The paper addresses the growing interest in understanding the relationship between urban environments and human well-being, particularly concerning the mental health impact of city dwelling. While research exists on the effects of urban environments on behavior, cognitive processes, and specific emotions, productive collaboration between behavioral scientists and humanities scholars on urban emotions and stress remains limited. The authors pose the central question: How do cities impact people's well-being, emotional stimulation, and mental health? They propose that a biosocial approach combining biological and social sciences is needed to tackle this global mental health challenge. The rapid development of wearable "emotion sensors" and biosensors has accelerated this potential, offering opportunities for Citizen Science research. However, the paper acknowledges potential dystopian futures where self-tracking leads to increased control and surveillance, raising concerns about the ethical and political implications of data collection and ownership.

The literature review examines existing research on urban emotions and stress from various disciplines. It highlights studies tracking emotional responses to specific urban environments and the mental health impact of city dwelling. Studies using biosensors to measure stress indicators like heart rate and skin conductance are reviewed, along with research exploring the effects of urban upbringing and city living on biological stress response mechanisms. The review also discusses psychological theories of stress, focusing on appraisal theories, and the use of biomarkers such as cortisol and fMRI in neuroscience research to assess stress response. Finally, it incorporates perspectives from health geography, cultural geography, and urban planning, showing the diverse ways stress and emotions are conceptualized and measured in these fields. The review sets the stage for discussion of the challenges of integrating these different perspectives within a Citizen Social Science framework.

The paper details a mixed-method study of workplace and commuter stress for university employees in Birmingham (UK) and Salzburg (Austria). This study involved 31 participants and used a combination of: (1) Biosensing (Empatica wristband) to gather real-time physiological data; (2) Paper activity diaries to track participants' daily activities; (3) Two questionnaires (WHOQOL-BREF and PSS) to assess wellbeing and perceived stress; and (4) In-depth interviews to capture qualitative insights on participants' experiences of stress. The study did not aggregate individual data, instead focusing on the temporalities, spatialities, and psychophysiologies of individual "moments of stress." The authors emphasized the importance of combining quantitative biosensing data with qualitative data from interviews and questionnaires to obtain a comprehensive understanding of stress and its various dimensions. They discuss the ethical considerations and data privacy measures implemented during this study.

The mixed-methods analysis explored spatio-temporal differences in stress. It investigated the influence of commute duration and type, differences between the two cities, and differences between journeys to and from work, and during the workday. The research revealed that integrating biosensing data with qualitative data allowed for a deeper understanding of the individual participants' experiences of stress, including subjective interpretations of their physical and emotional states. The study illustrated how social determinants of stress, such as economic inequality and perceived injustice, can influence an individual's stress response. Qualitative data from interviews offered valuable insights into participants' coping mechanisms, appraisal of stressors, and the impact of past experiences on current stress responses. The study highlighted that the act of wearing the biosensor encouraged self-reflection on embodied responses to stress and enabled richer qualitative data through interviews. It exemplified that combining biosensing data with qualitative methods provides a more nuanced understanding of urban stress and individual experiences compared to solely relying on physiological data.

The findings demonstrate the potential of a mixed-methods Citizen Social Science approach to researching urban stress. The integration of biosensing with qualitative data addresses the limitations of solely physiological measures by incorporating individual perspectives and experiences. The study showcased how social contexts, individual appraisals, and personal histories significantly shape the experience of urban stress. The discussion emphasizes the need to move beyond a purely reductionist approach to understanding urban stress, which focuses primarily on physical environmental factors. The study underscores the importance of considering the social determinants of health, individual coping mechanisms, and subjective interpretations of stress in creating effective interventions to promote wellbeing. The authors highlight that solely focusing on individual-level data risks neglecting the collective actions required to address systemic urban challenges contributing to stress.

The study concludes that developing interdisciplinary Citizen Social Science methods requires attention to how urban stress is framed across different scientific perspectives and public life. The research challenges the idea that urban problems are solely solved through technological solutions and points out the potential unintended consequences of individualised digital interventions. Advancing democratic forms of Citizen Social Science can foreground collective action necessary to improve urban well-being. The paper advocates for future studies to prioritise data protection, security, and participant ownership, along with participatory commitments.

The study's relatively small sample size limits the generalizability of its findings. The participant pool comprised university employees, potentially lacking representation of other demographic groups and their unique experiences with urban stress. The study's focus on two specific cities might not be representative of other urban contexts. The reliance on self-reported data, while enriched by qualitative interviews, still presents the potential for biases and inaccuracies.