If You Don't Have a Network, You Have Nothing

INTERNSHIP REPORT

If you don’t have a network, you have nothing

The key to supporting key-figures

Stakeholder perceptions on the creations of a Resident Leadership Programme designed to combat loneliness in Amsterdam Osdorp

Galoeh Adrian Noviar

STUDENT NUMBER COMMISSIONING PARTY ECTS + COURSE CODE SPECIALIZATION 2543952 Municipality of Amsterdam 27 + AM_1121

DATE VU SUPERVISOR 12-07-2019 Dr. N. Blignaut- van Westrhnenen PhD

ATHENA SCIENCE SHOP

Colophon Title: If you don’t have a network, you have nothing: the key to supporting key-figure residents Key words: loneliness, community, community building, empowerment, volunteer Word count: 14.298 Author: Galoeh Adrian Noviar Commissioning organization: Gemeente Amsterdam On-site supervisor: Floor Wijnands VU supervisor: Nadine Blignaut- van Westrhenen

July - 2019 Course code: AM_1121

This internship report was established in cooperation with the Athena Science Shop.

Athena Institute Faculty of Science VU University Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1085 1081 HV Amsterdam The Netherlands

The Netherlands

2 PREFACE The following report has been written as a product of the first year internship of the VU University master Management Policy Analysis and Entrepreneurship in the Health and Life Sciences. The aim of the study was to gain an insight into what factors positively contribute to the emergence and existence of proactive residents, the basis of which is qualitative research methods with experience experts. I have been invested in the project from the period of February through June 2019.

The project is commissioned by the municipality of Amsterdam Nieuw-West in order combat one of societies biggest current social problems: Loneliness. During the entirety of the process I have always been able to rely on my VU supervisor dr. Nadine Blignaut-van Westrhenen, who has been there for me many times, always making time in order to provide the necessary support. Additionally I would also like to express my gratitude to my on-site supervisors drs. Floor Wijnands and Mr. Toon de Vries for their involvement in the process, open mind-set, and incredibly supportive attitude. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Wasilis Psathas from Combiwel for being a very inclusive host of the community centre I was allowed to operate from twice a week, and his investment in the research.

Finally, the overall project regarding loneliness has grown to become more than just an individual effort in the neighbourhood. It has become a synergetic programme with involvement of many different stakeholders, including VoorUit, Combiwel, the HvA and the VU. I am glad to have been able to become a part of this meaningful collaboration.

With this report I hope to be able to contribute to any slight form of increase in the social well-being of the residents of Amsterdam Osdorp, albeit a single person.

Amsterdam, 2019

3 Table of Contents

PREFACE ...... 3

Abstract ...... 6

2 Introduction ...... 7

3 Contextual background ...... 9 3.1 Loneliness and effects on health ...... 9 3.2 A community building approach to combat loneliness ...... 9 3.3 Osdorp and subdistricts ...... 10 3.4 Stakeholder analysis ...... 11 3.4.1 The municipality ...... 12 3.4.2 Civil society organisations ...... 12 3.4.3 Community centres ...... 13 3.4.4 Key-figure residents ...... 13

4 Theoretical background ...... 14 4.1 Community empowerment and sustainability ...... 14 4.2 Motivation and volunteering ...... 15 4.3 Theory for social entrepreneurship ...... 15

5 Conceptual framework...... 17 5.1 The proposed framework ...... 17 5.2 Definitions of the framework ...... 18

6 Methodology ...... 19 6.1 Study design ...... 19 6.2 Participants...... 19 6.3 Data collection ...... 19 6.4 Data analysis ...... 20 6.5 Rigour of the study ...... 20 6.6 Ethical consideration ...... 21

7 Results ...... 22 7.1 Description of the participants ...... 22 7.2 Process of the resident initiative ...... 23 7.3 Human Capital ...... 23 7.3.1 Skills and knowledge ...... 23 7.4 Social Capital ...... 24 7.4.1 Reach the right people ...... 24 7.4.2 Availability of social network ...... 25 7.4.3 Outreaching, inclusivity & participation ...... 25 7.5 Desirability and Feasibility...... 26

4 7.5.1 Motivational factors...... 26 7.5.2 Trust ...... 26 7.6 External factors ...... 27 7.6.1 Facilities...... 27 7.6.2 Welfare organisations ...... 28 7.6.3 Awareness and information ...... 28 7.6.4 Role of individual actors in the area ...... 28

8 Discussion and conclusion ...... 30 8.1 Altering the scope of the RLP ...... 30 8.2 person with central position in the network ...... 31 8.3 Conclusion...... 32 8.4 Strengths and limitations ...... 32

9 Recommendations ...... 33 1. A continuous (research) intern in the area ...... 33 2. Local Direction Group Committees ...... 34 3. Important notes ...... 34

10 References ...... 36

11 Annex 1: Interview guides ...... 39

12 Annex 2: Informed consent ...... 46

5 Abstract The purpose of this study was to provide recommendations to the city district of Amsterdam Nieuw-West on how to stimulate and facilitate the development of a sustainable Resident Leadership Programme, designed to combat loneliness by empowering its residents. This study was based on sixteen semi-structured interviews with residents that have organised initiatives for the neighbourhood (key-figure residents), or wanted to do so (aspiring key-figures) (all volunteers). A qualitative research method based on Grounded Theory was used in the research process. Three different factors were found to be most important for the emergence and retaining of key-figure residents: a central person in their social network who also fulfils the role of a central node in the network of professionals, the importance of a personalised, context-adjusted approach, and the increase of awareness of all the social activities and facilities in the neighbourhood. There appears not to be a need for a Resident Leadership Programme. Rather, to stimulate the future development of volunteers, two alternative recommendations are offered. For one, it is advised for any governing body to invest in the position of a person that fulfils the role of a central -friendly- node in an area, that connects the residents to the professionals. Furthermore, people formally appointed the task to evaluate, and provide funds to social initiatives need to be educated to prioritise the objective social features of said initiatives. Future research should be aimed at the success factors of what makes a good central person, motivational factors, and ways to improve awareness about the possibilities in the neighbourhood.

6 1 Introduction Loneliness is a recurring problem in society which all people may experience, regardless of their age, gender, ethnicity or cultural background. At any given time, twenty to forty per cent of the adult population in mostly western countries admit to feeling lonely, and five to seven percent report feeling severely lonely (Luo, Hawkley, Waite, & Cacioppo, 2012). What adds to the severity of the problem is that there are many detrimental health effects associated with loneliness and it can even pose a risk factor for early mortality (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2018; Luo et al., 2012). Furthermore, loneliness has its impact on a societal scale by affecting unemployment rates, and conservation of low socioeconomic status (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). The availability of a social network is beneficial for a persons’ health, as it provides the opportunity for mental and physical support (Umberson & Karas Montez, 2010). Fundamental to human culture is the ability to interact socially, or be part of a network; the lack of it creates a situation in which a person can be unable to form any meaningful social connections, which in turn acts as a gateway to the experience of loneliness.

Notably, the amount of people subject to the experience of loneliness has seen a growing trend (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2018). Certain demographic groups are especially at risk (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2018). Groups with small or shrinking networks such as the elderly can experience hardships in the maintenance of a stable social relationship (Scharf & de Jong Gierveld, 2008). People who recently migrated have to create a new social network from scratch in the new area. And people who do not speak the native tongue, such as immigrants, are disadvantaged in creating new social contacts due to a linguistic barrier (Dolberg, Shiovitz-Ezra, & Ayalon, 2016). This has especially been observed in urban areas (Scharf & de Jong Gierveld, 2008), where as opposed to rural areas, the lifestyle has allowed individuals to detach from a specific role fulfilment, resulting in a more individualistic lifestyle to be the norm (Heu, van Zomeren, & Hansen, 2018). In the Netherlands, Amsterdam specifically has a high prevalence of loneliness as compared to the rest of the country. In Amsterdam, 47% of people over nineteen admits to feel lonely and 13% consider themselves to be severely impacted by loneliness (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018a). In certain districts of Amsterdam, such as Osdorp, these numbers reach up to 23%, as demographic risk groups such as cultural minorities or people with a low socioeconomic status are overrepresented (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018b). The proportion of people with a non-western background living in Osdorp is nearly twice as large as the Amsterdam average, and most people have a low socioeconomic status (GGD Gezondheidsmonitor, 2016).

To address the growing trend of loneliness, much research has been done on the subject of prevention and reduction. Most studies have been aimed at interventions and initiatives concerned with community building, early detection, connecting people, increasing social skills, social support, and addressing social cognition (Lauder, Sharkey, & Mummery, 2004; Masi, Chen, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2011; Stevens & Van Tilburg, 2000). One particular study (Andersson, 1998) illustrates that creating a sense of community through community building can be most successful in neighbourhoods where (laymen) residents are concerned with taking initiative. Furthermore, previous research (Adrian Noviar et al., 2018) concludes that one key element in combating loneliness is creating a sense of community through community capacity. Proactive key-figures in the neighbourhood take a central role in this endeavour by taking initiative in order to bring people together by organising events or inducing a mindset which prompts residents to provide a helping hand to their fellow residents.

More specifically, a barrier to community building that is recurrently encountered is that people are either unaware of the possibilities to start an initiative, the proposed initiatives are not accepted, or they are not executed in a sustainable manner. This impedes the emergence of potential key-figures, and inhibits the existence of current active residents. Hence, support and provision of proper information and knowledge are

7 thought to be essential resources for the development of a sustainable role as a key-figure resident. As such, the aim of this study is to provide recommendations for the city district of Amsterdam Nieuw-West on how to facilitate the development of a sustainable community leadership programme designed to combat loneliness in Amsterdam Osdorp, by gathering information from key-figure residents about their experiences and perceptions on the process of initiating a neighbourhood initiative. This brings forth the following research question:

What are the needs of the key-figure residents to initiate sustainable initiatives aimed towards community building?

With this study, we hope to shed light upon this currently dim-lit matter, and provide insights for a best practice in the field of community building through resident-led initiatives. Additionally, we hope to produce words of advice that can be taken up by the relevant stakeholders in the short-term future. The aim is to have a direct impact on all the people involved, and hopefully change their life for the better.

8 2 Contextual background In this section, loneliness will be discussed in the context of the research. The consequences will be addressed, and relevant theory underlying the complex processes of loneliness will briefly be discussed. Furthermore, potential stakeholders will be looked into, and the demographics and aspects of the setting of the research will be described

2.1 Loneliness and effects on health Loneliness can be experienced through two different pathways. One is Social isolation, a state where the person lacks a meaningful social network, and a sense of belonging socially (Alspach, 2013). The other is emotional isolation, a subjective experience, which might be experienced after the loss of a meaningful contact (van Tilburg & de Jong Gierveld, 2007) and is best described as a discrepancy between the desired and actual amount of meaningful social contacts (Luo et al., 2012). Loneliness is associated with many detrimental health effects ranging on both physical as mental aspects. The mortality-risk factor associated with loneliness exceeds that of many well-known factors for mortality such as low physical activity and obesity, and are comparable to risk factors for mortality such as alcohol consumption and smoking (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2014; Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). Moreover, a wide pallet of physical health problems associated with loneliness have been documented such as increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, coronary heart disease, and elevated blood pressure (Gerst-Emerson & Jayawardhana, 2015). Mental wellbeing is also strongly affected by loneliness: loneliness induces sadness in people. Causal relations between loneliness and depression have been documented (Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2014), and relationships between depressive symptoms and smaller social network , a lack of close relationships, a lower perceived adequacy of social support have been drawn (Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000). Problematic with loneliness is that when it becomes chronic it can become mentally self-sustained. Self-centeredness is found to be a predictor for loneliness in the following years. Increased loneliness heightens self-centeredness, which in turn contributes to subsequent increases in loneliness, and vice versa (Cacioppo, Chen, & Cacioppo, 2017). When a person lacks the proper amount of emotional connectedness, this social pain (similar to physical pain) uses common mechanisms in the brain that respond to threat, which leads to immediate and defensive behaviour (Layden et al., 2017). Additionally, it uses the mechanisms underlying facial recognition and estimation of social situations, leading to a continuous misunderstanding of others’ intentions and interpreting them as hostile or negative (Yoon & Zinbarg, 2008).

2.2 A community building approach to combat loneliness A counter to social isolation and subjective experience of loneliness is the availability of a social network with whom people are able to create a substantial social connection. People in the nearby vicinity have the capability to become part of a social network where such a social connection can emerge (Campbell & Lee, 1992). Naturally, the neighbourhood has the ability to serve as a place-based community (Silk, 1999): Relative ease of transportation, childcare provision, and comfortability of the neighbourhood-based activities make social action relatively accessible (Eisen, 1994). Belonging to a community allows for the necessary support (mentally and physically), by providing the experience of a readily available mutually supportive network of relationships (Mahmoudi Farahani, 2016). As a result, the inhabitants’ perceptions of the quality of the neighbourhood is a crucial contributing factor in the regulation of loneliness (Scharf & de Jong Gierveld, 2008). A neighbourhood, however, is not necessarily a community on its own. For a group of people to be considered a community, the individuals’ sense of belonging to the greater whole needs to be present as well. Essential for a community to be perceived as such by its residents, the factors of community capacity

9 play a major role (Chaskin, 2001). Community capacity is described as “the ability of the community to take charge of and make decisions about what happens in the life of residents in a community, in particular in terms of people's own ability to impact funders and policy makers, as collective group and not just individually” (Chaskin, 2001).

An example of a factor that contributes to community capacity would be the active local residents that voluntarily set up social initiatives (key-figure residents). Empowerment of the local residents needs to be a central factor when concerned with tackling neighbourhood problems and building a stronger community (van Pelt & Repetur, 2018). An approach which centralises the members of the community, or a so-called “bottom-up” approach, has the added value that it is not completely dependent on an organisational organ, and it removes the border between theory and practice as the involved people are present in the field, rather than the ivory tower”. Considering this, providing/creating a programme in which these key-figure residents are supported in their role as “community leader”, a Resident Leadership Programme (RLP), might be beneficial for the development of community capacity in the neighbourhood. Essential for these “leaders” would be that they act as initiators, activators and motivators and not only as the point of contact for formal stakeholders. Their function should exist primarily for the residents. The concept of the RLP would be described by two steps:

1. Becoming a resident leader: how can a person be assisted in the process of setting up an initiative? 2. Remaining a resident leader: how can a person be assisted in their role as resident leader in such a way that their position or initiative is sustainable?

Nonetheless, practically taken micro-level initiatives still require macro-level policy changes to initiate and uphold changes. Active citizenship is not fully possible without an active contribution from assisting organisations such as the municipality (Eisen, 1994; van Pelt & Repetur, 2018) To achieve any progress in social community capacity building collaboration between different stakeholders is crucial (Buurtwijs, 2018). Studies have shown that stakeholder involvement is a crucial component of project development. Gauging stakeholders’ opinions and concerns allow for better facilitation of the development of a project that will meet the needs of everyone involved (El-Gohary, Osman, & El-Diraby, 2006; Quist & Vergragt, 2006).

2.3 Osdorp and subdistricts Osdorp is an area located in the Nieuw-West borough of Amsterdam. It is situated roughly nine kilometres west of the city centre, and is home to around 39.500 inhabitants. Officially rebuilt in the 1950’s and 60’s it has seen many renovations and has undergone several transformations throughout the years. Then called Oud-Osdorp (Old-Osdorp), the borough was annexed in the 1920’s to later become part of an expansion plan for building residential building sites which left many parts of the district unattended and neglected, eventually leading it to Figure 1. Amsterdam Osdorp (pink) and become jumble area (Swierstra, 2006). To this date, the area is Osdorp Oost (red) still recovering from the status it used to have, and as such has been placed on a list of developmental areas. Areas on this list are considered to be “problem areas” and are provided special attention by the government (Essen, 2007). Several statistics about the area contribute to it to be considered a problem area or “area for attention”. A majority of the inhabitants (55%) has a non-western migration background(Gemeente, 2018b), which is associated with lower levels of local language mastery (Dagevos, 2005). Overall level of finished

10 education in the area is lower compared to Amsterdam, and currently follows a lowering trend (Gemeente, 2018b).

Osdorp is subdivided into several subdistricts, of which one is Osdorp-Oost (East Osdorp). Among the subdistricts of Osdorp, Osdorp-Oost scores lowest in terms of social and economic development. Crime rates are the highest in comparison to the other districts, sense of safety is low and 70% of inhabitants has a non- western migration background (Allecijfers, 2018; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). Especially the Wildemanbuurt, within Osdorp-Oost has gained attention over the past few years, as many of the criminal activities specifically take place in this neighbourhood (Keijl, 2018). Additionally, the overall social economic status (SES) of inhabitants is much lower than in other parts of the city. People living in neighbourhoods with a low SES are more susceptible to become socially isolated: they have a relatively low sense of being valued, and basic needs for a healthy life are already struggled to be met (Carter, 2015).

2.4 Stakeholder analysis Considering the fact that the production of a community building programme is a complex process, it is wise to admit that the network of (potentially) involved stakeholders is a vast one. Many organisations, governmental or not, people, and governing bodies fulfil a niche function in combatting the problem of loneliness throughout the entirety of the city. The interaction between anyone of these actors should be considered, and any plausible collaboration might be of added value when reflecting on their role in the greater whole. In light of the creation of a leadership programme, designed to empower people in their goal to reduce loneliness, the main stakeholders are the key-figure residents, the party where they propose their initiatives (Direction Group Committee), any knowledge-distributing party that plays a role in educating the key figure residents, organisations that in some way specialise on the subject of loneliness / social inclusion, and the municipality.

For an extended stakeholder analysis, I refer to my prior report (Adrian Noviar et al., 2018) in which all relevant stakeholders have been described in the “Stakeholder analysis” section. Figure 2 showcases the relevant stakeholders and their connections from the study.

Figure 2. stakeholder map of the community in the Wildemanbuurt. From: Adrian Noviar et al. 2018

11 2.4.1 The municipality The municipality of Amsterdam is divided into districts and sub-districts where each district functions as the bridge between the area and the central municipality. Governance of every district lies in the hands of the district committees, chosen by the residents. Additionally, the city districts have a regional team of employees situated in the area. These people function as the bridge between the subdistricts and as the first contact person of the governance for the residents. To create suiting developmental goals for the city, each district has a distinct annual area agenda.

The municipality has been addressing the points for attention in Osdorp for a while with recurring themes such as putting Figure 3. The seven city districts of Amsterdam extra attention on the physical facilities, e.g. the community centres, called “houses of the neighbourhood” (Dutch: Huizen van de wijk), or on the physical and mental health of the residents. This includes combatting loneliness (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2018). In context of the current paper, it is important to consider what the role of the municipality could be, or if they should be involved at all. In the previous project (Adrian Noviar et. al. 2018), residents stated that they felt no involvement of the municipality, and if they did it was usually negative.

2.4.2 Civil society organisations Civil society organisation (CSOs) are non-governmental, non-profit organisations established by citizens in order to improve the local health and well-being of the area (Doyle & Patel, 2008). Generally CSOs are divisible into three groups: Community based organisations (welfare organisations), community foundations (CFs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

One such example is Combiwel. Combiwel is considered a welfare organisation. It is a foundation that aims for an inclusive society where all inhabitants receive equal opportunities and peoples participation is central. They support vulnerable inhabitants by trying to create an environment where they can be part of the society as independently and safe as possible. This is done through connecting people with each other, and connecting people with instances (Combiwel, 2018a). There are nineteen locations throughout Amsterdam from where Combiwel operates. Seven of these are the so called “houses of the neighbourhood”. A house of the neighbourhood is a location where residents are provided the opportunity to create social contacts, participate in activities or set up an initiative themselves (Combiwel, 2018b). To facilitate this, every neighbourhood in Amsterdam Nieuw-West is provided a direction group committee (DGC), funded by the municipality. DGCs consist of a team of residents of that specific neighbourhood who are provided the task of managing a budget meant for social initiatives. This is called a Resident initiative (Dutch: Bewonersinitiatief). Every DGC is associated with a welfare organisation in that neighbourhood, that formally holds the funds (Eigenwijks, 2019).

Another example is VoorUit. VoorUit is a social project carried out by a CF where students are provided housing in exchange for participating and facilitating social activities in the neighbourhood (VoorUit, 2019). VoorUit has manifested itself throughout nine neighbourhoods in the city of Amsterdam, including the Wildemanbuurt. Each neighbourhood has a district coordinator who is the direct link between the project management and the people of the area. For this research, these district coordinators are a gateway for reaching the residents.

12 2.4.3 Community centres Community centres fulfil an important position in the stakeholder map, as they act as a central point in the network of residents and organisations. The Wildemanbuurt in Osdorp is home to community centre “House of the neighbourhood, ‘t Blommetje”. The current paper is primarily focussed on the immediate network of this location, as it acts as a hub for residents, key-figure residents and the collaborating partners of Combiwel. Other community centres located throughout the city will also be considered, as different partners are associated with different locations, and insights from multiple point of views can prove valuable.

2.4.4 Key-figure residents Key figure residents are those who have already fulfilled a role as an initiative starter. People with ambition to do so will be referred to as aspiring key-figures. This includes ideas such a neighbourhood handyman, cooking initiatives, sport events, or organised strolling tours. Numerous initiatives have been taken up in the Wildemanbuurt, Osdorp, Amsterdam Nieuw-West, but not all have been accepted or prevailed.

13 3 Theoretical background In this section, three relevant theories will be discussed on community empowerment and sustainability, motivation and volunteering, and social entrepreneurship.

3.1 Community empowerment and sustainability By educating, motivating, and facilitating key-figure residents, the eventual aim of this research is to contribute to the development of a person, or group of people who will be able to contribute to the long- term empowerment of the community. Community empowerment can be defined as the creation of a self- sustaining group by providing the necessary help and access to resources for the community to manage their own problems (Andersson, 1998, see also Ahmad & Abu Talib, 2016). Community empowerment drastically adds to the sustainability of community-driven initiatives. Active participation helps with initiating and controlling local developments, and enables for more efficiently participating. Social interactions through communities improves the community participation and capacity. This creates a social network that can become the supportive source for transfer of information which consists of reliable and familiar actors in the community (Ahmad & Abu Talib, 2016; Anjum, 2001). Community empowerment is reliant on three main factors: Community Participation, Community Capacity Building, and Community Access to Information. When all factors are accounted for appropriately, any community initiative is inherently more sustainable. See figure 4 for a visualisation of the concepts as proposed by Ahmad and Abu Talib (2015)

Figure 4. A research model for community empowerment and sustainability by Abu Talib (2015)

First, Community participation can be described as the role a community has in decision making. It is a means to improve local ownership of the community. Community participation in the decision-making process may lead to the progress of an active and competent organisational foundation. The bottom-up approach of involving local residents improve the capabilities of a community, as well as the insights that the collective effort eventually leads to self-improvement (Ahmad & Abu Talib, 2016). As this approach relies on the members within its own boundaries, this approach is cost-effective as well as more sustainable than when it would be reliant on outsiders. Empowered communities are capable of collectively solving neighbourhood problems on a small level, as well as on the higher governmental levels (Ahmad & Abu Talib, 2016).

Community capacity-building is the conjecture of community capacity and community building. The combined definitions resemble that which is another essential aspect in community empowerment. Capacity-building is the combination of the power of a community to innovate and produce whilst “building” and putting loose aspects together. It is a state in which there is a growth in the degree of community capacity (Chaskin, 2001).

Community access to information describes the provision of information and access to information a community has. It is a factor of major influence on the impact of any social initiative. Distribution of knowledge grants inhabitants the opportunity to be increasingly exposed to potential opportunities, it allows for access to the right peoples and services, better exercise their rights, and provides a transparent

14 environment for observation of involved stakeholders (Adrian Noviar et al., 2018; Ahmad & Abu Talib, 2016). When communities are empowered, they are able to provide information about their priorities as well as obtain information from local organisations

3.2 Motivation and volunteering Resident leaders show their devotion to the neighbourhood by volunteering. They take on the responsibility to create an initiative in order to increase neighbourhood cohesiveness, reduce loneliness, or broaden people’s networks, without tangible gains. Gaining and sustaining an appropriate level of motivation for volunteers requires a different approach than a paid profession would have. To create an overview of what factors are in play to initiate and maintain motivation, the “job characteristics model” (JCM) was introduced (Millette & Gagné, 2008). This model assumes three critical psychological states (Hackman & Lawler, 1971); the experienced meaningfulness of the labour, experience of responsibility of the outcomes and the knowledge of the results. Hackman and Oldham (1975) then identified five characteristics that should work towards each of the desired critical psychological states:

(1) skill variety, the degree to which a job requires a variety of activities in carrying out the work; (2) task identity, the degree to which a job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work; (3) task significance, the degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives of other people; (4) autonomy, the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion; and (5) feedback from the job, the degree to which carrying out the work activities provides direct and clear information about performance effectiveness. (Millette & Gagné, 2008, p. 12)

3.3 Theory for social entrepreneurship Setting up an initiative for the neighbourhood is essentially the same as setting up a small company. It requires the skills of organising, having a mission and vision and taking the responsibility to acquire all the necessary resources. As such, a person that aims to set up a neighbourhood initiative can be described as an entrepreneur that aims to reach a social orientated goal, a “social entrepreneur”. Social entrepreneurs strive for social change, like business entrepreneurs strive for the economy. It is a system that relies on peoples’ mindset to venture to new planes of innovation towards a personal or collective goal (Jiao, 2011). A comprehensive definition of social entrepreneurship was created by Jiao (2011), by analysing several interpretations and merging them:

Social entrepreneurship is the process of recognizing and resourcefully pursuing opportunities to create social value with the innovative method. Social entrepreneurs are innovative, resourceful, and result-oriented, who draw upon the best thinking in both the business and non-profit worlds to develop strategies that maximize social impact. These entrepreneurial leaders operate in all kinds of organizations: large and small; new and old; religious and secular; non-profit, for-profit, and hybrid. (Jiao, 2011, p. 133)

Furthermore, Jiao (2011) describes social entrepreneurship as a process run by many factors on multiple levels. These include factors that relate to the social entrepreneur themselves, their direct, and indirect environment, but also the perspective on the desirability, feasibility, human capital, and social capital. The framework used to describe this model can be seen in figure 5, and consists of 5 main factors.

Figure 5. A research model for social entrepreneurship by Jiao (2011) Desirability and feasibility describes the underlying reasons why someone would aim to start a social enterprise and is concerned with the question whether a person’s mindset is compatible with the position of social entrepreneur. Human capital mainly discusses the plan of the social entrepreneur, the knowledge they have that is useful for the process and the skills to analyse the specific situation they are in. Social capital encompasses the network of people a person has, or the ability to get in contact with those who are valuable. Furthermore, it describes the ability of a person to create connections between otherwise separate entities. The social environment is concerned with the amount of support a person can expect from the non- governmental environment that they operate in. This includes e.g. grants provided by organisations, foundations lending a helping hand, instances that give advice for free, or monitoring of the delivered services. The Institutional environment factors as the foundation discusses the value of the support for social entrepreneurship that governmental agencies are able to provide.

4 Conceptual framework Understanding the concepts underlying the subject of this paper plays a crucial part in correctly setting up the methodology for answering the main research question: “What are the needs of the key-figure residents to initiate sustainable activities aimed towards community building?” By combining some parts of the theories discussed in the “theoretical background” section, a framework that fits the context of the current paper will be presented.

4.1 The proposed framework

Figure 6. The proposed framework for this paper Figure 6 shows the proposed framework. The framework consist of the Model of Social Entrepreneurship by Jiao (2011) with some slight alterations and interpretations. For one, the role of the social entrepreneur will be described as a person that aims to add to community building in the neighbourhood. The definition of community building will be based on the description in the book “Handbook of Community Movement and Local Organizations” (Cnaan & Milofsky, 2010). A community is described holistically by not just taking into account the group of people, but also the different dimensions such as e.g. the organisations, physical assets, financial capital and skills of the people. Community building is described as any form of initiative aimed towards an increase in any of these dimensions. As such, the theory of the Community Empowerment Framework (Ahmad & Abu Talib, 2016) is used to describe the factors aimed at community building. In other words, the Community Empowerment Framework is utilised as a means to reach the end-goal of community building. The final change is the addition of the “Internal and external factors”. Social environment factors and institutional environment have been merged into a single “external” category, as opposed to the human capital, desirability and feasibility and social capital, which have been classified under the “internal” category. The division has been made to be able to clearly distinguish between what factors the person can learn themselves, and what factors in the environment could improve.

17 4.2 Definitions of the framework Desirability and feasibility The concept of desirability and feasibility encompasses all that has to do with the mind-set of the participant, motivational and demotivational factors. Factors are defined by use of the Job Characteristics model by Millette and gagné (2008).

Human capital Human capital in this study refers to the essential knowledge and skills for starting and maintaining a Resident Leadership Programme, with the focus on adding to the empowerment of the community. This can be done either through the role they have as facilitator of their initiative, or by means of the initiative that they set up. As such, it is important that the knowledge and skills of the person in question align with the concepts regarded in the theory of community empowerment.

Social capital Within the context on the RLP, social capital refers to the connections that add to the ability of a person to create and sustain an initiative. Important is that the connections have a supporting role in the personal development and are considered relevant. For the same reason as mentioned in the “knowledge and skills” paragraph of this section, any skills, powers, and assets need to be pointed towards the goal of community empowerment. consequently, the Community Empowerment framework has been considered as the perspective of choice.

External factors The social and environmental factors describe all non-internal aspects that might play an influence on the key-figure, or process to become a key-figure (i.e. the role of actors or current policies). In the section “contextual background” of the current paper, the actors that play a potential role in the process have been described. Especially important is to gain insights in the system that underlies the creation of a neighbourhood activity: besides the role of the actors involved with setting up or supporting a neighbourhood activity, the role the municipality of Amsterdam is to obtain will be of crucial importance as well.

The division of these concepts provide sub-questions that aid towards the goal of answering the main research question. By gaining insight in all of the sub-concepts, a clearer understanding can be reached on how to appropriately provide support in the aim of becoming a resident leader. To reach this level, the following sub questions will need to be answered:

1. What are the needs of the key-figure residents to fulfil the requirements of desirability and feasibility in the development of the RLP? 2. What are the needs of the key-figure residents to fulfil the requirements of human capital in the development of the RLP? 3. What are the needs of the key-figure residents to fulfil the requirements of social capital in the development of the RLP? 4. What external factors are important to consider in the development of the RLP?

18 5 Methodology The following methodology aims to provide insights into the choices made in order to answer the main research question: What are the needs of the key-figure residents to initiate sustainable activities aimed towards community building? This section will first explain the design of the study, followed by the unit of analysis, data collection, data analysis and will be concluded with ethical considerations.

5.1 Study design To gain insight into the factors that play an important role in social entrepreneurship, a qualitative method approach using in-depth semi-structured individual interviews was conducted. Semi-structured interviews allow for a structured approach, whilst still leaving room for digression if interesting subjects were to come up. As the aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of different stakeholders and to generate a rich understanding of their experiences, the use of methods that allow the participants to elaborate on their statements and opinions was valuable (Green & Thorogood, 2004). This interview study with a qualitative approach used Grounded theory. Grounded theory is based upon the premise of inductive reconceptualization of the theoretical framework by analysing “bottom-up”, in search of emerging concepts not yet connected to any theory (Glaser, Strauss, & Strutzel, 1968). The theories that emerge from the data were applied and combined with the theoretical framework again later.

Participatory action research This research was done in light of Participatory Action Research (PAR). PAR entails a means of conducting research in which ownership of the project is shared with everyone involved: the study population is coparticipant. It is a community-based analysis of social problems and is orientated towards action in the community (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2007). In practicality this entails several things. For one, the collected throughout the research was incorporated in the interview guide, and that all useful experience was immediately shared with all relevant participants. Second, specifying the scope of the research was all done through close collaboration with a central person in the network, so that it aligned with their perception of actuality and importance. Additionally, their close network was regularly consulted. Finally, the researcher worked on location (e.g. in the community centre) two to three days a week and took part in, and helped with many of the activities in the neighbourhood. This created the exceptional opportunity to get widely familiarised with the context.

5.2 Participants In order to assess the needs of key-figure residents to initiate neighbourhood activities, all residents that fit the description of a key-figure resident or aspiring key-figure over eighteen years old were potential candidates. A purposive sampling method was used for the recruitment of the participants by use of the current network people who have started an initiative.

5.3 Data collection Semi-structured interviews The interviews were held face-to-face in an environment chosen by or familiar with the interviewee/interviewees (Gray, 2018). The use of this setting and the decision to leave the choice up to them will be employed in order to make the participant/participants feel comfortable and relaxed. Furthermore, upon receiving informed consent of the interviewee/interviewees, all the interviews were

19 tape-recorded for analysis. If anything was unclear, the respondent had been contacted in order to elaborate on the point of interest. Furthermore, upon request, respondents received a copy of a summary of the interview. These interviews have been sent back and member-checked.

Two interview guides have been established (see annex 1). One interview guide was made for the key-figure residents, and one for the key-figure residents that have yet to do something (aspiring key-figures). Topics were determined using the conceptual framework addressed in section 4, and an additional section regarding the content of the Resident Leadership Programme. These additional questions have not been addressed when the respondent had clearly shown no value in an educational programme. The order of questioning varied greatly from person to person. The initial question was the same, but the open-ended nature of the guide allowed for immediate deviation.

Observational logbook Daily notes have been kept with impressions and short summaries of conversations with a wide variety of residents, professionals and other involved actors. Extra emphasis has been put on statements directly linking to key-figure residents and to directly involved actors. Notes were usually documented immediately after the instance, but sometimes they were recalled from memory at the end of the workday. Additionally a small “mood impression” had been written after every interview to be able to fall back on and create a full sense of the scope of the interview. This helped interpreting any non-verbal statements in the data.

5.4 Data analysis In Grounded Theory, data collection and data analysis occur simultaneously (Glaser et al., 1968). This approach was chosen in order to correct for any lacking concepts: the conceptual framework might not have been completely applicable to the context of the research, as the chosen model covers only one of many available approaches. The interviews had been transcribed and read through at least once before adding the initial codes.

Data Open coding Axial coding Thematic collection coding

Figure 8. The process of grounded theory

Initially, all concepts that arose were given a code (open coding). After going through each interview twice, making sure all the codes that emerged later were added to the first interviews as well, the codes were grouped into code-groups (axial coding). Then, all the code groups were assigned to one of the concepts of the proposed framework (thematic coding) (see annex 3 for operationalisation). As the conceptual framework is divided into “internal” and “external” categories, all emerged codes were subdivisable into one of the concepts, with the addition of some sub-concepts.

5.5 Rigour of the study Rigour (Trustworthiness) is an important factor to consider when performing qualitative research. It consists of the following four criteria: Credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Shenton, 2004). Credibility has been accounted for by ensuring the respondent and researcher were on the same page after introducing a new theme during the interviews. Additionally, many findings that recurred in most of the

20 interviews corresponded with the observations documented in the logbook, providing an extensive data triangulation on these subjects. Transferability has been addressed by placing the findings of the current paper in a bigger societal context. The confirmability is important to consider: Use of an observational logbook is subject to selection bias because the researcher decides what to note and what not. An effort has been made in order to keep this bias to a minimum by not making a selection on what to note as long as it dealt with a subject that was associable with neighbourhood activities and involved actors. Finally, dependability cannot completely be ensured, since some of the results were highly contextual to the respondent. The most important findings that have been distilled however are themes that recurred in all the interviews, and are backed by use of multiple quotes. Furthermore, PAR has some important aspects to consider, which all have an influence on the four aforementioned criteria. Borgia & Schuler (1996) describe five important components of action research: Commitment, Collaboration, Concern, Consideration, and Change. This roughly entails that PAR takes time to fully understand the context, acknowledging the balance between giving and taking from this context, creating trust with the involved actors, that reflection is an important part of the process, and that circumstances might change throughout the process.

5.6 Ethical consideration The procedure and aim of the study was explained to participants and informed consent was obtained either in writing (See annex 2), or verbally (transcripts). The informed consent statement encompassed information stating the interview could be used for the current paper, that all participation was voluntary and that there was no obligation to answer any questions if they did not wish to. Only the researcher had access to the participant’s responses and the data has been made anonymous before processing it in the paper by not mentioning any names of respondents, organisations or initiatives, and gender has been homogenised to a male perspective. Finally, audio recordings were destroyed immediately after finishing of the report.

21 6 Results The following section will present the main results, describing the participants, the process of submitting a resident initiative, Human Capital, Social Capital, Desirability and Feasibility, and External Factors. The results are derived from the interviews that have been held and the observational logbook that had been kept during the time of the research.

6.1 Description of the participants A total of seventeen participants have taken part in the research. This includes fifteen interviews with one respondent, and one interview with two respondents. The average length of an interview was one hour, varying from half an hour to one-and-a-half hour. Fifteen of the participants have a history of contributing to the neighbourhood, and two participants indicated they wanted to contribute something, but had not yet done so at the time of the interview. Eleven of the respondents have contributed to the neighbourhood solely by use of the “Resident Initiative”. The mean age of the respondents is 48, ranging from 22 to 79 years, and eleven respondents were female. Six of the respondents were Dutch, two were South-American, one respondent was Asian and seven were Middle-Eastern. Furthermore, respondent A3 had minimal experience with contributing to his neighbourhood in the past, but these were single time, small events. Table 1 shows an overview of the study population.

Table 1. descriptive statistics of the participants

Participant no. type of participant Use of resident initiative? Active besides initiatives?* K1 Key-figure Yes / No No K2 Key-figure Yes No A3 Aspiring / Key-figure** No N/A K4 Key-figure Yes No K5 Key-figure Yes / No Yes K6 Key-figure Yes / No Yes A7 Aspiring N/A N/A A8 Aspiring N/A N/A K9 Key-figure Yes Yes K10 Key-figure Yes No K11 Key-figure Yes No K12 Key-figure Yes Yes K13 Key-figure Yes Yes K14.1 Key-figure No No K14.2 Key-figure K15 Key-figure Yes / No Yes K16 Key-figure No No *e.g., works at a community foundation or is member of a neighbourhood board **This person has done small projects in a previous neighbourhood he lived in. These were small-scale personal initiatives. He indicated that he wanted to contribute here as well but did not know how yet

22 6.2 Process of the resident initiative The most common pathway for respondents to set up an initiative is by requesting funds through the process of a resident initiative as mentioned in section 2.4.2 of the current paper. The respondents described the process as follows: a resident indicates they want to Box1 - Loiter moms submit an idea, usually at the local neighbourhood This person wanted to do something for the stay-at- worker. They are then required to fill in a form, and home mothers who loitered around schools after have two other residents co-sign with them. The dropping of the children. neighbourhood worker in turn administrates the submissions for the monthly Direction Group He was already active in the house of the neighbourhood with another activity and knew who Committee (DGC) meetings. The DGC is in charge of a to take up contact with to receive funds. Together budget provided by the municipality. In the meeting, with support from the neighbourhood worker he the DGC discuss the ideas and approve, partly received funds to order sewing machines. He approve, or disapprove the requested amount. recruited a local resident to provide the sewing Support by a neighbourhood worker is usually offered, lessons. The combination of socialising with according to the needs of the resident. Three something educational has been successful. examples of such resident initiatives can be seen in the boxesThese in women this section. have become a close-knit group since.

6.3 Human Capital This section explores what personal characteristics were found to be of influence on the ability to contribute to community building. This included skills surrounding the application of an initiative, outreaching and assertive attitude, planning, creating a plan, organisational skills, verbal skills, communication, gaining trust and collaboration skills.

6.3.1 Skills and knowledge Overall, many success stories are based on the outreaching capabilities of a person. According to respondent K6, the outcomes of the entire year for their social project have been affected by going door to door and assessing the specific needs of all the Box 2 - The City Pass trip residents in the area. Many participants The municipality of Amsterdam provides a pass for people who fall agreed that the skills and knowledge on below a certain degree of welfare. This pass allows for big how to make use of the current system discounts on all sorts of activities in the city. would be beneficial. K3 indicated that he currently did not know how to The initiative taker is an owner himself, but found that the City Pass still had a barrier, as those without transport still ought to completely fill in the necessary forms, and pay for public transport. Besides, the pass does not stimulate how to perhaps apply for bigger funds if social contact. He talked about these barriers with several people he wished to do so. K6 also indicates that in the community centre until it reached the neighbourhood a lack of prior preparation almost stood in worker. This person saw the value of the idea and provided the way of one of his initiatives. Some support with creating a submission. members of the DGC state that rejection The idea has been successful ever since, and the initiative taker occurred predominantly due to monetary and his partner organise several trips per month, with regulars as or administrative reasons, inability to fully well as new people joining in understand the requirements, or unclarity of properly conveying the reason behind submission. Finally, Respondent K13 expressed his displeasure with the fact he has had to rely on his assertive and bold attitude, and his high level of verbal skills in order to get his initiative off the ground. The reason he was able to receive his funds was entirely due

23 to the fact that he made use of these personal traits, and he expresses that this should not be something that could happen if the system was accessible for everyone.

“Eventually my plan was accepted. But that isn’t right either. Because if another resident does not possess the same skills as me to send such an elaborate mail and go over there to explain everything, money would still be withheld from them. I do not think that that is fair. Disregarding that my initiative was accepted. I was not there for myself, I was there for all the residents.” & “This way another person would not be able to continue. And that is unacceptable if you say that this is supposed to be accessible.” – Respondent R13

Gaining trust was a skill that was also brought up by many of the respondents (K1, K2, K4, K6, K8, K10, K12, K13, K14.2, and K15). They indicated that a level of trust is strongly linked to success of their initiative, or their ability to rely on other people. K6 states that the trust the neighbourhood has in him, already made a difference several times. After a certain threshold of trust has been reached, inviting people or asking them to help becomes a real possibility.

“Sometimes you really need to warm up with each other, and gain that trust. I Have had parents whose children approached me saying that their siblings would like to join my activity. But when I proceeded to take up contact with the mother I would not get a reaction. Several attempts failed. But when she came by last week and got to meet me, she asked me whether her daughter was allowed to join. When I told her that I had taken up contact with her several times, she responded with ‘oh that was you!’ but now that she has got to know me and my face, her daughter joins weekly” – Respondent K6

Generally, key-figure residents have not had trouble with the creation of a plan (K1, K2, K6, K10, K11, K14, K15, and K16) and were not specifically in need of some sort of training. Most either had an idea to begin with and indicated that they did not think to have trouble with the execution, or they asked for help when necessary. Essentially, experienced key-figures indicated not to be lacking in the human capital aspects, but rather pointed out that they relied on social capital to generate a successful outcome. The aspiring key- figures share a similar story. A7 Box 3 - Baking in Osdorp showed no insight in any of the This initiative has been set-up for everyone in Osdorp that would like to practicalities and based his bake together. There will be weekly/bi-weekly meetings where anyone propositions solely on the activity, interested can join and bring their own recipe. The idea is to co-create rather than the process and A8 did and share knowledge about baking, and then consuming it together, or not know what he could offer, even providing the baked goods at the weekly lunches. though he yearns to help. Both indicated that they expect that the The person has been trying to undertake the initiative for a while now, but is still in need of appropriate guidance. The funds have been help of someone could provided, but there is no clear structure of execution yet. It is a counterbalance this lack of skills and developing process, and steps have been taken during the time of the knowledge. research.

6.4 Social Capital This section explores what social properties were found to be of influence on the ability to contribute to community building. This includes, the ability to reach the right people having a strong social network, and having an inclusive approach.

6.4.1 Reach the right people The concepts regarding social capital came up most as compared to the other concepts during the interviews. Especially being able to reach the right people when necessary was deemed an important ability. Respondent K2 indicated that his initiatives could not have been set up if he did not find the right people to connect to the professional network. K3, K5 and K14.2 directly add to this, as they indicate that the right people in their

24 network played a pivotal part in the development and existence of (some of) their initiatives. Almost all respondents indicated that the way to deal with lack of skill, or questions they had, was addressed by asking for help at the right person. All of the key-figure residents had at least one person in their network that they have consulted with, or received support from. Usually this was a friendly neighbourhood worker, but could be fulfilled by anyone. Essentially, it was a single person that acted as the connecting node to the network of the social-professional world. Respondent K11 even admitted that the neighbourhood worker of the community centre that he utilises is the only person he would ask help from.

“If you look at this [project], all the requests and offers we get are because [person] has been working in this field for a long time, and knows a lot of important people and people working in the municipality, and there is this entire network that exists. Yeah you need that to be able to keep going, and for people to know what we are doing, so that is important.” – Respondent K14.2

Most respondents were heavily reliant on a single central person in their network. Respondent A3 stated that he thinks that there should always be someone to help cross the threshold for people who are unfamiliar or not yet skilled in this field. Respondents A7 and A8 indicate that the researcher has been that person for them, as they are the direct link between them and the network of social workers.

6.4.2 Availability of social network In addition to reaching the right people, the ability to rely on their network has given several people the opportunity to contribute. Being well-acquainted in the neighbourhood was beneficial for a multitude of reasons. Respondent K4 states that asking around in his social circles for volunteering help has provided him the hands that he needed to initiate his idea, while also creating an opportunity for this volunteer to contribute to the neighbourhood. Respondent K5 states that all the effort he has put in the neighbourhood was due to the enjoyable collaboration with his friend, respondent K13; the former being the administrative side and the latter being the talkative side.

“If you don’t have a network, you have nothing” – Respondent K10

Respondent K10 pleads that use of the social network is not only essential for themselves, but also for the neighbourhood to become more inclusive. All respondents agreed that their social network heavily weighted in with their ability to set up the initiative. Emergence of key figures would be much lower if the people did not have each other to rely on.

“…and I asked another colleague whether he wanted to read my submission, and tried to get as many people involved as possible. Doing that is really beneficial for such projects. Because, doing all of this on your own won’t get you far, and your plan will not be able to spread. The more people, the better.” – Respondent K3

6.4.3 Outreaching, inclusivity & participation A theme that emerged within the concept of Social Capital was an “outreaching and inclusive” personality. One should aim to get as many different people to participate to reach the most potential of creating a sense of community. A means to be outreaching is by taking part in the initiatives that the area has to offer. Respondents K1, K5, K6, K9, K10, K12 and K13 strongly recommend putting yourself on the map by grasping as many opportunities as possible to show your face in these events.

“Yes! Go to the neighbourhood parties, or dinners, or whatever. There will always be people that would like to have a talk with you. I have had to do that myself as well. As coordinator, I also sometimes just go to events where I don’t know

25 anybody. The people that organise it will make sure that everyone is having a good time. It doesn’t matter how scary it is, and it is easier said than done, I understand that. And other than that, try to reach out to your neighbours.” -Respondent K6

6.5 Desirability and Feasibility This section describes the reason why people have made the decision to contribute something to the neighbourhood, and what factors have had an impact on the overall motivation of a person.

6.5.1 Motivational factors All of the key-figure residents showed considerable levels of intrinsic motivation. Reasons differed per person, but usually had something to do with factors that provided personal happiness as well (K4, K6). Some respondents shared that they put great value on helping other people (K3, K9, K10), others genuinely experience happiness if others around them are happy, and some wanted to share their culture of origin with the neighbourhood (K13).

“that’s why I do it, not to get something in return. If you see somebody that’s happy, then that feels good. And if I see that, a table full of lonely and elderly people that are so happy on that day and just want to hug you and thank you” – Respondent K4

An impeding factor on the motivation was the interaction with the local DGC. The overall opinion about the existence of the DGC, and the ability to propose neighbourhood initiatives is positive (Respondent A7, K15, logbook p. 8, p. 16). Most respondents indicated having had no difficulties with receiving the funds (Respondent K1, K4, K6). However, several frequent visitors (Logbook p. 10, p. 12) of the community centre indicated that they have had trouble with getting their plan through the DGC sometimes. Some of their plans had been rejected by the DGC, seemingly for no clear reason. A conversation with a neighbourhood worker and a committee member of the DGC (Logbook p. 8) brought forth some overall statements about the monthly meetings that take place. They stated that the level of professionalism is often sub-par, with personal beliefs and opinions getting in the way of objective judgement. Furthermore, a clear task division was lacking, resulting in unorganised discussions. Finally, the overall atmosphere was experienced as unpleasant and inaccessible for the residents who came to pitch their initiatives. They were not formally welcomed upon entering, and the residents indicate that they felt interrogated rather than having an opportunity to elaborate on their submission. Resident K13 is a former DGC member, and admits that the quality has lowered over the past few years. One example he proposes is that the budget of one of his annual initiatives suddenly got cut and questioned because the current DGC was unfamiliar with the setup of the initiative, which he states is indicative of an unprepared group of members. For this reason, respondent K5 and K13 have permanently discontinued their five year streak of submitting twelve initiatives per year.

Another remark that several respondents and residents had, is the tempo of reviewal of the initiatives. As the team meets monthly, it can take up to four weeks for a submission to be reviewed. If it does not get approved the first time due to an administrative error, another four weeks are necessary to get the initiative through. Subsequently, some initiatives have been idle for several months.

6.5.2 Trust Some respondents brought up the concept of trust in context of the system or involved actors. A conversation with a person (Logbook p. 4) revealed that he shows a slight level of distrust towards the civil servants active in the neighbourhood (e.g. area broker or area networker). This person has worked in the neighbourhood for over 30 years and explains that he has his reasons not to fully acknowledge their work. An example he gives

26 is that he knows of people who are in need of support with their ideas, but have not had an area broker get involved with them in any way. K15 shares a similar story of distrust. The area brokers are supposed to join in on the direction group committee DGC meetings, but he has scarcely seen one join in during his time as a committee member. The respondents did agree that they have relied, or would rely on them, if a trustworthy person would be, or had been, in the position. Exemplary for this is the fact that K6 states that the area broker of their area has gained much trust by the residents as they actively took part in all the events that he helped organise.

“If there are people in the neighbourhood that want to do something but don’t know how, and these people (area broker) are active in that area… If this is really true then they really have to come up with the right means to solve this problem, because this is a problem.” – Person who has actively worked in the area for over 30 years (logbook p. 4)

6.6 External factors This section explores the environmental factors that were described to play a part in the process of setting up neighbourhood initiatives. The External Factors can be subdivided into the influence of several organisations (including the municipality), Facilities, the role of involved actors, the availability of the information, and the bureaucratic system this project resides in.

6.6.1 Facilities The availability of a physical accommodation was a subject that arose in many of the interviews without specifically being addressed by the researcher. Such a place is used for several reasons. First, its physical properties: it provides a place to organise and execute the events that the residents initiate. Second, many of these venues are a hub for the residents of the neighbourhood to visit and meet each other. The community centre that the researcher used as one of his offices is an example of such a venue. Daily organised activities, meetings of neighbourhood communities, and weekly lunches for all the residents are some examples of what social stimuli this community centre provided. Additionally, besides being a hub for residents to organise and attend events, several organisations also make use of the location to operate from. This ranges from organisations that offer aid with rehabilitation or mental health care to welfare organisations and small residential enterprises. For instance, a handyman initiative has their headquarters here, which is a one person foundation that offers services for the local residents.

“No, but if I need help I can rely on someone in the network of the community centre” – respondent K1

One specific example is that respondents K14.1, K14.2, and K16 got the opportunity to start their project as a consequence of events that took place at the location they currently reside in. This building is a “creative space” that houses a multitude of creative and social entrepreneurs. It was a vacant building, bound for eventual destruction or reconstruction that was discovered by socially orientated people prior to such an event happening. The respondents acknowledge that the existence of this facility has brought much social development with it, including their own ability to operate.

Additionally, one of the locations the researcher visited gave rise to the knowledge that Amsterdam is home to an organisation that occupies obsolete, empty buildings to combat vacancy levels. The municipality provides the location inexpensively in trade for social activities in the neighbourhood: all employees are in charge of at least one social project. Accordingly, these locations produce a number of initiatives that contribute to the social well-being of the neighbourhood, including key-figures.

27 6.6.2 Welfare organisations The organisations that were most predominantly involved with this line of work were the welfare organisations (see 2.6 stakeholder analysis). Every community centre in Nieuw-West is a point of operation for a welfare organisation. Respondents K2, K4, K5, and K11 state that they closely relied on the help of someone affiliated with these organisations to support them whenever they need help; this person was often the neighbourhood worker (also called resident supporter). Respondent K13 and K9 elaborate on the subject, stating that the involvement and personal support of the neighbourhood worker is paramount to ensure the accessibility and quality of neighbourhood activity submissions.

“The neighbourhood worker plays an essential role. It is their task to support the residents that come by. If someone wants to mean something for the neighbourhood, it is important that there is somebody there to talk to them, and search for their qualities and needs.” “People like them are ‘connecters’, they can connect somebody to the person or organisation of their needs, roughly 80% of the time” – In a member checked summary of a conversation with respondent K9

An outreaching personality is not only important for the resident, the neighbourhood worker ought also to show this personality trait. K13 states that the idea of his first (of many) initiatives came from the neighbourhood worker prompting him to organise something showing off his home culture. He was new in the neighbourhood, and this invitation to do something has cascaded into much more.

6.6.3 Awareness and information Awareness about the ability to ask for funds was relatively low outside of the subgroup of key-figure residents. K1 states that he was unaware that there were other residents in the community centre that actively contributed voluntarily, and was unaware of the possibility to request funds, even though he visits there on a daily basis. Other respondents that do know about the ability to ask for funds share that the information on how to exactly do this is not always openly provided. Consequently, filling in the necessary forms can be unclear. K15, a well-connected person, expands on this knowledge gap by sharing his story. When he initially had an idea for an initiative, he had no knowledge of where to go and ended up venturing throughout the entire city district, talking to many people, to eventually find out that there was a community centre nearby his house. For this reason, he has suggested a “social map” for the local neighbourhood, area, or district. An up-to-date map with the location of all the social organisations and their activities. K13 and K9, both very well connected people as well, too, brought up this subject.

When asked the aspiring key-figures about their knowledge of who to ask for help in the area, A3 stated that he knows of the existence of the position of “area director”. A municipality bus is sometimes situated in his neighbourhood. Furthermore, he states that he has tried to inform about the structure of the municipality to gain a more comprehensible view of the organisational structure. A7 stated that he makes use of several community facilities for his weekly activities, and he knows of one welfare organisation. Finally, A8 knows about the facilities in his neighbourhood, bus does not feel personally connected to it. He is familiar with some central actors in the community centre but has not taken up anything with them so far.

6.6.4 Role of individual actors in the area Several respondents (K5, K6, K13, Logbook p. 4) brought up the terms gebiedsmakelaar (area broker), gebiedsnetwerker (area networker), and buurtregiseur (neighbourhood directors). These are positions in the neighbourhood that the municipality provides. According to the residents, the people in these functions act like the bridge between the neighbourhood and the municipality, and are the “eyes and ears of the neighbourhood”. When people were aware of their existence, and how to approach them, these positions proved useful. However, this only held true when the person in this position was someone that does really

28 care for the neighbourhood and its people. Success factors are derived from the stories of area brokers that went the extra mile. It needs to be someone that people can count on (K5, K13). Respondent K6 states that the area broker of the area has been of great help ever since he and his peers wanted to contribute something. He was able to always approach them when necessary, and they made sure to pull the right strings behind the curtains of the municipality. He emphasises that this person is there to facilitate the process, but not organise it.

“We have [person] in this area. If you approach him with a good idea, he will know who to forward you to or take it up on himself and he will try to support you. However, they only facilitate, so they won’t organise it. They might help with preparation.” “If I’m not mistaken he is an area broker, he has several areas in this city district. He has also joined in with the litter action and other actions if he thought they were good. He does try to show his face in the neighbourhood.” -Respondent K6

29 7 Discussion and conclusion This study aimed to provide recommendations for the city district of Amsterdam Nieuw-West on how to stimulate and facilitate the development of a sustainable community leadership programme designed to combat loneliness in Amsterdam Osdorp. The following section will discuss the most important findings and an answer to the research question will be provided. The main research question of this paper was: what are the needs of the key-figure residents to initiate sustainable activities aimed towards community building?

The current study approached this by determining the essential ingredients to sustainably set up and maintain neighbourhood initiatives, following the concepts of the proposed framework: Human Capital, Social Capital, Desirability and Feasibility, and/or External factors. A training, constructed according to the most important findings would then be designed: the resident leadership programme. This training would be provided to anyone interested to become a key-figure resident, but still missed some essential skills to do so sustainably. In practice however, results differed from the expectations. Firstly, creating a training programme for aspiring key-figures already goes beyond what the neighbourhood actually needs. Secondly, respondents indicated that this lack of skill could usually be taken care of by the proper guidance of an acquaintance or neighbourhood worker. Overall, in the process of becoming a key-figure, more value is placed on the help that can be provided than in acquiring the skills themselves. In other words: there is no need of a Resident Leadership Programme, what is necessary is personalised help and support. The following section will go into depth about these findings.

7.1 Altering the scope of the RLP The initial proposal, as described in section 2.2 was as follows: 1. Becoming a resident leader: how can a person be supported in the process of setting up an initiative? And 2. Remaining a resident leader: how can a person be supported in their role as resident leader in such a way that their position or initiative is sustainable? A more pressing concern, however, takes place before any of these steps, namely, the emergence and activation of key-figure residents. This incites for an additional step, prior to the process: 0. Initiating the process of becoming a resident leader: how can the emergence of key-figures be stimulated? In other words, how can it be ensured that aspiring key-figures get the chance to reach the next step? The data gave rise to two types of people fit for the category of aspiring key-figures: The people that know they want to do something (nothing specific in particular), and the people that have a concrete idea, but don’t know how to put it in motion. Currently, the available means appear not to fully encompass the necessities for a best practice. The facilities and neighbourhood functions appear to be an adequate start. However, they usually require an outreaching personality of the aspiring resident to be utilised, as there is little awareness about the existence or function of these means.

This begs the question: how can it be ensured that a volunteer receives the information they need? Luloff and Bridger (2003) state that information spreads as a community grows, or as the connectivity within an area grows. This process is reliant on the increment and maintenance of interaction between the existing and newly emergent local groups. Therefore, an active effort towards interconnectedness between local organisations and initiatives might prove beneficial. This can be achieved with the presence of a well- connected, outreaching person in the area who has is capable of making these possible connections. Essentially, interaction between the groups increases awareness of the existence, as well as identify volunteering opportunities, creating a virtuous circle (Brennan, 2005). Research aimed towards which channels of awareness (e.g. professional, friendly, communities, verbal, digital, etc.) are most successful is therefore prompted. Specifically interesting is the focus on which means of awareness improvement can

30 prove most successful in areas where there is very little, as compared to areas where awareness is adequate (or good).

However, little of this awareness will entail much positive progression if there is no additional value for the interested people. Especially since contributing is voluntary, motivation is the driving force. Hackman & Lawler (1971) discuss that the meaningfulness of the labour needs to be apparent, and that the impact of their contributions need to be visible. To improve the interaction and awareness, it is recommended for future research to inquire into the possibilities of applying the motivational techniques mentioned in section 3.2. Especially in facilities (hubs) where there is a very close interaction between key-figures and professionals, the influence of the latter party can be researched. They can play a role prior to the onset of an initiative by enthusing aspiring residents (meaningfulness of the labour), or afterwards by sharing information about the impact of peoples’ initiative (knowledge of the results). Of course it is most interesting to gauge whether the described motivational theories do indeed fit with reality, or that other factors play a bigger part.

7.2 person with central position in the network There is a clear overlap in the concepts of social capital and the social / institutional factors. The line of questioning in the “Social Capital” concept was aimed at the respondent’s own social network (close ones), prompting information about their ability to ask for help from friends. Often times, the response regarded someone affiliated with the world of social organisations (e.g. neighbourhood worker). The neighbourhood worker simultaneously fulfilling the role as a “friend” in peoples’ network exemplifies the importance of a friendly face with the ability to pull the right strings. The importance of a personal approach in social entrepreneurship was already stated in the article of Ahmad & Abu Talib (2016), and is further illuminated upon by theories dating back to the first behavioural theories such as Figure 7. Example of centrality. With a network showing low centrality score on the left Maslow’s hierarchy of needs side, and a high centrality score on the right side. The more connections a network has, (Maslow, 1943) or Elton Mayo’s the higher the centrality score theory of management (Mayo, 1933), which can be explained by the fact that this field of work is fundamentally and intrinsically based on people and social interactions.

Furthermore, as all respondents were heavily reliant on a central -professional- person, to act as their aid in the process, the unavailability or absence of this this person is a hampering factor in any part of the process. This demonstrates a situation strongly resembling that of a network with a low centrality score (Epskamp, Cramer, Waldorp, Schmittmann, & Borsboom, 2012) (see figure 7). A network with a low centrality is fragile, and thus susceptible to fragmenting if an well-connected node were to be removed. Theoretically, this suggests that a higher amount of well-connected nodes, or a higher degree of connected nodes creates a more rigid network. However, to realise this endeavour in practice, a well-organised balance between a bottom-up, and a top-down approach is required. In section 3.1 of the current paper, it was stated that empowered communities are capable of solving neighbourhood problems independently, by having been

31 delegated power from the municipality to a local level. Nevertheless, Andrews and de Vries (2007) provide the necessary particulars by specifying that an empowered community still requires opportunities to be provided, and to be supported in their capabilities. For this reason, the role of larger organisations (such as the government) is considered central. Input regarding the provision of a person with the appropriate skills, characteristics, and power is a task laid aside for these higher positions. This application of assigning an appropriate person to add to the centrality of a network also links back to the theory of community empowerment as stated by Ahmad & Abu Talib (2016) and Anjum (2001). They state that active participation of organisations helps with local development and creates a social network that can be relied on. This can be reached if relevant stakeholders are actively involved in the process (Eisen, 1994).

One way of utilising this knowledge is the following recommendation for future research: the importance of a friendly and central professional in the community’s network has been displayed, as such, it is an interesting topic to venture into the success factors of creating a fully accomplished position (i.e. ‘what makes someone the right friendly-central professional?’). Researching the aspects and values of currently successful central nodes can help work towards a best practice in this area. Currently, only aspects regarding Social Capital and Social/Institutional Factors from Jiao’s (2011) model or social entrepreneurship have been illuminated.

7.3 Conclusion To conclude, one way to combat the ever growing problem of loneliness, is by stimulating the factors that contribute to the existence and emergence of communities. And necessary to stimulate these factors, is the acknowledgement of contextual specificity, and a personal approach to undertake these contextual efforts. Current barriers that stand in the way of existing key-figures need to be reduced, and attention should be pointed towards the increment of awareness and motivation surrounding the possibilities in the neighbourhood. That these statements are not taken lightly, and interpreted correctly is of incredible importance. It has been suggested that the voluntary efforts of residents are necessary to improve the social well-being of a neighbourhood or its communities (Brennan, 2005). Subsequently, to work towards a future where social problems -especially loneliness- occur less regularly, every social policy adjustment or initiative proposed by organisations (e.g. the municipality) needs to be designed in such a way that either the residents are involved in the process, or that it is based on a method which allows for trust-building, personal and face- to-face interactions.

7.4 Strengths and limitations This section will describe some general strengths and limitation of the study, as well as shortly describe the internal and external validity of the report.

Particularly strong about this study was the additional ethnographic aspect as a result of the regular presence in the neighbourhood and the active participation in many neighbourhood activities. Due to this fact, the researcher was able to get a complete view of many of the factors in play in the neighbourhood, and as such become very aware of the context of the study. Moreover, another one of the strengths of this study is that it was performed as participatory action research (PAR). PAR entails a means of conducting research in which the study population is coparticipant, and the received data is put into use during the process already. It did, however, allow for confirmation bias to occur during the interviews. As the data of each previous interview was taken into account for any possible connection with the other respondents, questions that confirmed the previous findings were sometimes necessary in order to create meaningful and useful advice.

32 Furthermore, the complex and context-specific nature of this study required the researcher to continuously learn about the setting of the study. Accordingly, the type of respondents changed over time, and the line of questioning changed with it. For this reason, data from the first respondents substantially differs from the subsequently collected data. However, the broad spectrum of data collected did allow for connections that would not have been possible if the structure had been clear from the start. This clearly demonstrates the importance of the context of the setting, as well as the context of each individual respondent. For this reason, the external validity, or generalisability of this research to other settings is an interesting topic to consider. Part of the outcome of the current paper is the specificity of the context regarding all the involved actors. However, this contextual specificity being the common denominator of each of the respondents and observation does induce a generalisable claim, namely, there is no standardised procedure possible. Considering this, part of the findings of the current paper are applicable in other scenarios: the importance of the availability of a social network for instance. Furthermore, the multiple theories covered in the current paper had been established without being context bound (e.g. factors important for social entrepreneurship are also important at another place). With this in mind, it is not illogical to state that findings derived from the models are indeed generalisable to other neighbourhoods. Exceptions to this being location specific elements such as the findings regarding the local boards, initiatives and projects.

An important limitation of the study has to do with the internal validity. Most of the research process was conducted solitarily. Save for a few of the interviews that have been member checked, and some ideas discussed with involved parties, all analyses have been conducted by one researcher only. Another important limitation of the study is that the scope of the research had gone through a development during the process. Somewhere in the five month period it had become apparent that the development of a programme that would teach necessary skills for setting up initiatives did not dovetail with the needs of the people, reducing the efficiency of the prior interviews. Finally, the researcher was personally involved with the progression of some of the interviewees’ steps to endeavour becoming a key-figure. This might have influenced the objectivity in the corresponding interviews by asking more socially desirable questions and bringing up subjects, actors, and organisations that might be of value to them.

8 Recommendations 1. A continuous (research) intern in the area The set-up of this internship allowed the researcher to get extensively familiarised with, and invested in the neighbourhood. As taking part in most community activities, always working on location, and interacting with various stakeholders in the neighbourhood was part of the internship, the researcher was allowed to slowly become a very well-connected node in the local network. As the face of the researcher grew to be increasingly familiar in the neighbourhood, connecting people, organisations, and activities together became a regular part of the position. Continuously placing an intern in the neighbourhood might be able to prove beneficial in scope of social development and would be an affordable way for the municipality to support residents, since the position itself does not require any payment.

An important note for this recommendation is that it should be thought through very well as to what type of internship it is intended to be. There is a delicate balance between giving and taking from a neighbourhood, and many residents have said that they experience little to no result of research that has been done thus far (Adrian Noviar et al., 2018). To minimise the chances of creating a sense of distrust with student interns, certain considerations need to be made. The more personally the “unprofessional” residents are included, the more practical should the commission be. Participatory Action Research (PAR) lends itself fittingly to such

33 projects (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2007), when clearly embedded in the setup of the research. These type of projects would be best fit to a practically orientated knowledge institute as the HvA or place-based organisations. The task of this intern would rely on the demand of the neighbourhood or the commissioning party.

2. Local Direction Group Committees This policy recommendation is concerned with the local direction group committees (DGC). One of the most common pathways to organise something for the neighbourhood is through submitting the proposal at a local DGC. As derivable from the result section, the difficulties that residents sometimes experience in the procedure can be an impediment for the emergence of local initiatives. The mind-set of the members do not always reflect a professional approach during meetings. There should not be any room for personal interests or ideals to come forth during a meeting. Likewise should there be a general and organised division of tasks and structure.

Option A: A (perhaps mandatory) workshop that discusses the importance of an open mind, the ability to distance oneself from the subject, preparation, and the basics of group interaction for new and existing members. This will help with streamlining the expectations and has the ability to positively influence the image of the DGC.

Option B: The presence of an independent, professional, entity in the meetings. The role of this person would not be to make content-wise remarks, but to enforce objectivity within the group and be aware of the running legislation and requirements of the initiatives. Currently the neighbourhood workers are charged with a similar task, but the directions are not unambiguous.

Overall, a good practice within the field of judging residents initiatives is emphasising on the “humanity” and the overall value of the proposed initiative, rather than the amount of money it requires, meaning that an idea should be judged for its impact value instead of monetary value. Options A and B are two possible means to accomplish this goal.

3. Important notes The following bullets are not complete recommendations, but rather advice, or rules of thumbs to consider when creating and executing any projects. Ideas and projects should be based upon the following:

1. Facilitate the existence of a position that can be both a friendly face and the link to the professional world (i.e. award those who stay on the same position longer)

2. Correctly estimate the value of “Project VoorUit”. The students on location have an incredibly high potency of fulfilling the “friendly face” position as connector in the neighbourhood, as well as the link to the professional world for they actually live in the neighbourhood. Additionally, VoorUit is responsible for many of the submitted resident initiatives, and with their own activities they have the unique possibility to get beyond the closed doors of the neighbourhood.

3. Increase the exposure / knowledge of the existence of the current means to recruit volunteers (Huizen v/d Wijk, individual actors in the area). a. More signages towards the community centres (maybe a 100m radius) b. Directly inform all new residents about the how, why, and where to get in contact with facilities or actors.

34 4. Value current social initiatives and projects that have a bottom-up approach. For example “Buurtbudget Slotermeer Noordoost”, which places the resident in the drivers’ seat, and showing the behind-the-curtains process of the municipality. This allows for a sense of ownership of the involved residents, as well as an increment in understanding why promises by the municipality can sometimes take a long time.

5. Focus on the process of an initiative/project rather than outcome a. Supporting one person properly is better than helping ten ineffectively b. A policy / employee has not failed if only three people have been helped

35 9 References

Adrian Noviar, G., van Dongen, S., Hazenoot, L., Hoogendorp, J., Jang, E., de Jong, C., … Zieck, E. (2018). Community capacity in the Wildemanbuurt, Osdorp. Amsterdam. Andrews, C. W., & de Vries, M. S. (2007). High expectations, varying outcomes: Decentralization and participation in Brazil, Japan, Russia and Sweden. International Review of Administrative Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307081151 Ahmad, M. S., & Abu Talib, N. B. (2015). Empowering local communities: decentralization, empowerment and community driven development. Quality and Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014- 0025-8 Ahmad, M. S., & Abu Talib, N. B. (2016). Analysis of Community Empowerment on Projects Sustainability: Moderating Role of Sense of Community. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205- 014-0781-9 Allecijfers. (2018). Overzicht wijk Osdorp Oost. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from https://allecijfers.nl/wijk/wijk-osdorp-oost-amsterdam/ Alspach, J. A. G. (2013). Loneliness and social isolation: Risk factors long overdue for surveillance. Critical Care Nurse. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2013377 Andersson, L. (1998). Loneliness research and interventions: A review of the literature. Aging and Mental Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607869856506 Anjum, Z. H. (2001). New local government system: A step towards community empowerment? Pakistan Development Review. Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00065-4 Brennan, M. A. (2005). Volunteerism and Community Development: A Comparison of Factors Shaping Volunteer Behavior in Irish and American Communities. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF VOLUNTEER ADMINISTRATION The Journal of Volunteer Administration. Buurtwijs. (2018). Dit is Buurtwijs | buurtwijs.nl. Retrieved October 17, 2018, from https://www.buurtwijs.nl/content/dit-buurtwijs Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2014). Social relationships and health: The toxic effects of perceived social isolation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12087 Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2018). The growing problem of loneliness. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30142-9 Cacioppo, J. T., Chen, H. Y., & Cacioppo, S. (2017). Reciprocal Influences Between Loneliness and Self- Centeredness: A Cross-Lagged Panel Analysis in a Population-Based Sample of African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Adults. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217705120 Campbell, K. E., & Lee, B. A. (1992). Sources of Personal Neighbor Networks: Social Integration, Need, or Time?*. Social Forces, 70(4), 1077–1100. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/70.4.1077 Carter, B. (2015). Benefits to society of an inclusive societies approach. GSDRC. Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building Community Capacity: A Definitional Framework and Case Studies from a Comprehensive Community Initiative. Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780870122184876 Cnaan, R., & Milofsky, C. (2010). Handbook of Community Movements and Local Organizations. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Combiwel. (2018a). Hier staan we voor. Onze missie. Retrieved February 21, 2019, from https://www.combiwel.nl/missie-competenties/ Combiwel. (2018b). Huis van de Wijk t Blommetje. Retrieved February 21, 2019, from https://www.combiwel.nl/locaties/huis-van-de-wijk-blomwijckerpad/ Dagevos, J. (2005). Minderheden, armoede en sociaal-culturele integratie. Migrantenstudies. Dolberg, P., Shiovitz-Ezra, S., & Ayalon, L. (2016). Migration and changes in loneliness over a 4-year period: the case of older former Soviet Union immigrants in Israel. European Journal of Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-016-0391-2 Doyle, C., & Patel, P. (2008). Civil society organisations and global health initiatives: Problems of legitimacy.

36 Social Science and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.12.029 Eigenwijks. (2019). Regiegroep Eigenwijks. Eisen, A. (1994). Survey of Neighborhood-Based, Comprehensive Community Empowerment Initiatives. Health Education Quarterly, 21(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819402100208 El-Gohary, N. M., Osman, H., & El-Diraby, T. E. (2006). Stakeholder management for public private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.009 Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). qgraph : Network Visualizations of Relationships in Psychometric Data. Journal of Statistical Software. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i04 Essen, L. van. (2007). De 40 wijken van vogelaar. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from https://www.trouw.nl/home/de-40-wijken-van-vogelaar~ae573bbe/ Gemeente, A. (2018a). Eenzaamheid in Amsterdam. Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://www.ois.amsterdam.nl/downloads/nieuws/2018_factsheet eenzaamheid in amsterdam.pdf Gemeente, A. (2018b). Gebiedsanalyse 2017. 7 Osdorp Stadsdeel Nieuw-West. Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://www.ois.amsterdam.nl/pdf/2017_gebiedsanalyse_7.pdf Gemeente Amsterdam. (2017). Kerncijfers Amsterdam 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ois.amsterdam.nl/pdf/2017_kerncijfers.pdf Gemeente Amsterdam. (2018). Gebiedsplan 2019 Osdorp. Amsterdam. Retrieved from https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/stadsdelen/gebiedsgericht/gebiedsplannen- 2019/gebiedsplannen-nieuw/osdorp/ Gerst-Emerson, K., & Jayawardhana, J. (2015). Loneliness as a public health issue: The impact of loneliness on health care utilization among older adults. American Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302427 GGD Gezondheidsmonitor. (2016). Gezondheid in beeld: Resultaten Amsterdamse Gezondheidsmonitor 2016 Nieuw West. Amsterdam. Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research. Nursing Research, 17(4). Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/nursingresearchonline/Fulltext/1968/07000/The_Discovery_of_Grounded_ Theory__Strategies_for.14.aspx Gray, D. E. (2018). Doing Research in the Real World (4th ed.). SAGE. Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2004). Qualitative methodology and health research. Qualitative Methods for Health Research. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031152 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546 Heu, L. C., van Zomeren, M., & Hansen, N. (2018). Lonely Alone or Lonely Together? A Cultural- Psychological Examination of Individualism–Collectivism and Loneliness in Five European Countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0146167218796793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218796793 Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 Jiao, H. (2011). A conceptual model for social entrepreneurship directed toward social impact on society. Social Enterprise Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611111156600 Keijl, J. van der. (2018). Cameratoezicht voor “onveilige” Wildemanbuurt. Retrieved from https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/cameratoezicht-voor-onveilige-wildemanbuurt~a4594713/ Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2007). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In Strategies of qualitative inquiry Denzin, N. K & Lincoln, Y.S. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790600975593 Lauder, W., Sharkey, S., & Mummery, K. (2004). A community survey of loneliness. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2003.02968.x Layden, E. A., Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Cappa, S. F., Dodich, A., Falini, A., & Canessa, N. (2017).

37 Perceived social isolation is associated with altered functional connectivity in neural networks associated with tonic alertness and executive control. NeuroImage. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.050 Luo, Y., Hawkley, L. C., Waite, L. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: A national longitudinal study. Social Science and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.028 Mahmoudi Farahani, L. (2016). The Value of the Sense of Community and Neighbouring AU - Mahmoudi Farahani, Leila. Housing, Theory and Society, 33(3), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2016.1155480 Masi, C. M., Chen, H. Y., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2011). A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310377394 Maslow, A. H. (1943). a Theory of Human Motivation Theory. Psychological Review. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization,. New York: Macmillan Co. Millette, V., & Gagné, M. (2008). Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motivation and Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9079-4 Quist, J., & Vergragt, P. (2006). Past and future of backcasting: The shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.010 Scharf, T., & de Jong Gierveld, J. (2008). Loneliness in urban neighbourhoods: an Anglo-Dutch comparison. European Journal of Ageing, 5(2), 103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-008-0080-x Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201 Silk, J. (1999). The dynamics of community, place, and identity. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England. Stevens, N., & Van Tilburg, T. (2000). Stimulating friendship in later life: A strategy for reducing loneliness among older women. Educational Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1080/036012700267376 Swierstra, E. (2006). Oud Osdorp. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from http://www.dorpsraadslotenoudosdorp.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=71&Itemi d=48 Umberson, D., & Karas Montez, J. (2010). Social Relationships and Health: A Flashpoint for Health Policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383501 van Pelt, M., & Repetur, L. (2018). De sociale basis: terug van weggeweest. van Tilburg, T., & de Jong Gierveld, J. (2007). Zicht op eenzaamheid: Achtergronden, oorzaken en aanpak. Van Gorcum. VoorUit. (2019). Onze organisatie - VoorUit. Yoon, K. L., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2008). Interpreting Neutral Faces as Threatening Is a Default Mode for Socially Anxious Individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.117.3.680

38 10 Annex 1: Interview guides

Interview guide key-figure residents Praktische tips voor het interview - Neem op vanaf het begin - Hou een klok bij - Markeer de vragen - Vergeet toestemmingsverklaring niet - Vergeet het presentje niet

Introductie Ik ben een masterstudent van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. In samenwerking met de gemeente en organisaties in de buurt doe ik onderzoek op het thema van community-building. Het doel van het onderzoek is om samen met de bewoners die ik spreek uit te vinden hoe ze het best ondersteund kunnen worden in het proces van het opzetten en behouden van buurtinitiatieven. Dit wordt gedaan door interviews af te nemen en zowel de data te analyseren als het direct proberen bij te dragen aan het ontwikkelen van een soort programma die de bewoners ondersteunt.

Het interview zal ongeveer X minuten duren. Daarbij willen wij u melden dat u bij het verstrekken van informatie volledig anoniem zult blijven.

Overhandig het toestemmingsformulier Bedank de geïnterviewde voor het invullen en voor zijn/haar deelname. Heeft u er problemen mee als dit gesprek wordt opgenomen? Start opname

Probeer vragen zo te formuleren dat het ze de ruimte geeft om vanuit zichzelf, of vanuit de ander te beantwoorden

39 Human capital Doel: Uitvinden welke skills een persoon tracht te hebben, welke er ontbreken en hoe ze aan de vaardigheden zijn gekomen die ze hebben gebruikt • Zou u mij kunnen vertellen wat u voor een initiatief heeft gestart? o Kunt u mij vertellen waarom dit belangrijk was? • Wat is uw rol hierin? Doet u dit alleen? Bent u de leider? • Hoe ging het maken van het plan voor uw initiatief? o Had u hierin steun kunnen gebruiken? • Wie is er mee gaan doen met uw initiatief? En waarom was het belangrijk voor hen? • Wat moest je kunnen, en wat moest je weten om het initiatief op te stellen? (denk aan organisatorisch, communicatief, geldzaken regelen) o Waren er vaardigheden die u ontbraken? Wat heeft u geleerd nadat u het initiatief heeft opgestart? o Wat vindt u het aller belangrijkst voor anderen om te kunnen en weten? • (com-cap-building) Had u een missie en een visie? (uitleggen) o Vind u het belangrijk dat de deelnemers deze missie en visie delen? o (uit onderzoek is gebleken…) • (com-cap-building) Vindt u het belangrijk dat de mensen zich onderling een groep vormen? o Hoe zou u dit willen bereiken? o (if) zou u dit willen leren?

Desirability and feasibility: Doel: Uitvinden wat de motivatie was voor iemand om een initiatief te starten, wat de mind-set is van de persoon en of ze denken dat ze het kunnen met de huidige mind-set. En of deze persoon hier steun in wilt • Wat betekende dit initiatief voor u persoonlijk? • Wat motiveert(de) u? Wat demotiveert(de) u? • Vindt u het belangrijk dat het initiatief zich voortzet? o Waarom vindt u dat belangrijk? (peil de intentie) • Er zijn mensen die een initiatief organiseren VOOR de mensen, en er zijn mensen die een initiatief willen organiseren MET de mensen. In welke categorie ziet u zichzelf?

Social capital Doel: Uitvinden welke sociale vaardigheden, en manieren om gebruik te maken van sociale connecties iemand heeft die bijdragen aan community empowerment • Heeft u hulp gekregen van bekenden bij het opzetten van het initiatief? o Hoeveel hebben ze geholpen? o Hoe heeft u hun hulp gekregen? o Had u willen leren hoe u het beste hulp kon krijgen? • Heeft u een sociaal netwerk opgebouwd sinds u bent gestart? o Gebruikt u dit sociale netwerk in uw dagelijks leven? (privé of voor initiatief) • Als u hulp of ondersteuning nodig zou hebben (globaal) zou u dan weten bij wie u terecht kunt? o (theorie van saamhorigheid) Zou u kunnen bouwen op andere buurtbewoners / initiatiefnemers als u hulp nodig heeft? o Heeft u daar behoefte aan? • Als u nu zou verdwijnen, wat zou er dan gebeuren met uw initiatief? o Wat is daarvoor nodig?

Environmental and social factors Doel: uitzoeken welke externe factoren van invloed (kunnen) zijn op het proces van een initiatief starten. • Heeft u steun aangeboden gekregen van een organisatie bij het opzetten van uw initiatief? o Wat was de rol van deze persoon / instantie? (denk aan wat we hebben besproken: Sparren voor plannen, kennis van de regels, iemand die de moed hoog houdt) • (Tijdlijn) Was er iets waar u tegen aan liep? o Wat hadden de partijen die betrokken waren bij het proces beter kunnen doen? • (community networking) Welke organisaties of partijen kent u waar u hulp aan kunt vragen bij het opzetten van een initiatief? • Heb je advies voor de gemeente, over hoe ze een bewoner die een initiatief wil nemen het best kunt helpen, of ondersteunen?

Resident Leadership Programme • Wat zou u vinden van een soort onderwijsprogramma op een van de onderwerpen die we vandaag hebben besproken? Zou u daar aan meedoen of had u daaraan meegedaan? • Hoe had u ondersteund willen worden? • Wil je dat doen door te sparren met andere? o Wil je dat uit een boekje kunnen leren? o Van een website? o Hulpijn? o Spreekuur? o Bijeenkomsten? o Intervisiegroep? o Best practices, / ervaringsdeskundigen o Zou u hiermee willen helpen? Welk gedeelte zou u dan het belangrijkste vinden? Vaardigheden en kennis o Gebruik maken van uw netwerk o Mentale instelling o Gebruik maken van organisaties Wat zijn in het globaal barrières geweest voor het opstarten? o En voor het uitvoeren? • Wat zijn in het globaal stimulerende factoren geweest voor het opstarten? o En voor het uitvoeren? • Wat raadt u mensen die een initiatief willen starten of net zijn begonnen aan?

Einde van het interview Heeft u vragen? Heeft u op- of aanmerkingen?

Leg uit wat er met dit interview gaat gebeuren en waarvoor de data wordt gebeurt. Vraag of de geïnterviewde een samenvatting van het interview wil ontvangen. Vraag of de geïnterviewde het eindrapport wil ontvangen.

Bedank de geïnterviewde voor zijn/haar deelname en tijd. Overhandig het presentje.

41 Interview guide aspiring residents Praktische tips voor het interview - Neem op vanaf het begin - Hou een klok bij - Markeer de vragen - Vergeet toestemmingsverklaring niet - Vergeet het presentje niet

Het interview zal ongeveer X minuten duren. Daarbij willen wij u melden dat u bij het verstrekken van informatie volledig anoniem zult blijven.

Overhandig het toestemmingsformulier Bedank de geïnterviewde voor het invullen en voor zijn/haar deelname. Heeft u er problemen mee als dit gesprek wordt opgenomen? Start opname

Probeer vragen zo te formuleren dat het ze de ruimte geeft om vanuit zichzelf, of vanuit de ander te beantwoorden

42 Human capital Doel: Uitvinden welke skills een persoon tracht te hebben, welke er ontbreken en hoe ze aan de vaardigheden zijn gekomen die ze hebben gebruikt • Zou u mij kunnen vertellen wat voor een initiatief u wilt starten? o Kunt u mij vertellen waarom dit van belang is? • Wat is uw rol hierin? Doet u dit alleen? Bent u de leider? • Hoe gaat het opzetten van het plan voor uw initiatief? o Merkt u hierin belemmeringen? • Weet u wie er mee willen doen aan het initiatief? En waarom is het initiatief interessant voor hen? • Wat moet je kunnen, en wat moet je weten om een initiatief op te stellen? (denk aan organisatorisch, communicatief, geldzaken regelen) o Welke vaardigheden hoopt u te leren bij het opzetten van het initiatief? • (com-cap-building) Heeft u een missie en een visie? (uitleggen) o Vindt u het belangrijk dat de deelnemers deze missie en visie delen? ▪ (uit onderzoek is gebleken…) • (com-cap-building) Vindt u het belangrijk dat de mensen onderling een groep vormen? o Hoe zou u dit willen bereiken? o (if) Zou u dit willen leren? • Heeft u wel eens eerder zoiets gedaan? (ervaringen peilen)

Desirability and feasibility: Doel: Uitvinden wat de motivatie was voor iemand om een initiatief te starten, wat de mind-set is van de persoon en of ze denken dat ze het kunnen met de huidige mind-set • Wat betekent dit initiatief voor u persoonlijk? • Wat denkt u dat er voor nodig is om het te laten lukken? o En is dit er al? / kunt u dit? • Wat motiveert u? Wat demotiveert u? o Waarom is het belangrijk dat dit initiatief gaat lukken? • Er zijn mensen die een initiatief organiseren VOOR de mensen, en er zijn mensen die een initiatief willen organiseren MET de mensen. In welke categorie ziet u zichzelf?

Social capital Doel: Uitvinden welke sociale vaardigheden, en manieren om gebruik te maken van sociale connecties iemand heeft die bijdragen aan community empowerment • Krijgt u hulp van bekenden bij het opzetten van het initiatief? (waarom?) o In hoeverre rekent u op deze bekenden om u te helpen? o Vindt u het makkelijk om mensen om hulp te vragen? o Denkt u dat het waardevol is om te leren hoe u mensen kunt vragen u te helpen? • Hoe bereikt u de mensen die zouden kunnen deelnemen aan het initiatief? o Loopt u hierbij ergens tegen aan? • Als u hulp of ondersteuning nodig zou hebben (globaal) zou u dan weten bij wie u terecht kunt? o (theorie van saamhorigheid) Zou u kunnen bouwen op andere buurtbewoners / initiatiefnemers als u hulp nodig heeft?

43 o Heeft u daar behoefte aan? • Als u een initiatief zou hebben opgestart, en u zou ineens verdwijnen. Wat zou u dan willen dat er met de groep gebeurt? o Wat is daarvoor nodig?

Environmental and social factors Doel: uitzoeken welke externe factoren van invloed (kunnen) zijn op het proces van een initiatief starten. • Welke voorzieningen vind jij dat er moeten zijn voor bewoners die een initiatief willen opzetten o Iemand die meedenkt, motiveert, de regels kent? o Budget? o Locatie • Welke stappen denk je zelf te kunnen zetten? • Welke stappen denk je hulp van een organisatie nodig te hebben? • (community networking) Welke organisaties of partijen kent u waar u hulp aan kunt vragen bij het opzetten van een initiatief? o Wat zou de rol zijn van deze persoon / instantie? • Heb je advies voor de gemeente, over hoe ze een bewoner die een initiatief wil nemen het best kunt helpen, of ondersteunen?

Resident Leadership Programme • Wat zou u vinden van een soort onderwijsprogramma op een van de onderwerpen die we vandaag hebben besproken? • Hoe wil je ondersteund worden? o o Wil je dat doen door te sparren met andere? o Wil je dat uit een boekje kunnen leren? o Van een website? o Hulpijn? o Spreekuur? o Of anders o Bijeenkomsten? o Intervisiegroep? o Best practices, / ervaringsdeskundigen o Als er een soort onderwijsprogramma zou zijn die mensen ondersteunt in het opzetten van een initiatief, zou jij dat waardevol vinden? Zou je daar aan meedoen? o Welk gedeelte zou u dan het belangrijkste vinden? ▪ Vaardigheden en kennis ▪ Gebruik maken van uw netwerk ▪ Mentale instelling ▪ Gebruik maken van organisaties • Wat zijn in het globaal barrières geweest (voor het opstarten)? o En voor het uitvoeren? • Wat zijn in het globaal stimulerende factoren geweest voor het opstarten? o En voor het uitvoeren?

Einde van het interview Heeft u vragen? Heeft u op- of aanmerkingen? Zou ik uw telefoonnummer mogen zodat ik kan nagaan of mijn interpretatie klopt als er iets onduidelijks genoteerd staat?

Bedank de geïnterviewde voor zijn/haar deelname en tijd. Overhandig het presentje.

45 11 Annex 2: Informed consent

Informed consent verklaring

TOESTEMMINGSFORMULIER (informed consent)

Betreft: onderzoek naar gemeenschapscapaciteit en -gevoel in de Wildemanbuurt in Osdorp Amsterdam middels meerdere interviews met bewoners uit de buurt en mensen van maatschappelijke organisaties. Het uiteindelijke doel is om adviezen te kunnen geven aan de gemeente Amsterdam over hoe de gemeenschap versterkt kan worden en om maatschappelijke problemen te voorkomen/aan te pakken.

Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard, methode en doel van het onderzoek.

Ik begrijp dat: O ik mijn medewerking aan dit onderzoek kan stoppen op ieder moment en zonder opgave van reden O gegevens anoniem worden verwerkt, zonder herleidbaar te zijn tot de persoon O de opname vernietigd wordt na uitwerking van het interview Ik verklaar dat ik: O geheel vrijwillig bereid ben aan dit onderzoek mee te doen O de uitkomsten van dit interview verwerkt mogen worden in een verslag of wetenschappelijke publicatie O toestemming geef om het interview op te laten nemen door middel van een voice-recorder op een mobiele telefoon

Handtekening: ……………………………………………………………………

Naam: ………………………………………………………………………………

Datum: ………………………………………………………………………………

Onderzoeker Ik heb mondeling toelichting verstrekt over de aard, methode en doel van het onderzoek. Ik verklaar mij bereid nog opkomende vragen over het onderzoek naar vermogen te beantwoorden.

Handtekening: ……………………………………………………………………

Naam: ………………………………………………………………………………

Datum: ……………………………………………………………………………

46 12 Annex 3: Operationalisation of the framework