Social inequity and sustainable
urban regeneration in
Buiksloterham (Amsterdam)
Susanne de Leth, 12426504
Abstract
To deal with rapid population growth, an increasing number of cities around the world is transforming
former industrial areas into residential areas. This process, called urban regeneration, is often combined
with sustainability aims, as municipalities are increasingly aware of the future risks of climate change.
However, several scholars argue how the process of sustainable urban development is largely influenced
by a neo-liberal agenda, neglecting the poor and vulnerable. Consequently, they argue, sustainable
urban development can lead to social inequity. An example of a neighbourhood that is transforming
while keeping sustainability principles in mind, is ‘Buiksloterham’ in the northern part of Amsterdam.
However, a neo-liberal agenda is visible in planning policy in Amsterdam too. This research was
conducted to reveal how sustainable urban regeneration of Buiksloterham contributes to social equity.
The research was obtained through a qualitative research method, consisting of interviews and document
analysis. Additionally, social equity was assessed making use of the framework proposed by Meerow et
al. (2019), including three different equity dimensions. Consequently, inequities were found in terms of
distributional, recognitional, and procedural equity. Finally, recommendations for the municipality and
future research were made.
Abstract
2
Introduction
4
Theoretical
framework
6
Sustainable
urban
regeneration
6
Social
equity
6
Conceptual
framework
9
Methodology
10
Operationalization
11
Sub-questions
12
Data
collection
12
Data
analysis
14
Results
15
Social equity in urban regeneration plans Buiksloterham
15
Social (in)equity experienced by residents
18
Discussion
23
Conclusion
25
References
26
Appendix
28
Introduction
The world’s population has rapidly increased over the last few decades, and especially the number of
people living in a city is growing (Gruebner, Rapp, Adli, Kluge, Galea & Heinz, 2017). Consequently,
in order to deal with this growth, cities around the world have to expand their borders to outer parts of
the cities and turn former uninhabitable places into residential areas. The latter measure is called ‘urban
regeneration’ and is a commonly used urban planning tool (Tasan-Kok, 2010). Besides the world’s growing
population, the effects of climate change will increasingly become a risk for the urban area as well (Da
Silva, Kernaghan & Lugue, 2012). Consequently, cities around the world are integrating climate change
adaptation into urban regeneration plans, and trying to develop urban areas in a more sustainable way
(Anguelovski, Shi, Gallagher, Goh, Lamb & Teicher, 2016). An important sustainable city is that it benefits
each citizen, especially the poor and the vulnerable (Meerow, Pajouhesh & Miller, 2019). Therefore, for
urban regeneration plans to be sustainable, they have to be socially equitable as well.
Often, the process of urban regeneration is being influenced by a neo-liberal agenda. This means a
greater role is given to private sector actors in organising the urban area, driving planning in a
market-oriented direction and making urban regeneration increasingly property-led (Tasan-Kok, 2010). Although
the involvement of the private sector can improve urban territory in an efficient manner, it neglects
traditional planning goals, aimed at regulation, coordination, participation and distributional fairness
(Sager, 2016). Additionally, including the private sector in urban regeneration plans, comes at the expense
of social equity, as minorities and low-income groups get excluded (Anguelovski et al., 2016). Several
scholars argue how even within sustainable urban development neo-liberal interests are still predominant
(Anguelovski et al., 2016; Bonds, 2018). They argue that in fact, most sustainable urban regeneration plans
are actually not sustainable in terms of social equity.
Thus, there is a current scientific debate to what extent sustainable urban development is addressing social
equity issues. To contribute to this debate, this thesis will investigate the neighbourhood ‘Buiksloterham’.
Buiksloterham is a neighbourhood subject to sustainable urban regeneration in the northern part of
Amsterdam. This area was originally assigned to heavy industries and shipyards, but has transformed over
the last decades into a developing residential area (Barba Lata & Duineveld, 2019). The municipality of
Amsterdam aims to regenerate the neighbourhood in a sustainable way, according to the circular economy
principles (Vreugdenhil & Bontje, 2017). However, like in many cities, the neo-liberal influence in
planning policy is visible in Amsterdam too. Here, the political landscape moved from socio-democratic
to more neo-liberal, due to population decline and increased social problems in the 70s and 80s (Savini
& Dembski, 2016). A lot of research about sustainable urban regeneration of the neighbourhood
Buiksloterham is already conducted (Kirkenier, 2016; Savini & Dembski, 2016; Vreugdenhil & Bontje,
2017; Barba Lata & Duineveld, 2019). Nevertheless, these theses are about different aspects of the process
of sustainable urban regeneration. Literature about the effects of this process, particularly with regard to
social equity is missing.
Therefore, the following research question is drawn up:
“How does sustainable urban regeneration of Buiksloterham in the Northern part of Amsterdam
contribute to social equity?”
As several scholars argue how sustainable urban development in general can lead to social inequities,
focussing particularly on sustainable urban regeneration can broaden this argument. This is relevant as
an increasing number of cities using sustainable urban regeneration as a planning tool in order to manage
the current issues of population growth and climate change. Besides contributing to the current academic
debate, this thesis aims to reveal new challenges and insights regarding social equity in sustainable urban
regeneration plans.
To perform this research, both primary and secondary data were used. Secondary data, in the form
of scientific literature, was collected to provide background information and a theoretical framework.
Primary data, in the form of interviews and documents, was obtained in order to analyse and answer the
two sub-questions:
“To what extent is social equity included in the sustainable urban regeneration plans of Buiksloterham?”
“In what ways is social inequity due to sustainable urban regeneration experienced by residents of
Buiksloterham?”
An analysis is made on the basis of the social equity framework proposed by Meerow et al. (2019).
This thesis will handle the following structure. First, a theoretical framework will be given, consisting of
a literature review explaining several relevant concepts. Additionally, a conceptual model, connecting the
relevant concepts, is provided. Second, the chosen methodology will be discussed. This section includes
the research design, operationalization of the conceptual model, and an elaboration on the sub questions,
data collection, and data analysis. Subsequently, the found results will be given. Finally, the discussion will
reflect on the research and results, and the conclusion will round up the thesis by providing an answer to
the main research question.
Theoretical framework
In order to answer the research questions, it is important to define some theories and concepts and
connect these through a theoretical framework. In the following section, the concepts ‘sustainable urban
regeneration’, and ‘social equity’, will be defined and explained on the basis of scientific literature. As
sustainable urban regeneration is assumed to be influenced by a neo-liberal agenda, a short sub-section
will elaborate on this as well. Subsequently, a conceptual framework will be drawn up.
Sustainable urban regeneration
According to Roberts, Sykes & Granger (2016), urban regeneration is a result of urban areas being complex
and dynamic systems. Cities themselves are the drivers of physical, social, environmental and economic
transitions, and are influenced both from the outside, by forces dictating the need to adapt, and from
within, by growth or decline. A response to these forces can be provided by urban regeneration.
Roberts et al. (2016, p.18) define urban regeneration as “comprehensive and integrated vision and action
which leads to the resolution of urban problems and which seeks to bring about a lasting improvement
in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of area that has been subject to change”.
Additionally, “urban regeneration implies that any approach of tackling the problems encountered in
towns and cities should be constructed with a longer-term, more strategic, purpose in mind” (Roberts
et al., p.21). So, to some extent urban regeneration is already intrinsically sustainable, as it should
be constructed with a longer-term purpose in mind. Nevertheless, sustainability with regard to the
environment is a quite recent identified theme within urban regeneration (Roberts et al., 2016). It is only
since a few decades that local authorities are becoming aware of the risks of climate change and the need
to develop the urban area in an environmentally sustainable way. According to Roberts et al. (2016),
urban regeneration has a major role in improving the environmental conditions of an area and managing
resources. For example, through the improvement of flood management, drainage systems, and innovative
designs to mitigate the effects of climate change. Additionally, sustainable urban regeneration is also aimed
at lowering the impact of the urban area on the environment (Roberts et al., 2016).
According to Tasan-Kok (2010), urban planning policy is often largely being influenced by a neo-liberal
agenda. This means the free market is often the driving force behind large scale planning projects like
urban regeneration. Consequently, large scale projects, like urban regeneration, are often aimed at
attracting the private sector in order to improve the conditions of a larger territory. The increasing role
of the private sector in urban development is not a new trend, but has been going on for decades. Turok
(1992), discusses whether the involvement of the private sector within urban regeneration is favourable
and if it should be the main focus of urban planning policy. The article argues that including the private
sector into urban redevelopment provides economic growth, technical change, and inward investments.
However, the influence of the private sector should be managed and controlled by the public sector, as
unrestrained market-led urban regeneration could negatively impact the quality of life of vulnerable
residents (Turok, 1992).
More recent literature elaborates on the negative impact of neo-liberalism within urban regeneration plans.
Sager (2016), argues how market-led urban regeneration gives power to the wealthiest part of society
and undermines vulnerable groups. Additionally, the article of Anguelovski et al. (2016), argues how the
involvement of the private sector within sustainable urban regeneration can lead to social inequities. The
following section will elaborate on this.
Social equity
As mentioned in the former section, several scholars argue how neo-liberal ideas within sustainable urban
regeneration plans exclude the poor and vulnerable and lead to social inequity. This section will elaborate
on the concept of social equity in general and with regard to sustainable urban regeneration consecutively.
First, in order to elaborate on the concept of social equity, it is important to diff erentiate between equity
and the adjacent concepts of equality and justice. Th e City for All Women Initiative (2015), developed a
clear image illustrating the three concepts (Figure 1). Th e fi rst picture on the left illustrates equality; each
person is given the same support in order to see the baseball game. Th e persons are treated equally, as it
is assumed that each person will benefi t from the same support. However, as portrayed by the picture,
the given support does not benefi t everyone, as the smallest person is still not able to see the game.
Consequently, the next picture illustrates equity. Here each person is given diff erent supports in order
to see the game. Th is way, the smallest person is able to see the game as well. So, in contrast to an equal
treatment, where everyone gets the same support, the supports are diff erent. However, the outcome of
seeing the game, is for everyone the same. Finally, the third picture illustrates justice. Here, the cause of
the inequity was addressed and each person can watch the game without any support.
It is important to investigate how sustainable urban regeneration of Buiksloterham contributes to social
equity, as this reveals which ‘supports’ are already provided and which are still lacking. Investigating social
justice would be very interesting as well. However, justice concerns complex social problems that are too
broad to investigate in the limited time span of this research.
Even though the diff erence between equality, equity and justice is clear, an obvious defi nition of social
equity is hard to draw up. Th e concept has been studied very broadly, but the defi nition of social inequity
depends on the domain looked at (Corning, 2000; Ryan, 2016). Moreover, even within the domain of
urban planning, the concept of social equity varies (
Manaugh, K., Badami, M. G., & El-Geneidy, A. M.,
2015; Xiao, Wang & Tang, 2017).
Th e article of Meerow, Pajouhesh & Miller (2019) discusses social equity with regard to urban resilience
planning. Th e authors argue how current urban resilience planning can promote “an inherently
conservative and neoliberal agenda, prevents systemic transformations, and pays insuffi cient attention
to power, politics, and justice” (Meerow et al., 2019, p.794). According to Meerow et al. (2019), cities are
very active with incorporating resilience measures into their planning policies. However, it is unclear who
is benefi tting from this, and oft en minorities and low-income groups are being left out. To inform and
analyse this argument, the authors developed a framework to measure social equity in urban resilience
planning. Th e framework consists of three dimensions; distributional (in)equity, recognitional (in)
Even though the framework of Meerow et al. (2019) is aimed at urban resilience planning, it will be used
to conduct this research. The article mentions that critiques on urban resilience planning with regard
to social equity parallel the critiques around sustainable urban planning. Additionally, the framework
is developed in order to fill the research gap in domains like environmental justice and urban green
equity. Consequently, this framework is suitable to apply to sustainable urban regeneration as well. In the
following section a short explanation of the three dimensions is given.
Distributional equity
Traditionally, equity was often related to the equal distribution of material goods (Schlosberg, 2004). So,
when material goods are fairly divided between all members of society equity would be reached. Meerow
et al. (2019) define distributional equity in the context of urban resilience planning as “equitable access to
goods and infrastructure, environmental amenities, services, and economic opportunities” (Meerow et al.,
2019, p.797). Important to consider is that distributional equity is about the distribution of undesirable
land uses as well.
Recognitional equity
As mentioned before, only distributional equity is not sufficient in order to achieve social equity within
urban resilience planning. By solely focussing on distributional equity, underlying social structures
contributing to inequity do not get acknowledged (Nesbitt, Meitner, Sheppard & Girling, 2018). Therefore,
recognitional equity should be added to the social equity framework, as this dimension considers
different cultures, identities and social statuses. Meerow et al. (2019) define recognitional equity as
“acknowledgement & respect of different groups”. More extensive this means different identities within
a community (e.g. race, gender, class, and age), shaped by historical injustices, should be acknowledged,
recognised and respected.
Procedural equity
Procedural equity is about equal participation in the urban planning process (Meerow et al., 2019). This
means public participation in developing urban regeneration plans is being stimulated, and especially
efforts to include marginalised groups are made. Procedural equity is essential in achieving social equity,
as without participation of every member of the society, recognitional and distributional equity will not be
reached either.
According to Stapper (2019) and the participation ladder of Arnstein (1969), there are different levels of
participation. For instance, at the lowest level, participation is used to ‘sell’ new policy plans to residents.
However, there is no real input of residents themselves. Further up the ladder residents are still being
informed of the new plans, like on the lowest level, but are asked about their opinion as well. According
to Arnstein (1969), this is still rather symbolic participation as certain groups of people are still not able
to participate at this level. Only when true responsibilities are being handed over to different groups of
residents, there is real participation according to Arnstein (1969). The article of Stapper (2019) adds to this
that to get a good participation process, it is important to not look at residents as a homogenous group,
but to embrace diversity of each individual.
neo-liberal agenda
sustainable urban
regeneration
(in)equity?
social
distributional
recognitional
procedural
Conceptual framework
Connecting these concepts leads to the following conceptual framework (Figure 2). First, ‘sustainable
urban regeneration’ is taking place in Buiksloterham in order to transform the former industrial area into
a sustainable residential area. However, a neo-liberal agenda is assumed to largely influence the process of
sustainable urban regeneration, making the process market-led and giving a large role to private actors.
Consequently, several scholars argue how this may lead to social inequity, consisting of three different
dimensions. In this conceptual framework a question mark is written behind ‘Social equity’, as this
research is investigating to what extent sustainable urban regeneration of Buiksloterham is contributing to
social equity.
Methodology
Th e following section elaborates on the methodology and operationalization used in this research in order
to provide an answer to the research question; “How is sustainable urban regeneration of Buiksloterham,
in the Northern part of Amsterdam, contributing to social equity”. First, this research was conducted using
a deductive qualitative research design. Qualitative research assumes that there are “multiple constructed
realities that generate diff erent meanings for diff erent individuals, and whose interpretations depend
on the researcher’s lens” (Soiferman, 2010, p.4). In order to provide a deepened understanding of these
various dimensions, a qualitative research method is used. Consequently, as social equity is a complex
concept, depending on diff erent meanings and interpretations, this is most appropriate.
Additionally, the research method was deductive, meaning a general theory was applied to a specifi c case
(Pontius, McIntosh, 2020). In this research, the existing framework on social equity by Meerow et al.
(2019) was applied to the case of Buiksloterham. Nevertheless, during the process, some additional themes
were identifi ed as well, making the research method partly inductive as well. Qualitative research can be
conducted in diff erent ways. For example, primary data can be obtained through in-depth interviews,
content analysis, focus group discussions or observations (Hennink, 2020). Considering all diff erent
forms of qualitative research, interviews and document analysis were eventually chosen in order to obtain
primary data. Th ese methods fi t to the research questions, and were most achievable, considering the
covid-19 measurements and limited time span. Additionally, secondary data was obtained in the form of
scientifi c literature, to provide an academic background and theoretical framework. Before elaborating on
this, a short case description will be provided.
Case description and relevance
Th e neighbourhood Buiksloterham is located on the northern IJ banks, in Amsterdam. Originally, the
neighbourhood was used as an industrial area and shipyard. However, as the population of Amsterdam
expanded, in 2005 the municipality of Amsterdam decided to transform the area into a mixed industrial/
residential area (Dembski, 2013). As the area was highly polluted as a result of the former shipyard
industries, it was not possible to transform the area all at once. Consequently, the neighbourhood was
assigned the status of a ‘Living Lab’, in which a gradual and experimental urban regeneration process
is taking place (Kirkenier, 2016). Th is means plans and objectives change during the process, and are
Figure 3: Map of Buiksloterham and adjacent
neighbourhoods (allecijfers.nl, 2020).
developed in consultation with the residents and businesses of Buiksloterham. Additionally, there is
a strong emphasis on sustainability and developing the area according to circular economy principles
(Vreugdenhill & Bontje, 2017). A recent policy document mentions the goal of sustainable urban
regeneration of Buiksloterham: “The aim of the transformation of Buiksloterham is the development of a
circular, productive, future-proof, mixed residential and working area with a wide variety of housing types
for different target groups. For young and old, for current and new Amsterdam residents, for different
income groups and household types” (Investeringsnota Buiksloterham, 2020, p.17). Additionally, private
actors are given a large role in the sustainable urban regeneration process as well. For example, through
a tender programme in which private actors can submit a plan to regenerate an empty lot (Gemeente
Amsterdam, 2020).
As Buiksloterham aims to develop a sustainable neighbourhood for different kind of people, it is
important to investigate to what extent social equity and vulnerable groups are considered. Additionally,
as Buiksloterham is a ‘Living Lab’, effects of the sustainable urban regeneration process are still largely
unknown.
Operationalization
To measure how sustainable urban regeneration of Buiksloterham contributes to social equity, social
equity needs to be operationalized. This operationalization, presented in Table 1, is based on the
theoretical framework developed by Meerow et al. (2019). Additionally, this operationalization was used
as coding scheme as well.
Distributional equity
Equity of resource allocations Text describing how resources (shops/supermarkets/garbage bins/landfills) are inequitably distributed across city, how they should be allocated to enhance equity, or strategies to enhance equity of resource allocations
Access to infrastructure Text describing inequitable access to infrastructure, how it should be made equitable, or strategies to enhance equity of infrastructure
Access to economic opportunities/
jobs Text describing inequitable economic opportunities or jobs, how they should be made more equitable, or strategies to enhance equity of access to economic opportunities
Procedural equity Inclusive participation and
engagement Text describing how different members of the public are engaged in the planning process or initiatives to increase participation in decision-making Recognitional equity
Addressing issues of vulnerable
groups Text identifying vulnerable populations or describing inequities in vulnerability or strategies to reduce vulnerability of these groups Consideration of historical contexts Text describing historical inequities or their impacts
Discussion of structural racism Text recognising the existence of structural racism
Table 1: Operationalization social equity, based on Meerow et al. (2019).
Additionally, some extra themes were identified during the coding process: ‘economic accessibility’,
‘diversity’, ‘neo-liberal agenda’, ‘recognition of current residents’ and ‘sustainability’. These themes
frequently occurred and are relating to the research question. As the themes were identified during the
coding process, descriptions are less precise. However, a simple operationalization scheme is drawn up
below (Table 2).
Economic accessibility Text describing whether the neighbourhood is economically accessible for everyone Diversity Text mentioning diversity of people in the neighbourhood Neo-liberal agenda Text describing the role of private actors
Recognition of current residents Text describing the living conditions of current residents Sustainability Text mentioning sustainability of the neighbourhood
Table 2: Additional operationalization.
As a lot is written about the sustainable urban regeneration process of Buiksloterham, this thesis assumes
this an uncontested factor. Consequently, as this research does not further look into this process, there is
no operationalization of the concept.
Sub-questions
To support the main research question and improve the quality of this research, the following sub-research
questions were drawn up:
1. “To what extent is social equity included in the sustainable urban regeneration plans of
Buiksloterham?” In order to investigate in what ways sustainable urban regeneration of Buiksloterham
contributes to social equity, it is important to investigate how official documents on the urban
regeneration process of Buiksloterham approach themes relating to social equity.
2. “In what ways is social inequity due to sustainable urban regeneration experienced by residents
of Buiksloterham?” Even though policy documents can provide an answer to the main research
question, this will not give a holistic image. Therefore, it is important to investigate how residents of
Buiksloterham feel about social equity in the neighbourhood. Additionally, different target audiences
might have different experiences.
Data collection
To collect the primary data, interviews were held with six residents of Buisksloterham. After reaching
the residents through all kinds of ways (LinkedIn, Facebook, Buiksloterham.nl, Twitter, contractors,
personal network, snowballing). The interview was conducted by phone as this was most convenient,
considering the covid-19 regulations, and was semi structured. A semi structured interview allows the
researcher to carefully compose the questions and think them through, but leaves room to ask follow up
question during the interview (Patten & Newhart, 2018). Therefore, an interview protocol was drawn
up beforehand, taking the operationalization of social equity into account. However, in some cases
the interview became rather unstructured, due to a lack of interview experience. As social equity is a
complex concept, it was recommended not to mention it directly. So, questions were asked with regard to
infrastructure, participation, diversity, discrimination etc., without bringing up the term social equity.
Six residents were interviewed. Due to the limited time span it was not possible to speak to more residents.
However, information started to get saturated after six interviews as well. The six residents can be divided
into different categories; age, gender, origin, rent/owned house, education, and the time they are living in
Buiksloterham. Beforehand, these different categories were identified, but residents were not on purpose
selected by it. The number of respondents is low, but offers quite some diversity. However, the majority is
around the age of forty to fifty and only one resident has a non-western origin. An overview of the different
interviewees is depicted below (Table 3). Due to privacy reasons, the residents are not mentioned by name.
Residents Age Gender Origin Rented/owned Education Resident 1 29 Female Dutch Rented (1 year) University Resident 2 64 Female Suriname Rented (1 year) Middle School Resident 3 40 Male German Rented (1,5 year) Higher Vocational Education Resident 4 56 Male Dutch Owned (10 years) University Resident 5 54 Female Dutch Owned (under construction) Higher Vocational Education Resident 6 40 Female Dutch Owned (2 years) University
Table 3: Overview of interviewed residents.
Additionally, primary data was collected in the form of documents. Municipality documents were
obtained in the form of reports, investment notes, and policy plans. Additional documents about the
urban regeneration plans were obtained in the form of petitions, new articles, and columns. The tender
of one private initiative that got realised was analysed as well, in order to include the perspective of the
private sector. However, this only represents the ideas of one particular initiative called ‘Schoonschip’.
Especially policy documents like those of the municipality and Schoonschip are being discussed in the
results. Nevertheless, the remaining documents provided important background information for the
interviews and the research as a whole. An overview of the documents can be found below.
Policy documents
Circulair Buiksloterham, volledige rapport, Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015 Gebiedsplan Oud Noord, Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019
Investeringsnota Buiksloterham, Gemeente Amsterdam, 2020 Tender Schoonschip Amsterdam, Schoonschip Amsterdam, 2013
Additional documents
Burgerparticipatie komt niet van de grond, “het is een wassen neus”, AT5, 2021 De burger wantrouwt de oveheid? Het is juist andersom, Massih Hutak, 2021 Stadsdeel beëindigt samenwerking ‘Noord wordt gehoord’ met Tolhuistuin, Tom Tossijn, 2021
Red Amsterdam Noord, petities.nl, 2021
Petitie ontslag wethouder Doorninck, Gerald Lindner, 2021
Geef uw mening over ons ontwerp voor de Grasweg, Julia Groenewold, 2021 Advies Stadsdeelcommissie over HIB in de wind geslagen, John Zondag, 2021 Participatie voor de bühne - co-creatie ontmaskerd, John Zondag, 2020 Sociale Circulariteit, Mariska van Cutsem, 2018
Data analysis
Both the interviews and the documents were uploaded and coded in Atlas.ti 8. Codes were provided
by the operationalization of social equity, and drawn up during the process like described before.
Additionally, while coding, memos were made in order to capture thoughts and considerations occurring
in the process. After reading and coding every document and interview, quotation reports were drawn up
in Atlas.ti, and transported to word documents. The reports were created on the basis of codes, so for each
code a report regarding the quotations of both interviews and documents was produced. Subsequently, the
reports were analysed with the aim to answer the two sub-questions, keeping the theoretical framework in
mind.
Results
The following sections will discuss the results found in this research and provide an answer to the
sub-question; “To what extent is social equity included in the urban regeneration plans of Buiksloterham?” and
“In what ways is social inequity due to urban regeneration experienced by residents of Buiksloterham?”
The sub-questions will be discussed subsequently, according to the social equity framework of Meerow et
al. (2019).
Social equity in urban regeneration plans Buiksloterham
This section will discuss the results found in policy plans regarding the sustainable urban regeneration of
Buiksloterham. The results will be discussed on the basis of the different dimensions of social equity.
Distributional equity (resource allocations)
All three municipal documents mention the allocation of resources. First, ‘Circulair Buiksloterham’
(2015) discusses how resources are distributed across the city, and calls this an “unusual and unequally
distributed mix of services” (p.91). The ‘unusual mix’ relates to the relatively high concentration of
second-hand and repair shops and companies. Additionally, the report mentions, how in 2015, regular shops and
companies like supermarkets, clothing stores or pharmacies are absent. There is no further elaboration
on how the mix of services is unequally distributed across Buiksloterham. Nevertheless, the report is very
clear on the development of general stores in Buiksloterham. The document states that a shopping area
will only be developed outside of Buiksloterham, in neighbouring Mosveld.
“If we look to the future, in principle all retail trade will concentrate on and around Mosveld, where more than 7,000 m2 of retail space will be developed in the near future” (Circulair Buiksloterham, 2015, p.117).
Additionally, the more recent ‘Investeringsnota Buiksloterham’ (2020) sticks to the objective to limit
the number of stores and shops in the area, and mentions that a maximum of 500m
2is reserved for
supermarkets throughout Buiksloterham. However, a little further in this document it becomes clear that
a permit was granted for a supermarket of 500 m
2, meaning that “500 m
2throughout Buiksloterham”
actually becomes 500m
2at one place.
“In the current zoning plan for Buiksloterham, there is very limited space for new retail trade in daily goods (supermarket), namely a maximum of 500 m2 throughout Buiksloterham” (Investeringsnota Buiksloterham, 2020,
p.25).
“In the meantime, on 6 May 2020, a license has been granted for a 500 m2 GFA supermarket, using the existing right
in the zoning” (Investeringsnota Buiksloterham, 2020, p.25).
Besides desirable land uses like super markets, undesirable land uses are being discussed as well.
‘Gebiedsplan Oud-Noord’ (2019) repeatedly emphasizes the aim to keep the neighbourhood clean for
every user. Additionally, ‘Investeringsnota Buiksloterham’ proposes a plan for the distribution of waste
containers.
“Underground waste containers will be installed for the various fractions in the public space throughout Buiksloterham. A design will be drawn up for this purpose” (Gebiedsplan Oud-Noord, 2019, p. 73).
Distributional equity (access to infrastructure)
“Currently there are 17 different roads, resulting in a total of approximately 6 km of road surface and 5 km of pedestrian and cycle paths.” (Circulair Buiksloterham, 2015, p.94).
Public transport in Buiksloterham is, according to the 2015 report, not optimal either. There is only
one bus connection between the central station of Amsterdam and Buiksloterham, and no direct ferry
connection. An indication of particular inequitable access to infrastructure within Buiksloterham regards
the southern part of the neighbourhood. A bus stop in this area is at a distance of more than 400 meters.
“The southern part of Buiksloterham under the Tolhuiskanaal is poorly connected (a radius of more than 400 meters from a single bus stop)” (Circulair Buiksloterham, 2015, p.94).
To tackle this issue of inequitable accessibility to infrastructure, the report suggests to expands the roads
in Buiksloterham and to make sure bus stops are within a radius of 400 meters for every house in the
neighbourhood.
“Bus transport will be better connected to the ferry service and bus stops will be placed in such a way that all homes are within a radius of 400 meters from a bus stop” (Circulair Buiksloterham, 2015, p.103).
Recent policy documents like ‘Gebiedsplan Oud Noord’ (2019), and ‘Investeringsnota Buiksloterham’
(2020) shortly discuss infrastructure as well. In contrast to the ‘Circualir Buiksloterham’ (2015) report,
these documents do not discuss any inequities of access to infrastructure in Buiksloterham. However, they
do emphasize the objective of physical accessibility for every neighbourhood and resident in
Amsterdam-Noord/Buiksloterham.
Distributional equity (access to economic opportunities and jobs)
Municipal policy documents acknowledge that the unemployment rate is relatively high in
Amsterdam-Noord.
“Especially in Amsterdam-Noord, where the employment rate is higher than in the rest of the city” (Circulair Buiksloterham, 2015, p.180).
Therefore, one of the objectives in Circulair Buiksloterham is to get the local unemployment rate lower
that the national and regional average. However, strategies to enhance equity of access to jobs and
economic opportunities do not get mentioned in any of the plans.
Recognitonal equity (addressing issues of vulnerable groups)
Throughout the urban regeneration plans of Buiksloterham, over all, little attention is given to vulnerable
groups. Most documents mention the importance of making the neighbourhood accessible for ‘everybody’,
acknowledging the existence of different groups of people. However, a distinction between these different
groups and their possible issues are barely addressed. Often, when mentioning ‘vulnerable groups’,
documents are actually talking about residents of adjacent neighbourhoods, as certain measures can affect
them as well.
“At the same time, Buiksloterham is under the influence of the neighbouring Volewijck, one of the socially weakest areas of Amsterdam” (Investeringsnota Buiksloterham, 2020, p.4).
“In communication and participation, account is taken of the different backgrounds of the inhabitants of Oud-Noord. For example, appropriate communication is used for groups that have difficulty with language (illiteracy).” (Gebiedsplan Oud Noord, 2019, p.51).
Additionally, considering vulnerable groups from outside of Buiksloterham improves accessibility of the
neighbourhood. For example, policy plans are aimed at providing suitable housing for low-income groups,
people with a minor mental disability in cooperation with foundation Philadelphia, and vulnerable groups
from the adjacent neighbourhood, to reduce the pressure on that area.
“The aim is to reduce the concentration of vulnerable households in the Volewijck by building the right homes in BSH and Klaprozenbuurt and by facilitating flow-through and exchange, including forms of assisted living” (Gebiedsplan Oud Noord, p.35).
“Instead of an expensive floating residential area only accessible to incomes above twice average (non-social), Schoonschip wants to realize a neighbourhood that is accessible to all income categories, from social rent up to and including twice average (b-social).” (Tender Schoonschip, 2013, p.2).
So, in terms of housing, the policy plans address issues of low-income groups and people with a minor
disability. Additionally, ‘Investeringsnota Buiksloterham’ (2020) mentions the importance of considering
different groups in designing the public space.
“Sufficient space for children playing on the street, bicycle use, and profiles where the disabled person in a wheelchair can also move safely” (Investeringsnota Buiksloterham, 2020, p.31).
Recognitional equity (consideration of historical contexts/structural racism)
Besides acknowledging the vulnerable position of the adjacent neighbourhoods and its residents, a
distinction or description of inequities between different racial groups is absent in the policy documents.
Recognitional equity (metrics for identifying issues/ assessing outcomes)
The documents do not elaborate on metrics to identify issues or assess outcomes. As discussed before, the
documents do acknowledge the existence of vulnerable groups, but do not mention metrics to identify
their issues. Additionally, the outcomes of measures against the issues are not assessed.
Procedural equity (inclusive participation and engagement)
The dimension of procedural equity is much represented in policy documents of Buiksloterham. It is no
coincidence that participation and engagement are important topics. According to the article ‘Particpatie
in circulaire gebiedsontwikkeling’, the envirionmental code makes participation in the process of
urban regeneration mandatory. Besides, the municipality acknowledges that in a transforming area like
Buiksloterham inclusive participation and engagement are crucial.
“Increasing occupancy of the new neighbourhoods means that more stakeholders have ideas about their living and living environment. Areas that traditionally function as business parks and which are later transformed into residential-work areas, once started that transformation without residents. This is a situation that is changing radically, and therefore also requires a different approach from the municipality: involving more and more stakeholders” (Gebiedsplan Oud Noord, 2019, p.29).
“It is impossible to create meaningful or lasting change without involving in the broadest sense those parties that: (1) make decisions (2) are directly affected by the consequences of those decisions” (Circulair Buiksloterham, 2015, p.111).
Consequently, throughout the rest of this report and the other policy documents, several plans regarding
inclusive participation are mentioned.
“The residents take an active part in caring for the neighbourhood and in the administration. In this experimental zone, everyone is welcome to submit their ideas for new projects.” (Circulair Buiksloterham, 2015, p.37).
However, when, where, and with who this participation will take place exactly does not get mentioned. To
get more insight in ‘who’ will participate, the report of ‘Circulair Buiksloterham’ proposes a stakeholder
analysis to get a clear image of the different stakeholders involved. This would increase the inclusivity of
the participation process.
“Who are they, what are their interests and motivations, what is their vision of the area concerned, and how are they interested or willing to contribute to any activities?” (Circulair Buiksloterham, 2015, p.31).
This stakeholder analysis is being proposed in 2015. However, in more recent documents like ‘Gebiedsplan
Oud Noord’ (2019) and ‘Investeringsnota Buiksloterham’ (2020), a clear definition of the stakeholders is
still absent.
Remarkable is the most recent policy document, ‘Investeringsnota Buiksloterham’ (2020). Although
participation in the former documents is not much elaborated, they do acknowledge the importance and
usefulness of participation and engagement. However, ‘Investeringsnota Buisksloterham’ (2020) abandons
these ideas. The document describes how participation in Buiksloterham is solely aimed at informing the
population and that specific plans about participation are not yet drawn up.
“With the advent of the Environmental Act, plans for area development will have to be developed in an integral, coherent and mutually coordinated manner. It is enshrined in the Environmental Act that the initiator (the party applying for the environmental permit) has the responsibility to inform interested parties about and involve them at an early stage in the realization of its plans. How participation should take place has not been established” (Investeringsnota Buiksloterham, 2020, p.106).
“Within the plan development of the investment note is participated to retrieve relevant information, to create realistic expectations and to establish (and in some cases restore) a relationship with residents, entrepreneurs and developers” (Investeringsnota Buiksloterham, 2020, p.101).
The document justifies this by stating that lighter forms of participation, like this, are sufficient as it builds
on existing frameworks of former plans. However, as appears from the former documents, earlier plans
did not include high levels of participation into their urban regeneration plans either.
Social (in)equity experienced by residents
To answer the second sub-question; “In what ways is social inequity due to urban regeneration
experienced by residents of Buiksloterham?”, interviews held with current and future residents of the
neighbourhood were analysed on the basis of Meerow’s (2019) framework. Additionally, documents
written by residents or documents revealing the opinion of residents were considered as well.
Again, the findings in the interviews and documents are being discussed according to the several
dimensions of social equity, proposed by Meerow et al. (2019).
Distributional equity (resource allocations)
When asking the residents about services in the neighbourhood, plans described in the policy documents
are being confirmed. The residents describe how there are little to no shops and supermarkets in
Buiksloterham. Remarkable is that most residents, when asking them about services or shops, immediately
start to talk about restaurants and clothing shops. Only after asking about supermarkets specifically, they
tell me that these are located outside Buiksloterham as well. However, most residents do not really seem to
mind this distance.
“But if you really want to go to the big shops, for example, you have the van der Pekstraat, there you have a lot more, also closer together, but I don’t mind to cycle a little. So, I am all very satisfied with that” (Resident 1, 2021).
A contrasting answer is provided by resident 2. She indicates that the nearest super markets are at 20
minutes walking distance, which is way too far, regarding her health circumstances. Additionally, the
supermarkets located at that distance are expensive and do not sell the Asian products she and her
neighbours are looking for.
“I also talk about it every day with the others that we miss an Asian shop here, a cheap supermarket, because Albert Heijn and Deen is so expensive and you have to walk for twenty minutes. And now that I have just had the corona vaccine and I am sick, that is really much too far. That’s why I’m really happy to be talking to you because this is really awful” (Resident 2, 2021).
So, all though most residents do not really seem to mind the absence of shops in Buiksloterham,
minorities, like resident 2 (older, foreign origin, low-income), are not really considered in the urban
regeneration plans as appears from this interview.
Distributional equity (access to infrastructure)
Over all, residents were quite positive about the access to infrastructure in Buiksloterham. According to
the majority, the roads and public transport connections are good. However, most of them also told me to
travel mainly by bike, so a well-founded opinion about the bus connection could not really be provided
by them. Again, outstanding was resident 2. Because of her back issues she is qualified to get a mobility
scooter. However, she does not feel safe to drive one in Buiksloterham.
“I could also get a mobility scooter, but I don’t dare to go out with a mobility scooter on the street with the traffic and the hustle and bustle here. Because of the big trucks the big working machines next to my house” (Resident, 2, 2021).
Distributional equity (access to economic opportunities and jobs)
Just like in the policy documents, the interviews revealed little about economic opportunities and jobs.
However, resident 5 tells how she intended to make a children’s cooking café on the ground floor of her
house but is no longer able to afford this by now. The construction of her house became more expensive,
so she will have to sell the ground floor at the time her house is finished. Additionally, resident 5 wanted
to perform her job as photographer in her house in Buiksloterham but mentioned that this was being
discouraged by the municipality. According to her, the municipality wants to keep working and living
separate in Buiskloterham.
“I work as a photographer, and can take pictures in that upper space. However, that is also my home and the municipality has rejected it, because they wanted to live and work separately from each other” (Resident 5, 2021). “So, you miss a bit of energy if you don’t have work there and also a social part. Because it is much more fun for those people who live there if you can do something like a children’s cooking café. But that has now just become an apartment again because otherwise you will simply not make it” (Resident 5, 2021).
Recognitional equity (diversity/addressing issues of vulnerable groups)
When asking questions concerning the issues of vulnerable groups in Buiksloterham, reactions were quite
divergent. Several residents told me that vulnerable groups are not really present in Buiksloterham, as
there is a lack of diversity. According to them, the population of Buiksloterham is mainly part of a highly
educated and high-income group. Particularly (young) families are living in the neighbourhood, and there
are little elderly people or students. Often, residents also referred to a so called ‘white bubble’, meaning that
the population is predominantly white, with a western origin.
“But they are all highly educated people who can buy a house, so to speak. So, it is a quite highly educated white bubble” (Resident 6, 2021).
However, some residents mentioned the development of social housing in Buiksloterham to offer
low-income groups a living in Buiksloterham as well. Additionally, two of the interviewed residents live in
the same housing complex, in which assisted living for people with a minor mental disability is provided.
They experience much more diversity in Buiksloterham. Resident 2 actually lives in one of the apartments
provided by foundation Philadelphia and informs me about several initiatives aimed to support her and
her neighbours.
“Around here is ‘Wasbaar’, that’s the room I just talked about, there we can sew, and Thursday there is a lunch meal they sell for 3.50” (Resident, 2).
However, like mentioned in the earlier sections, issues of vulnerable groups with regard to infrastructure
and resource allocation do not get addressed, according to resident 2.
Although most residents are not aware of vulnerable groups within Buiksloterham, they do notice the
vulnerable residents of adjacent neighbourhoods. According to them there is a clear difference between
residents of Buiksloterham and the adjacent neighbourhoods, in terms of education-level, income,
and origin. This is developing somewhat of a border and leading to tensions between the different
neighbourhoods.
“Although I do notice the difference between Buiksloterham and Mosplein when I go to the store, you do see a clear difference, that there are more people with lower education and income” (Resident 3, 2021).
“But what you see is the Van Der Pek neighbourhood, there is a lot of social rent there, and you can almost see a hard line developing between them, which is a shame” (Resident 1, 2021).
One resident tells me more about a so called ‘yup-hate’ among the residents of neighbouring areas.
According to her, residents of neighbouring areas are hostile towards residents of Buiksloterham as
they see the surroundings change but do not benefit from it. Additionally, she mentions a discussion
evening she visited once, to open up a conversation with those residents. She tells how this helped her
to understand the vulnerable groups of adjacent neighbourhoods and how the municipality should do
something about it.
“Yes, and in particular it may also be that they look and see that new homes are being built, but that they themselves are not eligible for it” (Resident 1, 2021).
“There was already a lot of old pain and resentment about, ‘you as a yup come here’, and I have now understood a little better how those relationships are and understand it a bit when you see the neighbourhood change like this. But I also think that it is really a municipality thing, the municipality must pursue a good policy on this, I cannot really do anything about it. But it is really a point of attention” (Resident 1, 2021).
Nevertheless, several residents indicate to doubt about whether intertwining the new and old
neighbourhoods would be desirable.
“I hear a lot of people that it should come together more and on the other hand I don’t see much happening. And I always wonder how desirable it is. If you can live next to each other without being bothered by each other, it can also be good because people often move towards their own class and species” (Resident 6, 2021).
So, there are several issues of vulnerable groups, from within and just outside Buiksloterham. However,
vulnerable groups within the neighbourhood are barely noticed by most residents. On the other, residents
experience a clear difference between residents of Buiksloterham and those from adjacent neighbourhoods.
Recognitional equity (consideration of historical contexts/structural racism)
All residents feel respected in the neighbourhood. Especially resident 2, who is Surinamese and Muslim,
tells me never to have felt discriminated in the neighbourhood or by the neighbourhood’s policy. So, none
of the interviewed residents is experiencing structural racism within Buiksloterham. Additionally, nobody
mentions historical inequities within the neighbourhood.
Procedural equity (inclusive participation and engagement)
The issue of participation is something that really lives among the residents of Buiksloterham. Many news
articles, blog posts, and petitions concern the degree of participation in the neighbourhood. Consequently,
the interviews revealed a lot about this dimension as well. According to several residents the municipality
frequently emphasized the process of co-creation in the development of Buiksloterham. For example,
in order to obtain a self-build plot, applicants had to come up with an idea that would contribute to the
ambiance and quality of life in the neighbourhood.
“You had to come up with an idea of how to make this neighbourhood a pleasant one, so you had to design that. So, I said, let’s put greenhouses on those squares and then create a common place with each other, where you can meet each other in a relaxed manner” (Resident 5, 2021).
Additionally, several residents informed me about participation initiatives concerning water quality,
ecology and green spaces. These initiatives are set up by the residents themselves, as they believe that
active participation will improve sustainable development of the neighbourhood.
“There are some initiatives here and there, and now there is also a kind of neighbourhood association-like something, which I also participate in and we brainstorm there, for example, about more greenery in the neighbourhood and we are thinking about how we can stimulate greenery in the neighbourhood” (Resident 1, 2021).
The role of the municipality in the participation process is limited and mainly aimed at informing the
residents, for example through a consultation evening about the construction of a new road. Several
residents were quite negative towards the municipality’s policy regarding participation. According to them
the municipality is discouraging participation and neglecting any suggestion coming from the population
of Buiksloterham.
“Co-creation is a term that is often used, and in co-creation it is only co-creation, according to Wikipedia, if all participants have equal access to formulating the assignment and jointly owning the process. The municipality has another definition of co-creation in which co stands for control. So, they say well we will talk, but we determine about what, and you can say what you want, but we only remember the people who say they liked the pictures” (Resident 4, 2021).
“So that was just a little bit of it, they call that co-creation, but some feedback or something no, it’s just a response from we will look at it and that’s it” (Resident 1, 2021).
“Concrete participation proposals have been made, in terms of housing density, housing numbers, greenery, and therefore really concrete constructive proposals have been made to the municipality. For years we reached out to talk about it in a way that is not ‘not in our backyard, we don’t want it’, but just if you want more homes, how?” (Resident 4, 2021).
Although these residents are dissatisfied about the participation process, they are included. Nevertheless,
some residents were not aware of any participation initiatives at all. These residents were quite indifferent
“I don’t experience any of participation initiatives myself. But I’m not really going after it or anything” (Resident 3, 2021).
“I am also quite fanatic. I think that it was at the Grasweg, I was allowed to think along and I contribute some things. Now you could also think about who are you speaking on behalf of, maybe we should organize that better” (Resident 1, 2021).
