environments are understood as key drivers of Wellbeing. This prioritizes an integrated, or relational, approach to urban places and health equity, including population
differences in Wellbeing. Central to this relational approach is the idea that place
matters – that our health and wellbeing are shaped by the characteristics of the settings
where we live and work, and these environments are in turn shaped by our healthrelated actions and behaviours. Several recent studies have highlighted this important
dynamic. Using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging, Hamer and
Shankar [7] found that individuals who hold more negative perceptions of their
neighbourhood report less positive Wellbeing, and experience a greater decline in
Wellbeing over time.
Of course, place itself can have a profound impact on our Wellbeing.
3.1 Urban Resilience and Wellbeing
In PULSE, we contextualize wellbeing within a model of urban resilience:
Urban resilience refers to the ability of an urban system - and all its constituent
socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spatial scales – to
maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to
change, and to quickly transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capacity.
In this definition, urban resilience is dynamic and offers multiple pathways to resilience
(e.g., persistence, transition, and transformation). It recognizes the importance of
temporal scale, and advocates general adaptability rather than specific adaptedness. The
urban system is conceptualized as complex and adaptive, and it is composed of socioecological and socio-technical networks that extend across multiple spatial scales.
Resilience is framed as an explicitly desirable state and, therefore, should be negotiated
among those who enact it empirically.
Resilient urban neighborhoods can be broadly defined as those that have lower than
expected premature mortality (measured via the Urban Health Indicators).
In PULSE, we define Urban Wellbeing as an integral component of Urban Resilience. Urban Wellbeing, in this context, refers to the individual traits and capacities to
prepare for, respond to, and recover from the personal and interpersonal challenges
encountered in cities. These challenges could include experiences of bias and exclusion, on the one hand, and exposure to under-resourced or polluted environments, on
the other. Each of these challenges is associated with physiological and psychological
stress at the individual and community level. Stress is, of course, antithetical to
Wellbeing. Translating this concepts into data constructs two main instruments are
available into PULSE architecture: the risk assessment models, previously described
and the urban maps.
3.2 Urban Maps
The physical environment, socio-economic and cultural conditions, urban planning,
available public or private services and leisure facilities are some of the factors that can
have an effect on a person’s health. Hence, an interest in the study of geographical
patterns of health-related phenomena has increased in recent years. Within this context,
maps have been demonstrated to be a useful tool for showing the spatial distribution of
428
D. Vito et al.
differences in Wellbeing. Central to this relational approach is the idea that place
matters – that our health and wellbeing are shaped by the characteristics of the settings
where we live and work, and these environments are in turn shaped by our healthrelated actions and behaviours. Several recent studies have highlighted this important
dynamic. Using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging, Hamer and
Shankar [7] found that individuals who hold more negative perceptions of their
neighbourhood report less positive Wellbeing, and experience a greater decline in
Wellbeing over time.
Of course, place itself can have a profound impact on our Wellbeing.
3.1 Urban Resilience and Wellbeing
In PULSE, we contextualize wellbeing within a model of urban resilience:
Urban resilience refers to the ability of an urban system - and all its constituent
socio-ecological and socio-technical networks across temporal and spatial scales – to
maintain or rapidly return to desired functions in the face of a disturbance, to adapt to
change, and to quickly transform systems that limit current or future adaptive capacity.
In this definition, urban resilience is dynamic and offers multiple pathways to resilience
(e.g., persistence, transition, and transformation). It recognizes the importance of
temporal scale, and advocates general adaptability rather than specific adaptedness. The
urban system is conceptualized as complex and adaptive, and it is composed of socioecological and socio-technical networks that extend across multiple spatial scales.
Resilience is framed as an explicitly desirable state and, therefore, should be negotiated
among those who enact it empirically.
Resilient urban neighborhoods can be broadly defined as those that have lower than
expected premature mortality (measured via the Urban Health Indicators).
In PULSE, we define Urban Wellbeing as an integral component of Urban Resilience. Urban Wellbeing, in this context, refers to the individual traits and capacities to
prepare for, respond to, and recover from the personal and interpersonal challenges
encountered in cities. These challenges could include experiences of bias and exclusion, on the one hand, and exposure to under-resourced or polluted environments, on
the other. Each of these challenges is associated with physiological and psychological
stress at the individual and community level. Stress is, of course, antithetical to
Wellbeing. Translating this concepts into data constructs two main instruments are
available into PULSE architecture: the risk assessment models, previously described
and the urban maps.
3.2 Urban Maps
The physical environment, socio-economic and cultural conditions, urban planning,
available public or private services and leisure facilities are some of the factors that can
have an effect on a person’s health. Hence, an interest in the study of geographical
patterns of health-related phenomena has increased in recent years. Within this context,
maps have been demonstrated to be a useful tool for showing the spatial distribution of
428
D. Vito et al.