The well-being of mobility

Author/s Oscar Azzimonti, Simone Caiello, Luca Daconto, Matteo Colleoni
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2019/2
Language Italian Pages 10 P. 57-66 File size 226 KB
DOI 10.3280/WE2019-002005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Wellbeing and quality of life are multidimensional concepts. Several factors influence them, including socio-economic, psycho-physical, relational and environmental elements. This pa-per aims at highlighting the close connection between wellbeing and mobility, and at putting forward some relevant indicators for urban and territorial policies, starting from those ones already defined in the ISTAT BES report. Mobility will be therefore analysed as a direct (e.g., on mental and physical health) and indi-rect (as a means to access services, relations, opportunities) factor for generating wellbeing. Furthermore, in a bi-directional optic, this paper will underline the role of wellbeing for en-hancing mobility, by adopting the concept of motility or mobility capital.

Keywords: Wellbeing; mobility; motility; sustainability; indicators.

  1. Oishi S., Koo M. and Buttrick N.R. (2018). The socioecological psychology of upward social mobility. American Psychologist, 74(7): 751-763.
  2. Colleoni M. (2019). Mobilità e trasformazioni urbane. La morfologia delle metropoli contemporanee. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  3. Colleoni M., Caiello S. e Daconto L. (2017). Walkability e accessibilità urbana. In: Focus su mobilità pedonale in città. XIII Rapporto sulla qualità dell’ambiente urbano. Stato dell’ambiente 75. ISPRA.
  4. Daconto L. (2017). Città e accessibilità alle risorse alimentari. Una ricerca sugli anziani a Milano. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  5. Dijst M.J. and Kwan M.P. (2002). Accessibility and quality of life: Time-geographic perspectives. In: Donaghy K., Poppelreuter S. and Rudinger G., editors, Social Dimensions of Sustainable Transport: Transatlantic Perspectives, pp. 109-126.
  6. Dupuy G. (1999). La dépendance automobile: Symptômes, analyses, diagnostic, traitements. Paris: Anthropos.
  7. Edwards P. and Tsouros A.D. (2006). Promoting physical activity and active living in urban environments: the role of local governments. WHO Regional Office Europe.
  8. EEA (2017). Air quality in Europe. Copenhagen, No 13. Luxembourg: European Environment Agency.
  9. EEA (2016). Transitions towards a more sustainable mobility system, No 34. Luxembourg: European Environment Agency.
  10. Frank L.D., Sallis J.F., Conway T.L., Chapman J.E., Saelens B.E. and Bachman W. (2006). Many Pathways from Land Use to Health. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1): 75-87.
  11. Freeman L. (2001). The effects of sprawl on neighborhood social ties: An explanatory analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1): 69-77.
  12. Gehl J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.
  13. Gwiazdzinski L. (2005). La Nuit, dernière frontière de la ville. La Tour d’Aigues: l’Aube.
  14. Handy S.L., Boarnet M.G., Ewing R. and Killingsworth R.E. (2002). How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2, Supplement 1): 64-73. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00475-0
  15. Indovina F., a cura di (2009). Dalla città diffusa all’arcipelago metropolitano. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  16. ISTAT (2018). Il benessere equo e sostenibile in Italia. Roma: Istituto nazionale di statistica.
  17. Jacobs J. (1969). Vita e morte delle grandi città: Saggio sulle metropoli americane. Torino: Einaudi.
  18. Kaufmann V., Bergman M.M. and Joye D. (2004). Motility: Mobility as capital. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4): 745-756.
  19. Kenyon S., Lyons G. and Rafferty J. (2002). Transport and social exclusion: Investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(3): 207-219. DOI: 10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00012-1
  20. Litman T. (2003). Economic Value of Walkability. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1828: 3-11. DOI: 10.3141/1828-01
  21. Perkins D.D. and Long D.A. (2002). Neighborhood Sense of Community and Social Capital. In: Fisher A.T., Sonn C.C., Bishop B.J., editors, Psychological Sense of Community, New York: Springer.
  22. Putnam R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. In: Crothers L. and Lockhart C., editors, Culture and Politics: A Reader, pp. 223-234. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-62397-6_12
  23. Tilt J.H., Unfried T.M. and Roca B. (2007). Using objective and subjective measures of neighborhood greenness and accessible destinations for understanding walking trips and BMI in Seattle, Washington. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21(4_suppl): 371-379.
  24. Urry J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  25. Urry J. (2004). The ‘system’of automobility. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4-5): 25-39.
  26. Vitrano C., Ferrario M. e Colleoni M. (2019). Rischi di segregazione temporale nella città poliritmica: il caso della mobilità notturna delle donne tra nuove esigenze di spostamento e percezione della sicurezza. Bollettino Della Società Geografica Italiana, 1(2): 139-150.

Oscar Azzimonti, Simone Caiello, Luca Daconto, Matteo Colleoni, Il benessere della mobilità in "WELFARE E ERGONOMIA" 2/2019, pp 57-66, DOI: 10.3280/WE2019-002005