, in 19th position out of 22 countries. The percentage of natural space and forest areas in the Netherlands is also modest by European standards. The acreage of managed natural land in the Netherlands Nature Network (NNN) is growing steadily. The acreage of ‘green and blue’ space, excluding regular agriculture, has also increased slightly. In this monitor, however, this indicator is calculated per capita, so from this perspective it represents a decrease. This indicator therefore shows a downward (red) trend.
Space is increasingly under pressure in the Netherlands. In addition to the space already used for residential and business purposes, including the food supply, there are various other claims. There is a housing construction target, for example, but space is also required for climate adaptation and the generation of renewable energy. There is a growing need for green areas and recreation space, while the Netherlands also has to meet national and international agreements on protection of nature and biodiversity, for example in Natura2000 areas, and on the expansion of the Netherlands Nature Network (NNN). The risk that all these interests will clash is increasing. As the title of the final recommendation by the Advisory Committee on the Nitrogen Problem on a structural, long-term approach to nitrogen stated: we can’t do everything everywhere. The final recommendation said fundamental measures were required to enable nature to recover sufficiently to comply with European nature conservation rules.noot7
In its report on ecosystems and well-being and the impact of land-use changes in the Netherlands, CBS establishes links between well-being and the use of space on the basis of the Dutch ecosystem accounts.noot8 These accounts assessed the current physical use of space and changes in recent years and the provision and use of various ecosystem services that contribute to well-being. The report also examines the claims made on the scarce space on the basis of the stated goals and policy intentions in the field of nature and construction. This analysis should be seen as an exercise to gauge the order of magnitude of spatial claims. As well as housebuilding and natural areas, there are of course other purposes for which more space is required, such as climate mitigation, infrastructure and the energy transition. The amount of space required for all these future claims is still difficult to quantify.
The report shows where and how much agricultural land has been converted to other ecosystems, and vice versa. Between 2013 and 2020 just over 1.3 percent of the agricultural land in the Netherlands became a different type of ecosystem, mainly residential, business and infrastructure, and to a lesser extent nature. These changes of use are relevant in the context of the ambitious policy agendas in the field of house building, the development of natural spaces, renewable energy and climate mitigation. In its report ‘Grote opgaven in een beperkte ruimte’ (Major tasks in limited space) the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) outlines the complexity of the various tasks on all policy levels.noot9 It also explains the uncertainties surrounding the actual space required to fulfil the various tasks.
The CBS report, too, looks at the potential amount of space required for existing policy intentions relating to the construction target and the intended expansion of the NNN. One question is whether the current pace of change is sufficient to achieve the ambitious policy goals for housebuilding (2030) and the development of natural areas (2027). The target for the NNN is 80,000 hectares of additional natural areas to be created between 2011 and 2027. In the 2011–2021 period an average of 44,000 hectares of natural areas were added, i.e. there are still 36,000 hectares to be completed by 2027. The location of these new natural areas has only been decided in 40 percent of cases, however. Aside from the expansions of the NNN, the forestry strategy is aimed at planting an additional 19,000 hectares of forest. The Netherlands also wants to build almost 1 million new homes. This can be done to some extent in existing urban centres, but an incursion into green areas seems unavoidable. The amount of space claimed for house building has been estimated by examining the construction target and the average built-up area in each province in 2015 (latest available year). Together with the planned expansion of the NNN and the intended extra space for the forestry strategy, this initial estimate results in a potential space claim of almost 760 km², with a large spatial variability. If this conversion of land use were to take place entirely on current agricultural land, the conversion of agricultural land would be more than two and half times as large as the conversion recorded in the ecosystem accounts between 2013 and 2020. And this is without additional claims for land, for renewable energy and climate mitigation.
Human capital: more hours worked, stable health and higher education levels
Human capital has not only an economic but also a social and societal significance: the distribution of well-being among different groups is largely determined by education level, for example. The theme of human capital in the ‘later’ dashboard looks at how people can contribute to well-being from an economic perspective. Human capital has three components, including the amount of labour supplied. The average number of hours a person works during the year is rising, which points to increasing well-being. In addition to the number of hours that people work, we also look at their level of education, skills and health. We see that over one-third of the population aged 15 to 74 have completed higher education and that this share is increasing. A boy born in 2021 will live for an average of 65.4 years in good health, a girl slightly shorter (65.1 years). The quantity and quality components of labour are relevant not only to well-being ‘later’ but also to current well-being. Human capital therefore encompasses aspects that have already been discussed under well-being ‘here and now’. There are also links with SDGs 3 (Good health and well-being), 4 (Quality education) and 8 (Decent work and economic growth).
Social capital: strong trust in fellow citizens and institutions
Social capital reflects the quality of social connections in society: taking part in society and contacts with other people. We measure this by asking how much trust people have in other people and in important institutions such as the government. Social capital is also an important component of the society theme of well-being ‘here and now’, where we noted a particular tension between work and leisure time.
Both contact with family, friends and neighbours and the extent of voluntary work show a declining trend over the 2014–2021 period. In the long term less contact with others and less voluntary work are unfavourable for social cohesion and people’s engagement. In spite of this, the Netherlands occupies a high position in EU rankings in this regard.
Despite the decline in social contacts, people’s trust in each other is increasing. Citizens’ trust in institutions (House of Representatives, police and judiciary) shows a rising trend. After a strong rise in 2020, there was a decrease in 2021, but overall trust in institutions in 2021 was still 3.8 percentage points higher than in 2019. Social capital has therefore increased and the Netherlands sits quite high in the EU ranking for these indicators.
The literature on social capital also stresses that in addition to peoples’ trust in each other, trust between different groups in society is also important. The monitor measures this on the basis of the indicator of feelings of discrimination. This describes the extent to which people consider themselves members of a group that says it cannot participate fully in society or is not fully accepted. In 2018, 8.7 percent of the population aged 15 and over belonged to a discriminated group. The trend is stable.
| Theme and indicator | Year-on-year change | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| WELL-BEING LATER | ||
| NATURAL CAPITAL | ||
| Renewable energy capacity | Green: 24.6% | increase in well-being |
| Green and blue spaces, excluding agriculture | Red: –0.2% | decrease in well-being |
| SOCIAL CAPITAL | ||
| Trust in other people | Green: +3.3%pt | increase in well-being |
| Trust in institutions | Rood: –2.6%pt | decrease in well-being |
Source:Statistics Netherlands.
Resilience and well-being ‘later’
Well-being ‘later’ depends not only on the resources that we leave to future generations. Society must also be able to withstand any external shocks that could disrupt it. The outbreak of the coronavirus crisis in 2020 has made us all the more aware of the fragility of our way of life and of the longer-term sustainability of well-being.
Are the major systems that make our well-being possible – biosphere, society, economy – robust enough to absorb major (external) shocks? In this connection we also look at government power, a particularly important aspect in the case of a shock that affects large parts of the population and poses a risk to major systems.
Six of the 13 indicators in the resilience dashboard related to well-being ‘later’ show a rising trend, while five indicators are. The declining trend in the available green and blue space per capita and the high percentage of natural land at risk of excess nitrogen show that the robustness of the biosphere is under pressure. The robustness of society is relatively high and trending higher. Although trust in people rose by 3.3 percentage points in 2021, trust in institutions declined by 2.6 percentage points in the same year. This sharp fall is unsurprising given the strong rise in the previous year (6.4 percentage points). Government power is relatively strong. Government debt fell by 2.2 percentage points to 52.1 percent of GDP in 2020–2021, which is favourable from the perspective of resilience. The declining trend in trust in the rule of law in the 2014–2021 period points towards a deterioration of resilience.
This is the first time the monitor has measured the resilience of specific systems of critical importance for well-being as a whole or for specific SDGs. Critical systems are systems whose failure can trigger the failure of other systems (system failure) which are essential for the functioning of the three major systems (biosphere, society, economy) or which fulfil an essential social function that must not be permitted to fail. Systems whose failure could lead to the failure of other systems are energy supply, telecoms and information infrastructures. Of those, the energy supply is the most vulnerable: dependence on energy imports is trending higher and is high compared to other EU countries. The share of renewable energy in total energy consumption is trending higher, but the Netherlands is near the bottom end of the EU ranking (23rd out of 27 EU countries in 2020). Intentional acts caused ICT security incidents in 12 percent of businesses in 2020. The figure was even higher in businesses operating in the information communication sector, with 16 percent being affected by security incidents in the development and management of systems, networks, databases and websites, or computer and software maintenance.
Ecosystems, social relations and the business community are essential for the resilience of the biosphere, society and the economy. These three major systems are by and large robust. Social cohesion in the neighbourhood (an indicator of social relationships in a person’s environment) and trust in people (a more general indicator) are trending higher. Trust in people also increased in 2021. Businesses are also becoming increasingly robust. Their median solvency – the percentage of assets made up of equity – was 51 percent in 2020 and trended higher over the 2014–2021 period.
Systems that fulfil an essential social function are the financial sector, government, care, education, transport and drinking water supply. Resilience is increasing in the financial sector and government. The Common Equity Tier 1 ratio (CET1) – a key indicator of the robustness of the financial sector – shows an improving trend and the Netherlands is in the middle group of the EU ranking. Trust in institutions is relatively high and the trend is upward, although it decreased by 2.6 percentage points to 66.9 percent in 2021. However, this decrease followed a substantial increase in trust in 2020 (6.4 percent). The effectiveness of public administration is high in comparison with other EU countries. The resilience of the care sector, by contrast, is under pressure. The vacancy rate (the number of vacancies per thousand jobs) is trending higher and the Netherlands was 21st out of 25 countries in the EU ranking in 2020. In the event of a shock it may be difficult to find additional care personnel.
For more information on resilience, see Chapter 5.
Well-being ‘elsewhere’
In well-being ‘elsewhere’ we describe the effect that the Dutch pursuit of prosperity has on the rest of the world, and particularly on the poorest developing countries (the 46 least developed countries or LDCs designated by the UN). Trading with foreign countries is very important for a relatively small and open economy such as the Netherlands. Within well-being ‘elsewhere’ we distinguish two themes: ‘trade and aid’, and ‘environment and resources’. The first theme describes the (generally positive) effects of the Netherlands’ international trade on the well-being of trading partners; the second deals with the (predominantly negative) effects from the perspective of the environment.
Trade and aid
Environment and resources
The Netherlands has strong trading links with other countries. The value of goods exports amounts to almost 60 percent of GDP, while the import value amounts to half of GDP. The Netherlands ranked sixth and ninth respectively in the EU in 2020. Exported goods go mainly to other EU countries, particularly Germany, Belgium and France. Imports are less focused on the EU: in addition to Germany and Belgium, China and the US are also important trading partners.
Trade and aid: more trade and higher expenditure on development cooperation
This dashboard looks at how the Netherlands can make a positive contribution to the well-being of other countries. In this context, in line with the Brundtland Reportnoot10, Our Common Future, particular attention is paid to the income flows between the Netherlands and the LDCs.
The medium-term trend for the total value of imports of goods per capita has turned from stable to rising: the trend is green, because in this case more trade is seen as favourable for the well-being of the trading partners. Imports of goods from Europe, America, Asia and Oceania are growing, whereas for imports from African countries the trend is stable. The value of imports per capita from LDCs also shows a rising trend. Within the EU the Netherlands is the biggest importer of goods from the poorest countries after Belgium and many of these goods enter the EU through the major seaports in these countries.
Migrants in the Netherlands are sending more money to their country of origin. The trend is rising: 0.9 percent of GDP in 2014 compared to 1.5 percent in 2020. This comprises wages and salaries of non-residents in the Netherlands, part of which is spent in or benefits the country of origin. This helps ensure the livelihoods of people living in other countries and is seen as positive for well-being ‘elsewhere’. The percentage of gross national income (GNI) spent on development aid is stable: in 2020 it amounted to 0.6 percent. In 1970 UN members agreed to spend 0.7 percent of their GNI per annum on development cooperation (the OECD standard). Only four EU countries (Sweden, Luxembourg, Germany and Denmark) are achieving this percentage, although the Netherlands ranks fifth after them.
Environment and resources: relatively large volume of natural resources from abroad
Every year the Global Footprint Network Earth organisation calculates the impact of humanity on the earth: ‘Overshoot Day’ is the date on which the earth can still recover from the amount of renewable raw materials consumed. The last time it was still possible to live within these planetary limits was over 50 years ago: in 1970 Overshoot Day fell on 29 December. Since then it has fallen earlier and earlier in the year and in 2021 it was on 29 July. These calculations show that we have been living beyond our means for decades. Moreover, if every global citizen had the same lifestyle as the Dutch, the date would fall even earlier. This continuing overutilisation of raw materials and auxiliary products is not sustainable; we are passing on major – and possibly irreparable – problems on to future generations.
The footprint indicators are part of the ‘environment and resources’ theme in the ‘elsewhere’ dashboard, which examines how much pressure the Netherlands is placing on the environment and raw materials stocks in other countries. In contrast to the ‘trade and aid’ theme, here less trade is more favourable for the development of well-being.
The dashboard also includes indicators on imported volumes of raw materials and auxiliary products. With their large seaports the Netherlands and Belgium are major importers. These imported goods are not intended exclusively for the domestic market; they are also transhipped or re-exported. For this reason imports are sometimes seen as having less environmental impact, but the Netherlands also earns money from these economic activities and they do create an environmental burden in the Netherlands.
One indicator shows a red trend, namely the imported volume of biomass. Another shows a deterioration from the perspective of well-being: for the volume of imports of non-metallic minerals (from all over the world) the medium-term trend over the 2014–2021 period has turned from downward – i.e. green – to stable. For imports from LDCs, however, this trend is still downward. In this part of the ‘elsewhere’ dashboard, this is seen as increasing well-being in the countries of origin, because the stocks of natural raw materials are less depleted. There is also an improvement in imports of metals from the LDCs (trend has changed from rising to neutral).
Lastly, the ‘elsewhere’ dashboard includes a number of footprint indicators. For this monitor CBS has updated the raw material footprint: in 2020 it amounted to 7.4 tonnes per capita and shows a stable trend. The greenhouse gas footprint has also been updated. This was 15.3 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per capita in 2021, compared to 16.2 tonnes in 2019 and 13.0 tonnes in 2020. The latest country footprint from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2017) shows the total area of land needed to meet the needs of consumption in the Netherlands; the data are insufficient to calculate a trend.
| Theme and indicator | Year-on-year change | Direction | Trend change | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WELL-BEING ELSEWHERE | ||||
| TRADE AND AID | ||||
| Total imports of goods | grey to green● → ● | improvement | ||
| Imports of goods from Europe | grey naar green● → ● | improvement | ||
| Imports of goods from Africa | Green: 28.2% | increase in well-being | ||
| Imports of goods from Oceania | Green: 16.8% | increase in well-being | ||
| ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES | ||||
| Fossil fuel imports | Green: –16.0% | increase in well-being | ||
| Imports of metals from LDCs | Green: –33.0% | increase in well-being | red to grey● → ● | improvement |
| Imports of non-metallic minerals | green to grey● → ● | deterioration | ||
| Imports of biomass from LDCs | Green: –9.6% | increase in well-being | ||
| Material footprint | Green: –7.8% | increase in well-being |
Source:Statistics Netherlands.
Resilience and well-being ‘elsewhere’
Dependencies on the rest of the world represent a vulnerability for the well-being of the Netherlands. The Netherlands is now largely dependent on foreign countries for its energy supply. In addition, essential products such as computers and mobile phones contain rare and expensive metals, as do solar panels and electric cars. Demand for these scarce raw materials is high. The well-being of the Netherlands will become vulnerable if the country does not have these raw materials itself and security of supply is not guaranteed, for example due to geopolitical tensions.
The theme of ‘cross-border dependencies’ in the resilience dashboard includes the indicators of dependence on energy imports, economic dependence on exports and the greenhouse gas footprint. The Netherlands is becoming increasingly dependent on imports of energy from other countries (the medium-term trend is red). Almost 70 percent of our energy is now imported, the highest share since measurements began in 1995. This makes the Netherlands vulnerable to geopolitical tensions.
Noten
Vijf jaar implementatie SDG’s (2016-2020): monitoring en reflectie (https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond/2021/07/vijf-jaar-implementatie-sdg-s-in-nederland--2016-2020--)
Circular economy and the Sustainable Development Goals (https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/longread/rapportages/2022/circular-economy-and-the-sustainable-development-goals)
The figure was taken from Schroeder, P., K. Anggraeni and U. Weber, 2018, The relevance of Circular Economy Practices to the Sustainable Development Goals, Journal of Industrial Ecology 23 (1), 77-95.