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

Contents Introduction Objective Methods Summary of findings Discussion & Conclusion

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.

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);

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

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

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.

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.

Methods (2) Materials - journal articles, conference papers, newspaper articles, book chapters, organisations’ web articles, and theses Period covered - a 15-year period, from 2002 to 2017 Criteria - possession of any of the keywords and related areas Analysis - Thematic analysis and ranking (level of attention)

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

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

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

Figure 2: Percentage frequency of identified liveability criteria

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.

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).

Thank you! Thank you