Multi-dimensional ‘wellbeing’ is used to assess micro-level development across Global South settings. We explore the added value of ‘wellbeing’ to understand urban marginality in a high-income context, and how a bottom-up approach can contribute to just development. From a study in Amsterdam, we conclude that (a) ‘wellbeing’ allows for comprehensive measurement of ‘development’ by inclusion of material, subjective and relational needs. These need analysis in relation to local socioeconomic and relational (institutional) reference points, and (b) the bottom-up methodology generates credible indicators that do more justice to the lived realities of marginalized communities. Therefore, the co-created Wellbeing Dashboard forms a potential stepping-stone towards epistemic and procedural justice.
AlkireS. and FosterJ.2011: Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), 476–87.
2.
AnandP., HunterG. and SmithR.2005: Capabilities and well-being: Evidence based on the Sen–Nussbaum approach to welfare. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 9–55.
3.
BurgersJ. and MusterdS.2001: Global and local determinants of social exclusion: Amsterdam versus Rotterdam. In Governing European Cities. Routledge.
4.
ChambersR.1995: Poverty and livelihoods: Whose reality counts?Brighton: IDS/University of Sussex.
5.
ChenS. and RavallionM.2007: Absolute poverty measures for the developing world, 1981–2004. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(43), 16757–62.
6.
de VriezeA.G.M., KoppelmäkiK.V., MorrowO.. 2022: Circularity by design: Governance landscape of the Metropolitan Region Amsterdam. 2278. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/597593
7.
D’IgnazioC. and KleinL.F.2023: Data feminism. MIT Press.
8.
DubbS.2016: Community wealth building forms: What they are and how to use them at the local level. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(2), 141–52.
9.
DuttaU., AzadA.K. and HussainS.M.2022: Counterstorytelling as epistemic justice: Decolonial community-based Praxis from the global south. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(1–2), 59–70.
10.
EubanksV.2018: Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Publishing Group.
11.
FinlayJ.M. and FinnB.M.2021: Geography’s blind spot: The age-old urban question. Urban Geography, 42(8), 1061–78.
12.
FuscoA., GuioA. and MarlierE.2011: Income poverty and material deprivation in European countries. https://doi.org/10.2785/1144.
13.
Gemeente Amsterdam. 2020: Verkenning van kansen Venserpolder (Principenota Venserpolder). Gemeente Amsterdam.
14.
GhertnerD.A.2014: India’s urban revolution: Geographies of displacement beyond gentrification. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(7), 1554–71.
15.
GoughI. and McGregorJ.A.2007: Wellbeing in developing countries: From theory to research. Cambridge University Press.
16.
GuptaJ., LivermanD., ProdaniK.. 2023: Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 6(6), 630–38.
17.
HagenaarsA.J.M.1991: The definition and measurement of poverty. In: Economic inequality and poverty. Routledge.
KitchinR.2021: Data lives: How data are made and shape our world. Policy Press.
20.
LampmanR.J.1965: Approaches to the reduction of poverty. The American Economic Review, 55(1/2), 521–29.
21.
LawhonM. and TrueloveY.2020: Disambiguating the southern urban critique: Propositions, pathways and possibilities for a more global urban studies. Urban Studies, 57(1), 3–20.
22.
LeesL.2012: The geography of gentrification: Thinking through comparative urbanism. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 155–71.
23.
LiverieroF.2020: Epistemic injustice in the political domain: Powerless citizens and institutional reform. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 23(5), 797–813.
24.
McGregorJ.A.2004: Researching well-being. Global Social Policy, 4(3), 337.
25.
McGregorJ.A.2018: Reconciling universal frameworks and local realities in understanding and measuring wellbeing. In BacheI. and ScottK. editors, The politics of wellbeing. Palgrave Macmillan, 197–224.
26.
McGregorJ.A., CamfieldL. and WoodcockA.2009: Needs, wants and goals: Wellbeing, quality of life and public policy. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 4(2), 135–54.
27.
McGregorJ.A. and PouwN.2017: Towards an economics of well-being. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(4), 1123–42.
28.
MohanG.2007: Participatory development: From epistemological reversals to active citizenship. Geography Compass, 1(4), 779–96.
29.
NussbaumM.2002: Capabilities and social justice. International Studies Review, 4(2), 123–35.
30.
OrshanskyM.1969: How poverty is measured. Monthly Labor Review, 92(2), 37–41.
31.
OttingerG.2013: Changing knowledge, local knowledge, and knowledge gaps: STS insights into procedural justice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 38(2), 250–70.
32.
PouwN.2020: Wellbeing economics: How and why economics needs to change. Amsterdam University Press. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130288048122589077
33.
PouwN. and GuptaJ.2017: Inclusive development: A multi-disciplinary approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 24, 104–08.
34.
PouwN.R.M. and PerottiE.C.M.2025: A framework for broad wellbeing measurement. Journal of Human Capabilities and Development. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21417.61284/1
35.
RavallionM.2016: Toward better global poverty measures. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 14(2), 227–48.
36.
RobinsonJ.2006: Ordinary cities: Between modernity and development. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84917098178&partnerID=40&md5=2902326ff66c8f92c4a11124d15fa753
37.
RobinsonJ.2022: Comparative urbanism: Tactics for global urban studies. John Wiley & Sons.
38.
RoyA.2009: Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–87.
39.
ScoonesI.1998: Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. University of Sussex/IDS.
40.
SenA.1999: Development as freedom. Anchor Books.
41.
SeveliusJM., Gutierrez-MockL., Zamudio-HaasS.. 2020: Research with marginalized communities: Challenges to continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic. AIDS and Behavior, 24(7), 2009–12.
42.
StiglitzJ.E., SenA. and FitoussiJ.2009: Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf
TonkensE. and VerhoevenI.2019: The civic support paradox: Fighting unequal participation in deprived neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 56(8), 1595–1610.
45.
TownsendP.1987: Deprivation. Journal of Social Policy, 16(2), 125–46.
46.
UitermarkJ., RossiU. and Van HoutumH.2005: Reinventing multiculturalism: Urban citizenship and the negotiation of ethnic diversity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(3), 622–40.
47.
van BeekJ., PouwN. and VerrestH.J.L.M.2025: Co-creation to measure what matters: The case of Venserpolder, Amsterdam. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2025.2480806
48.
van GentW.P.C., MusterdS. and OstendorfW.2009: Disentangling neighbourhood problems: Area-based interventions in Western European cities. Urban Research & Practice, 2(1), 53–67.
49.
Van KempenR. and MurieA.2009: The new divided city: Changing patterns in European cities. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100(4), 377–98.
50.
VerlooN.2017: Learning from informality? Rethinking the mismatch between formal policy strategies and informal tactics of citizenship. Current Sociology, 65(2), 167–81.
51.
VerlooN.2023: Ignoring people: The micro-politics of misrecognition in participatory governance. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 41(7), 1474–91.
52.
VerrestH.J.L.M., PouwN. and van BeekJ.2021: Welzijnsindex voor de stad Amsterdam: Verkennende studie. Gemeente Amsterdam.
53.
ZhouR. (Kevin) and BrownD.2024: Epistemic justice and critical minerals: Towards a planetary just transition. The Extractive Industries and Society, 18, 101463.
