 Why are we researching well being well one of the main aims of the research is to bring great attention to the capacities aspirations and needs of refugees in urban areas and explore how towns and cities to be safe, productive and welcoming places to the space. And we want to understand how the social experience life in the city and compare this to the camp. And we're doing that to the lens of well being as a complement to the work on livelihoods and economies. So, where refugee and well being is researched. It does be quite narrowly defined. So, in our view of the literature, we've seen studies using indicators of basic means around health, security and shelter. And I should say there is also great investigation of mental health issues as well. But what comes across more of you this literature is that it's very much a vulnerability analysis. And we can see that this makes sense to capture the basics of survival in the early stages of an emergency and in a camp where humanitarian is responsible for supporting the basics of life. So, you know, you might just have stuff to give me to know what the gaps are so filter to hand it out. But for us it didn't seem adequate for situations of protected aspects of placement and particularly not in a city. So the idea then of this work package is to get a more rounded picture of life in the city and the camp, but particularly without urban bias looking at the city and trying to understand experience of refugees beyond focus just on mere survival. So the research comes from a place of wanting to do away from a focus on when caring maintenance and capture holistic understanding of well being so to help us think about how this place people can be supported to have this full and productive as far as possible despite the situation of exile. And I should say that when I first presented this project to somebody in a donor agency, they put their heads in their hand and said oh we have so much to think about with these RPG populations, do we have to think about well being as well do I have to add that to my list. And I actually found that quite shocking. Because I, and I, my answer was an emphatic yes, we do have to think about this, because it's, I don't think it's, we have these populations in living in cities and in camps for sometimes for decades. And rather than seeing the sort of warehouse populations that have these are maintained in a basic state of survival we should be working with them and conceptually and helping show they're fully rounded. They're fully rounded to being beings with skills, capacities and aspirations, and you can make significant contributions to society and economy as is being shown by the work package the kind of colleagues. So not just people to buy by the status by their needs and vulnerabilities. So. So there's no standard definition of well being and it's been described as a slippery concept, and has come in for serious criticism from a number of quarters. One standard thinking it's quite problematic shows problematic nature of well being as it is. It's an idea of well being very much grounded in liberal individualism, the idea that well being is owned and managed by the individual. And that can lead to some of a blinkered approach. And there are numerous other pitfalls of the problems with the concept which leads some to choose to work together to engage with it. But actually I would say that it's an attractive concept as it focuses on the achievement of positive goals, understanding what it means to have a good life and working towards that, rather than seeking to measure more negatively framed concepts such as vulnerability, marginality or poverty. And in the review our review the literature on well being, what came up. We, we quite heavily influenced by a highly critical study from the UK in development context which is run by the University of Bath in the 2000s, the well being development study that developed a holistic framework of well being through extensive field work in Ethiopia, Peru, Thailand and Bangladesh. And this framework came up with some three aspects of well being the material, relational and subjective. So what people have or don't have the material, what people can do or can't do with, with what they have or don't have. So there's building on sense capabilities approach. And what people think or feel about what they have, what they can do is subjective and the researchers at Bath are saying this was the most overlooked aspect of well being about how they were doing. And what's interesting about this approach that it hasn't been applied with primary field work in displacement context as far as we are aware. But we do think has potential to generate insights into situation displacement, particularly because of the emphasis it puts on, on place. So we've got the word, the well being development, the searches argue that well being is not a static state. It evolves and will change over time as an outcome of relationships with other people and institutions and interaction with a particular geographical location. So they seem particularly appropriate for us to build on the way to framework, given our interest in understanding the way that different locations the camp and the urban are impacting on well being. So we're going to hand over now to Dina who's going to talk to you how we developed the framework, and then on to Michael, we talked about why fail to introduce, sorry. It's quite hard to present and chair at the same time, sorry. But I think what's interesting is that we're written in place the camp and the urban and the different impacts of that, but already the issue of cases come through and some are very preliminary investigations. Forgive me, Dina and Mike. So Dina, Dr. Dina Dajani is a researcher with me in the human settlements group ID, and Dr. Michael we so you can see on the screen there who is in the University of Massello in Kenya. He's the dean of the School of Development and Strategic Studies, apologies for not introducing you. So the challenge that presented itself to us was how to translate these conceptual discussions of well being into an analytic framework to refine research questions and interpret findings. And I'd like to share with you the iterative process through which we have been doing so, which remains in progress. So when we began the project, okay, when we began the project we turned to three bodies of literature and policy the first were studies well being within first migration studies. The second, and they, these remain quite limited in number and singular studies, but so very important for highlighting generating insights into specific issues of well being for this list of relations. So the first literature was a well being development literature which you see also built on and these were a range of studies and research as well as frameworks that they developed. And then the third were well being in this is developed by national governments largely in the global north, who have been increasingly measuring quality of life through this concept of well being. So this I showed us was the breadth of schemes associated with well being like unity said, very little consistent agreement literature on how well they should be interpreted. I'd like to clarify that we were not trying to create some universal old encompassing definition of well being following Sarah White's invocation that the breadth of well being themes does not go for standard darization, but to recognition of how well being is specific to places and spaces and generated through them. So on these three bodies of literature and policy, the first framework we came up with was this. No. There's something missing. Oh, there we go. This one. Thank you. So this is the first framework we came up with. And as you see, we, the argument here is that well being is constituted politically economically socially and bodily. What we did was map out the themes we found in the literature around those sorts of constitutive elements of well being. And so then, while this initial framework helps us to find the research questions for our methods. Our next step was not to try to apply this framework to all our research context and understand how they are different to each, but instead. So moving on. Sorry, thank you. Instead, we were driven by an epistemological inquiry to develop with the framework through the research itself, or what we can call listening. Before this, this is a multi-method project. So we've got four methods that could be survey that were mentioned by our colleagues. There's also semi-structured interviews, key interviews. But we started with very open focus groups that we call concept generating focus groups. And these concepts generating focus groups we had so far in four out of our eight research contexts, 14 focus groups all in on with each participants. And what they are are very open-ended discussions that allow participants to bring forward their own definitions and understandings of well-being to identify well-being priorities of participants and capture how much participants have access to these priorities and how much capacity they have to act on them. So through these focus groups we return to the framework, and now this is what it looks like. I'm sorry if it's too small, but just the basic structure is the same for constitutive elements politically, socially, oops, politically, socially economic and bodily well-being. But as you see it's also quite different. So the well-being priorities that participants themselves put forward were actually really interesting because they were not recognised in the well-being literature, such as family reunification here, which was put under social well-being, but also mobility, which you see in red, which kept on coming up everywhere, has been absolutely central to this place well-being. And this centrality seemed to us quite striking, quite precisely because of its absence in humanitarian and development literature on the needs of forced migrants. So to speak more about this, I'm turning over to my colleague. Well, thank you, Dina. As already mentioned by Dina, mobility as you know, emerge frequently in the discussions around the other themes. And as we can see from the framework there, marked in red, it seems to appear almost every, around every other theme. So unlike the other themes such as, for example, healthcare, there seems where there's quite some convergence between different places and groups, there was, you know, a wider range of meanings associated with mobility across the different groups. If you can move the slide. Which one? Which slide you want? Mobility. So can you just, can you go through until we get to you? Yeah, thanks. Just one more slide. Yep. No, no, this is the second actually. This is the one before it. We've got the first mobility. So, generally speaking, the, you know, three meanings of mobility seems to emerge out of the field work. And the first meaning that came through was our conception of mobility was mobility as containment. And here, for example, we see displaced people in the dub saying that we refugees say, we say we are in a cell that is open to the upper part. And in the dub again, they continue to say, for example, that refugees believe that camps are present. So, bringing out this meaning of, you know, containment that refugees particularly in the dub, because of the encampment policy, they view mobility as related to this concept of containment. There was also the second conception or meaning of mobility as crossing over. And here, refugees, displaced people saw the opportunity to cross over to make a change in life. And the opportunity to, for example, move from one estate to the next, that is, is called comparably relatively expensive compared to the next one. And so this, this cross over. This has crossed as moved from one side of life to the, to the other and can now be able to, you know, sustain himself. And because of the wealth that they have gained out of that. It also meant that, you know, one has moved up in status and now can afford can afford can afford things. If if if they were able to afford two meals a day, which is the case usually crossing over meant that they could now probably afford three meals a day by virtue of living in the next neighborhood. So there's this quote by by by one participant from the horseman's focus group, which say that he has moved from Madari to easily, and now, and now lives in an estate or get a community from living in a school alive. This is a relatively poor neighborhood compared to easily and so by moving to easily the next neighborhood, then the participants saw themselves as having crossed over. Next slide. And then there was mobility as laser. And two, two, two, two, two participants in that that for example, the laser is very important. You know, we, this court says that laser is very important we do not have places to go for laser. We cannot even go beyond the dub town. Another participant in barricade, for example, says that a car so so that we could go sightseeing as well as to weddings. Another participant also in barricades, saying that even we cannot go outside of home when we don't have money. So mobility as laser here, I'm meaning that the fact that you can be able to afford. To afford this extras in life meant meant that you're doing better, you're doing well. And now hand over to Lucy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for your work and some concluding thoughts and clearly this is a work in progress and I think we'll be carrying on refining the framework as we get into the quantitative phase of our research. And perhaps what seemed obvious to state that a person's location will have an impact on their well being tech, particularly when they've had no choice but to leave that place of origin and then have limited choice of where to settle in countries within the container and deny the people to leave that place and also something emerging in our, in our piloting of our concept tool. And there's also the lack of mobility even for refugees in Nairobi as well who are fearful of leaving easily because of their documentation or even harassment by the by the police and then mobility around the city is constrained. The location will have an impact on all sorts of other factors, closely stated with broad understanding of well being so you're going to have to form social networks to engage critically opportunities for income generation. This is as though these broad aspects of well being and how they produce by a person's engaging with the place around them don't seem to be a significant point of inquiry in in refugee interstatement studies at the moment. So I just, you know, I don't have any answers these questions but I've been asking myself so why are conceptualizations of well being in research with a state of also narrow, particularly in an area where there's potential for much greater quality of life. So if you're wondering what why this is, is it that we don't see refugees and IDPs as city residents so we don't believe they should care about these broader issues in their classes refugees. Is there, is there well being measured in terms of basic survival and not as a human with aspirations. Humanitarian research is driven by humanitarian organizations who have a limited understanding of what it means to have a good life in the city, or they're conditioned by the types of services they would provide an account and what they feel capable of providing a city. Is it that we don't know what to do with the answers that just maybe we might give us given national policy constraints and restrictions for the right to work. Or is it that humanitarian agencies of funding and promoting so much research of this research is they don't know what to do with the answers as they lack people to operate effectively in the space and to engage with municipal authorities and other local actors. And so these are just some questions. But then we do think that understanding the space is a relationship to place and how impacts on the well being is critical to inform efforts to create more inclusive cities.