1. Joint CIBW099 & TG59 Conference
An integrative literature review of critical liveability indicators in urban transport infrastructure planning
Chioma Okoro
Innocent Musonda
Justus Agumba
Joint CIBW099 & TG59 Conference
Cape Town, South Africa
11 – 13 June, 2017

2. Contents Introduction Objective Methods Summary of findings
Discussion & Conclusion

3. Introduction
Although urban transport developments have positive impacts, negative effects on the environment and the citizens have been reported.
Such developments should satisfy residents by meeting their economic, social, and cultural needs, while promoting their wellbeing, and overall quality of life, and thus ensuring liveability.

4. Introduction (2) Extant literature focused on:
liveability and sustainability as a whole (Faiz et al. 2012; National League of Cities 2013; Gough 2015);
sustainability principles with scant attention to liveability aspects (Boarnet 2008);
liveability and road development in rural areas (Faiz et al., 2012);

5. Introduction (3)
liveability and sustainability principles during management and operations (Grant et al., 2012).
The current study focuses on liveability considerations for urban transport planning and identifies the level of attention given to them in literature

6. Figure 1: Liveable transport network (Source: US Department of Transportation)

7. Objective
To identify urban liveability indicators focused on in previous studies, and the level of attention given to them over a specified period of time.

8. Methods (1) Detailed and integrative literature review
Keywords - liveability, sustainability, transport infrastructure, wellbeing, used in combination with considerations, criteria, indicators
Databases – Taylor & Francis, ASCE, Google Scholar, Google, Scopus, Science Direct and Academic Search Complete.

9. Methods (2)
Materials - journal articles, conference papers, newspaper articles, book chapters, organisations’ web articles, and theses
Period covered - a 15-year period, from to 2017
Criteria - possession of any of the keywords and related areas
Analysis - Thematic analysis and ranking (level of attention)

10. Summary of findings (1)
Table 1: Identified liveability indicators (from 24 articles)
Liveability indicators
Freq.
% freq.
Rank
Years represented
Pollution (noise and air quality) 11 46 1
2007,2008,2009,2011,2012,2013,2015,2016
Mobility/walkability/connectivity/accessi-bility 9 38 2
2009,2011,2012,2013,2016
Efficiency and effectiveness 8 33 3
2009,2011,2012,2015,2016
Safety and security 7 29 4

11. Summary of findings (2) Table 2: Identified liveability indicators (from 24 articles)
Freq.
% freq.
Rank
Years represented
Reliability/travel time reduction 7 29 4
2002,2008,2009,2011,2012,2015
Integration of facilities 5 21 6
2002,2010,2013,2016
Comfort and convenience
2009,2012,2013,2016
Availability of alternative transport modes 16 8
2011,2012,2016

12. Summary of findings (3)
Table 3: Identified liveability indicators (from 24 articles)
Liveability indicators
Freq.
% freq.
Rank
Years represented
Streetscape/Journey ambience 3 13 9
2011,2012,2015
Economic vitality/business environment
2011,2012,2016
Residents’ satisfaction and migration/relocation 2 8 11
2011,2016

13. Figure 2: Percentage frequency of identified liveability criteria

14. Discussion and Conclusion (1)
Pollution and mobility/ accessibility/ connectivity/ walkability ranked first and second, respectively, suggesting that health is given a great deal of attention, in addition to the primary movement function of transport infrastructure.

15. Discussion and Conclusion (2)
Residents’ satisfaction ranked the least, suggesting that they were not given more attention in literature and especially in older literature; thus showing the trend/direction of research concerns in recent times (2011 & 2016).

16. Thank you!
Thank you