Liveability is a term widely used in literature, but there does not appear to be a consensus around its definition. This is a problem for the water management sector who are increasingly extending the articulation of their services to capture the liveability value of water in the urban landscape. Recognising that liveability is a dynamic and multi-dimensional concept, this paper seeks to explore the differences in meaning found in the literature and highlight the context that drives them. Specifically, we ask: How has academic scholarship and broader non-academic literature conceptualised liveability and how has it been interpreted in the context of urban water management? To answer this question we conducted a systematic review of academic and non-academic literature, identified attributes of liveability found therein, and looked for commonalities among different groups.

The results show that conceptualisations of liveability differ between academic and non-academic literature but transport and connectedness emerge as central liveability themes in both. Interpretations of liveability within urban water management, on the other hand, focus primarily on the role of water in enhancing public greenspace often in the context of stormwater management and water governance.

This paper contributes to the understanding of liveability, by identifying commonly used liveability attributes and discussing possible drivers of divergent conceptualisations of liveability: influence of policy, institutional logics of research, and growing interest in technical and engineering fields. We also discuss how distinct conceptualisation of liveability within urban water management can be attributed to the changes in water governance and its role in enhancing public greenspace. Collectively, this suggests that more critical understanding of liveability is needed - one which recognises the heterogeneity of different conceptualisations and the external and internal context that drives them.

宜居性是文学中广泛使用的一个术语，但围绕它的定义似乎尚未达成共识。对于水管理部门来说，这是一个问题，他们正越来越多地扩展其服务的衔接，以获取城市景观中水的宜居性价值。认识到宜居性是一个动态的，多维的概念，本文旨在探索文献中含义的差异，并强调驱动它们的上下文。具体来说，我们要问：学术奖学金和更广泛的非学术文献如何将宜居性概念化，以及如何在城市水管理的背景下对其进行解释？为了回答这个问题，我们对学术和非学术文献进行了系统回顾，确定了其中的宜居性，

结果表明，宜居性的概念在学术和非学术文献之间有所不同，但交通和联系成为这两者的中心宜居性主题。另一方面，对城市水管理中的宜居性的解释主要集中在经常在雨水管理和水治理的背景下，水在增强公共绿地中的作用。

本文通过识别常用的宜居性属性并讨论宜居性不同概念化的可能驱动因素，从而促进了对宜居性的理解：政策的影响，研究的制度逻辑以及对技术和工程领域的日益增长的兴趣。我们还将讨论如何将城市水管理中宜居性的独特概念归因于水治理的变化及其在增强公共绿地中的作用。总体而言，这表明需要对宜居性进行更严格的理解-认识到不同概念的异质性以及驱动它们的外部和内部环境。