**3. Resilience of inhabitants of Dutch neighborhoods**

In this section, we introduce the case of Dutch neighborhoods on the basis of reports of institutes related to or working in commission of the Dutch government. The aim of the case study is to understand the contribution of governmental policies on other sustainable development goals to the resilience in neighborhoods. Hence, the starting point is the reporting of the United Nations on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in the Netherlands.

#### **3.1 Negative trends regarding sustainable development goals in the Netherlands**

In the Netherlands, the data collection is serviced by Statistics Netherlands [41]. In **Table 2** we show the sub-goal indicators that display deterioration in the development, while assuming that negative developments will be more manifest in disadvantage neighborhoods of the country. **Table 2** Excerpt of Sustainable Development Profile of the Netherlands ([42], p. 350), with additional national indicators [41].

Rather remarkable is Netherlands 8th score in the list of netted negative spillover effects generating countries. An explanation can be found in the state policy of facilitating transnational tax evasion. A and for instance, in the contribution of Dutch agriculture companies to deforestation in the Amazon. Moreover, the Netherlands is at the bottom of the EU league with regard to climate action. This score is rather puzzling. Of its territory, 26% is below actual sea level and 29% is susceptible to river flooding [43]. The relationship between risk exposure and climate action in the Netherlands is giving rise to speculation: Is it short-sightedness, is the problem too large to face, or is it an expression of free riding on efforts of other states? In this chapter, we leave the questions unresolved. Rather, we follow the idea that 'the battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in the cities.'1

#### **3.2 Sustainable cities and communities**

The United Nations have called to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. For tenants. The costs of housing relative to household income have increased since 2012 from a comparatively high level of 36.2% to 38.1%, whereas the costs for home-owners have decreased. Since 2012 as well, indicators for safety and other environmental stressors show deterioration in acknowledged disadvantaged neighborhoods, whereas other neighborhoods show a modest improvement [44]. Recently, the selective downgrading of the disadvantaged

<sup>1</sup> Eugenie Birch, Co-Chair of the SDSN Cities network and Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, attributing this line to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations from 2007-2016.


#### *Substantial disadvantage compared to other capabilities indicators in EU-ranking.*

#### **Table 2.**

*Negative trends in realization of sustainable development goals in the Netherlands.*

### *An Explorative Perspective on the Resilience in Neighborhoods in the Netherlands DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98818*

neighborhoods has given rise to serious concern of the Dutch government. The political attention is drawn to areas where 'combinations and cumulations of problems in schooling, employment, poverty, inclusion, safety, subversive crime, housing, and health' occur [45]. The negative trends on several SDGs and indicators prove to be concentrated in specific neighborhoods and cities. Closer look makes clear that there are 16 urban areas assigned, containing several neighborhoods. In these areas, almost a million people live ([45]: Annex). According to the Minister of Interior Affairs, residents, entrepreneurs and professionals in these neighborhoods are in the lead in the search for varying tailor-made solutions [45].

In a report titled 'Resilience in social housing', an analysis has been made of the causes of the downgrading of these neighborhoods [8, 46]:


To this summary could be added that the price range of the social housing has been upleveled and narrowed just below the limites of the governmental surtax on for tenants. Households that are faced with a drop of income, sudden unemployment and personal debts can not move to cheaper homes, while at the same time they are entangled in conditions of the surtaxes on housing and other public services.

Van Gent and Horstenbach argue that the combination in the legislation of taxation of the social housing institutes and the restriction of the allocation to low-income groups has caused a residualisation of the Dutch social housing sector [47]. Nieuwenhuis and colleagues classify the Netherlands in a middle group between countries with high and low social-spatial segregation. From the middle group people manage to succeed in social mobility to less disadvantaged neighborhoods. However, the analysis regards the period from 2001 to 2011 [48]. From 2012, the social-spatial segregation in the Netherlands has increased considerably. Expectedly, the opportunities for social mobility from the worst to better neighborhoods will have been decreased proportionally.

Another addition is that the access of low-income groups to low-priced home owned houses has deteriorated as well. The market for low-priced houses is reduced by price-inflating taxation policy of the Dutch goveernment as well as by redlining of neighborhoods [49]. Redlining means that banks and other suppliers of mortgages refuse to credit applicants in marked urban areas. In a report of the

Dutch national bank, redlining is considered as a practice that undermines financial stability [50]. However, redlining is still a problem to the resilience of neighborhoods [51]. Moreover in specific neighborhoods, adjacent to social housing areas, private home owners are generally and grossly outbid by shady real estate agents who utilize the houses for extortion of unregistered migrant employees [52].

The report of Leidelmeijer et al. [8] contains an advocacy for social sustainability that would be warranted by personal and communal resilience. The plea resonates influential reports of 15 years ago [44]. First, the scientific advisory board of the Dutch government issued a call for trust cooperation within neighborhoods [53]. The main idea was that institutions would be reshaped and enabled to trustworthily deliver appropriate and connected services to the citizens. This advise is reflected in SDG goal 16 regarding accountable, inclusive, and effective institutions. Second, the former advisory board for housing, spatial planning, and environment has proposed to reconsider the physical reconstruction policy. A social-oriented policy were more apt to promote upward social mobility within the borders of the neighborhoods and would be more directly contributing to community building than gentrification would do. In this report, education is pointed out as a major carrier of social progress and a main route to paid employment [54].

Other SDG goals, like full productive employment and decent work for all (SDG 8) and reduction of inequality (SDG 10) have been subject of a policy reform in the Netherlands. However, the implementation by means of three decentralizations in the social domain is regarded as one of the circumstances that allegedly have contributed to an increase of vulnerable people in low-income neighborhoods [55]. In next section, we elaborate on these policy reforms.

### **3.3 Inclusive and equitable education and lifelong learning opportunities**

In the Netherlands, the SDG report on education displays an increase of inequality, as variation in performance in science is increasingly explained by socio economic status. Another indicator shows that the Netherlands fall behind in excellence, implying that talent of pupils and students is decreasingly brought to full development [42]. In a international survey of learning performance of 15 year olds in OESO countries, Dutch pupils show a decline in perfomance in mathemetics and natural sciences, and to a greater extent in reading [56]. An other survey displays that less primary school pupils in their grading year (12 year olds) meet the reference level for reading. It is stated that almost a quarter of the Dutch pupils lack the reading abilities required for being articulate citizens. In the OESO survey, Dutch puplis, and more specifically boys, are to a lesser degree able to evaluate and reflect on texts. Further, there is a remarkable low score on reading motivation [56].

In addition, we expect that the reading deficits will discourage lifelong learning by upgrowing Dutch citizens. Knowledge, in a broad sense, accumulates step by step, not by hapzardly retrieving of unassessed information. Jumping to conclusions and polarization of opinions in peer groups are not precluded by reading experience. Unassessed use of information is more likely to occur if the experience is absent. Regarded in this way, the poor reading motivation and experience will negatively contribute to societal stability.

A clear analysis of the ine inequal learning opportunities is provided by the Dutch education authority [57, 58]. At the end of the primary school, pupils from low-educated and from non-western migrant families are underrated by primary school staffs, while children from backgrounds similar to the school staffs are overrated. Over a longer period recurrent studies have provided this finding. Until 2017 scores on a end-term test reduced this inequality in the admittance to higher levels of secundary education. Further, underrating and overrating was found to be

#### *An Explorative Perspective on the Resilience in Neighborhoods in the Netherlands DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98818*

corrected in the first 3 years of the secondary schools, provided the availability of transfer options at the secundary schools [58]. In the chain of cascades through the educational system to employment, children from families with little education and migrant ancestry lapse to lower levels at every cascade, resulting in low emplyment rates after educatiom [57].

The education authoriy point at neighborhood effects and sorting out between white and colored schools. Some schools manage to sustain a more diverse population. The quality of the education is not significantly related to the location of schools, however on some schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods, the turmoil in some classes and schools is so dominant that teachers can pay not enough attention to the learning by their pupils [57].

The Dutch education system is rather compartmented from an early age [59]. Differentiation is not adapted to personal learning speed and capacities. Additional need for education is arranged by parents through commisioning of private teachers or commercial providers. By this, children of high-income families have a considerable advantage, although lack of motivation is the strongest driver for additional education [58].

Recently, the national advisory board for education has advocated for a reform of the selection practice. Not at the early age of 12 year, but at the end of third year of the secundary school pupils should be sorted out for further education. To the age of 15, pupils would follow their courses in unsorted classes [59]. This design is more in accordance with international educational practices, particularly with higherly performing Scandinavian countries.

By forming of homogeneous classes and absence of individual learning trajectories, the Dutch education system is driven by social reference norms (see [31]). Comparative studies in other countries has shown that when teachers neither encourage nor challenge pupils individually, but instead, rely on social reference norms, they educate less students to a level of excellence, will have students with fear of success, will have more students with test anxiety, and generate less learning motivation [60]. Remakebly, these findings reflect the comparative profile of the Dutch education system rather recognizably. Another social comparison effect is found in the rating practice by primary-school staffs. Not the talent, motivation and the social–emotional potential of the pupil, but the socio-economic similarity between the school staff and his or her parents determines the rating. In spite of scientific evidence of the resulting inequality, these professionals did not have reconsidered their rating practice. Instead, a lobby of primary school leaders for neutralization of the end-term test results has been granted by the Dutch parliament.
