See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277970314

Challenges and opportunities for participatory planning approaches within

Dubai’s urban context

Article in Journal of Urbanism International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability · May 2015
DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2015.1045924

CITATIONS READS

34 6,581

2 authors:

Khaled Alawadi Sarah Dooling

Khalifa University 14 PUBLICATIONS 918 CITATIONS
36 PUBLICATIONS 578 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Khaled Alawadi on 19 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Khaled Alawadi]
On: 19 May 2015, At: 23:15
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Urbanism: International Research

on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjou20

Challenges and opportunities for

participatory planning approaches within
Dubai’s urban context
ab c
Khaled Alawadi & Sarah Dooling
a
Engineering Systems and Management, Sustainable Critical Infrastructure
Program, Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE
b
College of Engineering, Architecture Engineering Department, UAE
University, UAE
c
Click for updates School of Architecture & The Environmental Science Institute, Community
and Regional Planning, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Published online: 19 May 2015.

To cite this article: Khaled Alawadi & Sarah Dooling (2015): Challenges and opportunities for participatory
planning approaches within Dubai’s urban context, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on
Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2015.1045924

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1045924

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
 distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015
 Journal of Urbanism, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1045924

Challenges and opportunities for participatory planning approaches

within Dubai’s urban context
Khaled Alawadia,b* and Sarah Doolingc
a
Engineering Systems and Management, Sustainable Critical Infrastructure Program, Masdar Institute
of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE; bCollege of Engineering, Architecture Engineering
Department, UAE University, UAE; cSchool of Architecture & The Environmental Science Institute,
Community and Regional Planning, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Dubai has been in the midst of a profound physical transformation, radically affecting
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

the lives of residents and newcomers. Within US and European models of planning, the
rapid change Dubai is experiencing calls for public involvement in charting the city’s
future. However, Dubai’s neo-patrimonial governance concentrates planning decisions
into the hands of trusted elites, lacking public participation. How might a participatory
approach to planning be successfully implemented in Dubai? First, this article applies
Delphi to obtain experts’ knowledge about the feasibility of implementing a participa-
tory planning approach in Dubai. Second, the first author interviewed government offi-
cials to identify constraints for implementing strategies intended to widen public
participation. Last, recommendations for the implementation of a more transparent
approach to planning are provided. The article concludes with questions that explore
the challenges associated with participation in planning decision-making specifically
for neo-patrimonial systems.
Keywords: public participation; sustainable development; governance; neo-patrimonial

Background on Dubai
Introduction
Dubai is located in the Arabian Peninsula, on the southern part of the Arabian Gulf, and is
one of the seven emirates that form the United Arab Emirate (UAE) federation system.
Dubai is the UAE’s most developed and urbanized city, and claims the nation’s largest
number of expatriates. Figures from 2010 indicate that Dubai’s population included
183,600 UAE nationals, 1,195,300 resident expatriates, and 536,100 foreign laborers
(Dubai, 2020 Urban Master Plan 2011). Over the last 25 years Dubai has transformed
dramatically from a small fishing village to a global center. The city has experienced
excessive population growth and developmental pressure. It has grown from 276,000
(1980) people to almost 2 million today. Land area has also expanded from 84 km2 (1980)
to more than 931 km2 in 2012 (Dubai 2020 Urban Master Plan: A Smart Approach to
Sustainable & Competent Urban Planning for 2020 2011; Structural Plan Team: Parsons-
HBA, Inc. 1995) (Figure 1). Many factors have contributed to this rapid urbanization,
including: (1) prosperity from oil revenues in the 1970s; (2) real estate speculation in the
mid-1990s; (3) the availability of financing through banks and foreign investments; (4) an
accumulation of large quantities of private wealth; and (5) the city’s traditional, centralized
approach to planning decisions about future developments.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

Dubai's urban expansion (1980-2012)

1000 931.6
900

Urban areas (Km2)

800
700
600
500
400
300 220
200 149.3
84
100
0
1980 1993 2002 2012
Year
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

Dubai's population growth(1980-2012)

2,500,000
2,194,600

2,000,000 1,847,100

1,436,100
Population

1,500,000

1,046,600
1,000,000
674,000

500,000 276,000

0
1980 1993 1998 2003 2008 2012
Year

Figure 1. Dubai’s urban and population growth, 1980–2012.

Sources: Dubai, 2020 Urban Master Plan 2011; Structure Plan Team: Parsons-HBA, Inc. 1995.

This research explores the limits and opportunities for implementing participatory
forms of planning within Dubai’s political structure. Particularly, the authors ask: Could
participatory planning approaches be successfully accepted and implemented in Dubai?
And what are some challenges, limitations, and opportunities for implementing a public
participation project in the planning of Dubai?

Dubai’s urban evolution

The rapid expansion of Dubai transformed the city from a small port and fishing village
into a global city. This growth is seen in size, territory, manifestation, and urban morphol-
ogy. The literature about Dubai indicates that the city underwent four fundamental phases
of urban expansion: the first phase extended from 1900 to 1955, the second from 1955 to
1970, the third from 1970 to the 1990s, and the fourth from 1995 to present (AlShafiei
1997; Elsheshtawy 2004).
 Journal of Urbanism 3

The first stage of growth (1900–55) revealed an outline of slow and partial physical
expansion due to constrained economic activities and trivial growth in population. Until
1955 the urban area did not surpass 3.2 km2 and the land use was roughly residential with
limited commercial zones. The second stage of Dubai’s urbanism (1955–70) is described
as a compact development. In 1955 the population of Dubai reached 56,000. Exactly one
decade later, a British architect named John Harris designed a master plan (lacking any
planning experience), which subsequently guided the location of development projects
until the discovery of oil in 1969 (Drawn in the Sand 2007; Gabriel 1987).
In the third stage of urban expansion (1970–90s), Dubai underwent what scholars call
‘planned suburban growth,’ a period of rapid expansion (AlShafiei 1997). The urban areas
in this phase increased from 18 km2 in 1971 to 84 km2 in 1980 and then to 149.3 km2 in
1993 (Parsons-HBA, Inc. 1995). In this stage, Dubai followed the post-World War II
North American model of urbanism, described by low-density and disconnected street pat-
terns surrounded by freeways and interchanges. The availability of economic resources
from oil spurned growth during this period. Specifically, the government focused on major
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

infrastructural projects. In fact, Harris introduced a new master plan that called for infras-
tructure and mobility (Elsheshtawy 2004; Gabriel 1987; Ramos 2010).
The fourth phase of Dubai’s urbanization started in 1995 and continues to this day. In
this stage, Dubai took many fundamental decisions in order to emerge as a global hub.
Some observers argue that the key purpose of this phase served to build the base toward
modernity, fame, and globalization (Davidson 2008; Elsheshtawy 2004, 2013; Ramos
2010). Despite the great contribution of oil wealth in city development during the 1970s
and 1980s, oil played a minor role in the 1990s as the government diversified its economic
base in the areas of real estate, tourism, hospitality, logistic services, leisure, and entertain-
ment. This pattern can be associated with what Davidson (2008) claims: the ‘old rentiers,’
whose capital and prosperity emanated from the oil industries, became the ‘new rentiers,’
engrossed in various facilities associated with the global city structure (e.g. logistics, real
estate, finance, tax-free zones, flexible trade flows) (quoted in Ramos 2010, 131).

Modern Dubai: futuristic with global orientation

Several components are involved in the rapid development of Dubai and its booming
economy and glittering image:

• Dubai’s strategic location in an oil-producing Gulf state, between Asia and Europe,
turned the city into a desired free market space and major player in the global econ-
omy (Elsheshtawy 2004, 2013).
• Dubai’s liberal political approach to business and tolerant social environment, where
foreigners are widely accepted, made the city a desirable destination to many inves-
tors around the world1 (Bagaeen 2007; Elsheshtawy 2004, 2008; Hellyer 2014;
Machado 2006).
• The establishment of the tax-free enclaves, which originally began in the mid-1970s
when Dubai commissioned the Jebel Ali Free Zone, eventually boosted a series of
specialized free-trade zones, high-tech clusters, and privatized housing projects
(Davidson 2008; Davis 2006; Ramos 2010).
• The blend of political centralization, unregulated markets and capital flow, and
relaxed planning regulations that accelerated and intensified projects due to lack of
local resistance to policy-making and project implementation (Al-Masri 2008; Hvidt
2009; Kanna 2011; Ramos 2010).
 4 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

• The emergence of political and economic bonds between government and private
sectors broadened the speculation and replication of projects (Hvidt 2006, 2009;
Kanna 2011).
• The promotion of freehold ownership of certain properties to regional and interna-
tional consumers (which dates back to 2002) increased the number of projects by
nearly 64% in 2005 (Bagaeen 2007).
• The marketing of Dubai as a safe haven for investment due to the provident leader-
ship, high-quality infrastructure, and logistics was represented in enormous airport
capacity and port operation, high-end hospitality projects, and massive shopping
malls (Bagaeen 2007; Elsheshtawy 2004; Molavi 2007).

Governance: power concentration

When reflecting on Dubai’s urbanization over the past two decades, the transformation
was apparent not only in its physical environment, but also in its governance system. In
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

the late 1990s, there was an authoritarian transition of power from Dubai’s public institu-
tions (mainly represented by the Dubai Municipality – DM) to several Dubai-based pub-
lic–private firms (e.g. Dubai Holding, Emaar, Nakheel, and Meraas). According to Ramos
(2010, 132), power was eventually ‘outsourced from the Dubai Municipality’ to the gov-
erning structures of different public–private firms, without creating a system that coordi-
nates between these dispersed bodies, resulting in governance that is redundant and
fragmented. In the late 1990s, the economic and decision-making powers were mostly
exercised by Dubai’s quasi-government firms. According to a government official, in the
year 2000 public–private firms became authorities as well: ‘they had their approach,
approval, and blessing from the government.’ He continued, ‘I am afraid to say that the
city gave too much of freedom’ to the public–private entities. They were allowed to build
whatever they wanted as long as they were ‘successful,’ and the term ‘success’ in Dubai
was mainly related to ‘profit generation and investment return.’
The proliferation of the public–private partnership system generated new prospects of
land-use planning. Public institutions such as DM, the Road and Transportation Authority
(RTA), and Dubai’s Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) plan and control the design
of infrastructure, including electricity, drainage, water, and transportation, throughout the
city. Dubai Municipalities merely regulate design standards, zoning regulations, and land-
use planning of urban lands located outside the free-zone areas, whereas the developers
have been given authority to control land use and the design of free-zone enclaves, which
are largely distributed across Dubai’s landscape (Figure 2).
A major problem in Dubai is the establishment of several public and private ‘jurisdic-
tional authorities’ in the city (Ramos 2010, 132). The lack of coordination between these
joint ventures and Dubai’s public sectors, the lack of a central planning council, the dis-
persed and separate administrative entities, and the parallel political and economic aspira-
tions created a sum of disaggregated projects that principally aimed to magnify the culture
of excess and a development trajectory characterized by mega-projects.

Dubai’s modern physical landscape

The political centralism in planning decision-making, the parallel political and economic
desires, the unregulated free enterprise, and the concentration of power within public–
private firms created a fractured and disintegrated city structure. Dubai’s physical
expression of urbanization is dominated by mega-development projects, massive in scale,
 Journal of Urbanism 5
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

Figure 2. Land-use control in Dubai divided into lands controlled by developers in the free zones
and the rest controlled by traditional public agencies like Dubai Municipality.

excessively themed, privatized, fragmented, and exclusive rather than inclusive or diverse
(Al-Masri 2008; Machado 2006; Zacks 2007), with large lots, either vacant or underdevel-
oped, separating projects (Curran 2010; Elsheshtawy 2008) (Figure 3). Dubai’s ‘tower
urbanization’ has involved designing buildings that function as vertical cities for invest-
ment purposes only, without realizing the total benefits of tall architecture (Wilson 2010).
Many buildings have been constructed with a disregard for the unique, local context,
instead referred to as ordinary, outsourced, and ‘repetitively common global stuff’
(Machado 2006, 97) (Figure 4). This ‘splintering urbanism’ Graham and Marvin (2001) is
a result of a governance and planning approach dominated by a few prominent govern-
ment officials working in public and private institutions, where decisions are made cen-
trally, without public involvement, in a non-transparent manner (Davidson 2008; Hvidt
2009).
Dubai’s historic approach to development and planning makes the political feasibility
of widening and establishing public participation as part of sustainable design projects
complex. In many ways, public participation in decisions about development and designs
stands in sharp contrast to the traditions and mechanisms of Dubai’s current governing
system, which has been described as ‘neo-patrimonial’ (Hvidt 2006, 2009). In neo-
patrimonial governance, the regime is centered on a ruler as an individual who maintains a
 6 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

Figure 3. Section of modern Dubai showing the form of its dispersed, fragmented built landscape.

small group of elites (business people, powerful families) who possess decision-making
power. Government agencies work closely with business elites in implementing develop-
ment decisions dictated by the political elites. European and American ideals of participa-
tory planning have little historical precedent in Dubai. However, many researchers
consider sustainable development practices to include a participatory aspect and involve-
ment of urban residents (Newman and Jennings 2008; Sanoff 2000). The present research
explores potential opportunities for implementing participatory planning approaches within
Dubai’s governance structure:

• Could a participatory approach to urban design and planning be successfully imple-

mented in Dubai?
• What are some constraints for implementing public participation in city design and
development?
• What are the opportunities for implementing public participation within the existing
government framework? What kinds of policies might be developed to support the
implementation of these proposed strategies?

Literature review
The process of designing socially and ecologically oriented cities has often been consid-
ered a civic and communal effort, valued for the multiple cultural perspectives that emerge
from public processes. The extensive local Agenda 21 initiatives exemplify the spirit of
diverse visions and opinions in building sustainable cities (Beatley 2000). Scholars argue
 Journal of Urbanism 7
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

Figure 4. Contrasting urbanism: Dubai’s contemporary landscape foregrounded by traditional

forms of urbanism.

that integrating as many different views as possible from different segments of society
enhances the feasibility and livability of the sustainable city (Newman and Jennings
2008). Sustainability scholars argue that creating processes that support urbanization and
development strategies that are ecologically sensitive, economically viable, and socially
conscious requires involvement by a variety of groups – including politicians and govern-
ment officials, professionals, and citizens (Beatley 2000). The experiences and knowledge
possessed by these stakeholder groups reflect a diversity of knowledge types. Politicians
and government officials possess regulatory power and understanding about the challenges
and constraints that influence project implementation. Professionals possess technical
knowledge. The public are the users and the consumers whose acceptability of specific
projects, plans, and programs is essential for designs to be considered successful and
supportive of people’s daily lives.
In the mid-1900s the urban planning field in the United States was dominated by the
rational planning model, which was concerned mainly with procedural and technical plan-
ning issues (Meyerson and Banfield 1955). The rational system discouraged participatory
forms of planning, emphasizing the technical aspects of planning decision, involving
mostly experts. Reaction to the perceived failure of the technocratic rational system
pushed planning theory and practice to seek more participatory forms of planning and
expand the role of public in city planning and local policy development. Advocacy and
equity planning (Brooks 2002; Davidoff 1965) and eventually communicative action
(Forrester 1989) emerged in the United States in response to public outcry over their lack
of involvement in large-scaled urban renewal projects; this shift amplified and main-
streamed the role of community participation in North American planning approaches.
 8 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

This shift in planning theory led many governments to expand the role of public input
in the political debate and planning processes. Reflecting upon this transformation in plan-
ning thoughts and implementation strategies, several best-practice examples of inclusive
and participatory forms of planning appear to be successful and meaningful in the interna-
tional context. For example, between 2001 and 2006, all Australian cities generated strate-
gic plans for 2030, involving the public in the visioning process.2 Another innovative
participatory project is the Region 2040 project of Metropolitan Portland (Oregon) in the
United States (Seltzer 2004). In response to concern over sprawl during the 1980s and early
1990s, the region proposed three potential alternative expansion models for Metro Portland
to curb the escalating urban issues (Seltzer 2004). The public was involved over many
years, assessing the competing expansion models through workshops and public hearings.
Having explained that it appears that participation is mostly accepted in Western demo-
cratic regions, Dubai, however, is different. The connection between traditional forms of
planning and development, governance structure, public–private partnerships, and the
social complexity of the population create major barriers for implementing and institu-
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

tionalizing participatory planning practices. First, Dubai is still a non-democratic state,

where solid evidence of an opening for collective decision-making is hard to find
(Sepasdar and Sibley 2008). The socio-political nature of the UAE, described as a ‘central-
ized’ power structure, includes large public sectors, a small number of native-born citizens,
centralized governments, huge public–private corporations, tribal control, and limited pub-
lic involvement in policy and decision-making (Machado 2006). The government is deci-
sion-maker, executer, judge, and assessor (Sepasdar and Sibley 2008), working as a
sponsor for citizens and making decisions on their behalf, without their involvement.
Unlike democratic forms of governance that are characterized by a voting public and elec-
toral cycles, members of the ruling class and inner circle in a neo-patrimonial system can-
not be elected out of office. Neo-patrimonial emphasizes: (1) the role of state structure; (2)
decision-makers who are powerful due to lineage as ruling families; and (3) economic
elites and powerbrokers whose access to the ruling family is a result of possessing highly
ranked socio-economic status. Neo-patrimonial governance creates a concrete set of politi-
cal and economic ties among actors who then exercise control over what to develop and
how to develop the city (Hvidt 2006, 2009). Meanwhile, local municipal expertise can and
does exist under this neo-patrimonial government structure, but there are limited
opportunities for involving such local expertise in helping to prioritize and direct develop-
ment priorities for the city. Delegation of power and responsibility to municipal entities
only builds on ‘previous successes’ and exceptional investment ideas, which are directly
assessed by the city’s highest authority (Hvidt 2006).
Suhail argues that the public in the UAE has been sidelined in the decision-making pro-
cess, resulting in the massive physical transformation of the city; citizens have not been
asked whether or not they want these multi-billion projects (Aljazeera March 31, 2006).
Aisha Sultan, the director of a political program at a local television station, confirms that
UAE’s extreme growth is the result of a centralized approach in decision-making that
marginalizes the public’s opinions and assessments. Except for chamber of commerce elec-
tions in the capital Abu Dhabi and the Federal National Council (FNC) elections, no elec-
tions have ever been held in the country (Aljazeera March 31, 2006). However, in the past
five years, the federal government has made massive efforts to enhance the role of the pub-
lic in the FNC election system. In reaction to this initial sign of democracy in the Emirates,
a UAE University former professor and democracy advocate, says that ‘it was getting
awkward so they had to address it […] from a historical perspective, it’s a step forward.
But this is also for outside consumption’ (Abddulla, as quoted in Krane 2009, 272).
 Journal of Urbanism 9

Ways of engaging the public formally and legitimately are not currently evident in
Dubai; however, there are media-initiated ways that the government has created for people
to express their opinions about Dubai’s development. The primary way to solicit and listen
to public opinion is through radio call-in programs (Davidson 2008). The one place where
the Emirati people and residents express concerns and disputes is the internet and radio
channels like Noor Dubai, Ajman, and Sharjah. Davidson argues that the UAE has been
pioneering this type of ‘Internet and radio democracy’ (Davidson 2008, 165). Most of the
Emirate’s municipal departments, ministries, and prominent decision-makers host interac-
tive websites that provide electronic forums for discussion, criticism, feedback, and recom-
mendations (Davidson 2008). Recently, the ruler of Dubai, with his genuine and creative
vision, has announced a national brainstorming session in order to promote fresh thinking
and innovation for generating ideas for the development of the health and education sec-
tors. His Highness urged every man, woman, and child to partake in this largest collabora-
tive initiative (Emirates 24/7 News December 3, 2013).
Another informal channel of interchange between public and government appears in
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

the role of ‘majlis’ (Davidson 2008; Gudaitis 2010; Hvidt 2006). The majlis is a casual
social assembly of men, regularly held during weekend nights, in a reception hall in a pri-
vate home where guests are received. The majlis in Dubai do not have formal jurisdictive
power, however they provide an important venue for political elites to meet the public.
The majlis of the ruling family, people with high-profile positions, trusted tribes and fami-
lies, and key business, and city leaders are widely accessible to the UAE’s citizens. This
type of interplay between the decision-makers and natives reveals and signifies a degree of
openness and candidness between government and the inhabitants (Gudaitis 2010). The
primary function of the majlis is to facilitate the direct communication between city and
citizen. According to Hvidt (2006, 17), the majlis is a ‘forum for socializing, problem
solving, information sharing, reflection, and debate at many levels of the community.’
Although these types of forums are active and are widely appreciated by the public, the
state governor still controls the decision-making. People can express their opinions and
concerns; however, they cannot make a direct change in planning decision-making pro-
cesses because they have not been granted the power of voting.
Public–private corporations and their role in approving and implementing development
projects restricts and does not promote public involvement in planning decision-making
processes. Dubai’s public sectors and real estate industry both desire to make the city an
economic retail consumption center and a business hub for the wealthy. Dubai’s success in
achieving this has been attributed to: the tolerant social environment; a banking system
and tax regime, which made the city a tax-free hub for multinational corporations; and the
lack of sustainable regulations for new developments (Molavi 2007). Dubai embodies old
Sheikh Rashid’s motto: ‘What is good for the merchants is good for Dubai’ (Molavi
2007). Davis (2006) argues that Dubai has created what advanced countries only dream
of: zones of free enterprise without income taxes.
Observers describe urban developments in Dubai as unplanned and unregulated.
Public–private corporations have proliferated because there are no solid regulations to con-
trol them (Record News August, 2008). These Dubai-based multinational real estate
developers – which are majority owned by local and political authorities – create an ‘au-
thoritative mix of business and politics’ that would be ‘taboo’ anywhere else, but makes
them extremely ‘forceful’ and powerful in Dubai (Zacks 2007). This kind of government–
private partnership, based on competition rather than on collaboration, has been described
as a ‘repeating pattern’ in evolution in which unhealthy competition leads to the threat of
demise (Sahtouris 1998). Within the participatory planning literature, partnerships are
 10 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

viewed as strategies that produce greater transparency and buy-in; however, if competition
and conflictual relationships are the behavioral norms among these corporations, then
under these partnerships, corporations would eventually lose accountability and
self-destruct (Sahtouris 1998). During the 2008 economic decline, most of the govern-
ment-controlled companies that had strong local and political ties and were the power-
houses of Dubai’s urban boom – such as Nakheel and Dubai Holding – lost ground and
domination in the market, affirming Sahtouris’s (1998) argument.
The socio-economic demographic composition of Dubai’s diverse public poses another
challenge for developing a participatory planning approach to a city-wide sustainable
design program. Dubai’s public is composed of three distinct groups of people: foreign
laborers, expatriates, and natives. Since its founding, Dubai has enticed a variety of immi-
grants from Persia, the Indian Sub-continent, and other Arab countries, and currently
accommodates people from all over the world (Kazim 2000). In 1968, foreign laborers
represented 50% of the total Dubai population (Elsheshtawy 2004). In 2005 Dubai was
ranked with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents (82%), followed by Miami
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

(Florida) (51%), and Amsterdam (Netherlands) (47%) (quoted in Elsheshtawy 2008).

Recent estimates conclude that out of the UAE’s population of 8.5 million, 84% are
expatriates (Al Qassemi 2013). Dubai is the UAE’s most populated and urbanized city and
claims the nation’s largest number of expatriates. The 2010 population figure indicated that
there are 183,600 UAE citizens, 1,195,300 resident expatriates, and 536,100 foreign labor-
ers in Dubai (Dubai, 2020 Urban Master Plan 2011). Dubai is further challenged by what
can be characterized as ‘parallel societies.’ Parallel societies is a German concept coined
in 1996 to describe immigrant communities that are voluntarily segregated and which were
thought of as being unwilling to integrate themselves into mainstream German society
(Hiscott 2005). As originally conceived, such groups were considered a threat to the
democratic functioning of Germany. Dubai’s parallel societies are segregated along lines
of citizenship and residency status (i.e., expatriates isolated from locals and other non-
Westernized groups). What makes Dubai especially unique, compared with other UAE
cities, is the large population of expatriates (1.7 million) (Dubai, 2020 Urban Master Plan
2011). With many expatriates involved in the mega-project development and management,
there is a sentiment that the national identity and cultural heritage of many Emiratis (a
minority group) are made vulnerable through aggressive and intensive urban development
projects that do not reflect the diversity of local culture and local architecture (Al-Qassemi
2013). The presence of such a large social group that voluntarily maintains a certain isola-
tion from the rest of Dubai society poses seemingly daunting challenges for creating
opportunities for participation in a public planning effort.
Another challenge for Dubai is the translation of Western planning concepts for non-
Westernized social groups. Although traditions in Dubai have evolved dramatically over
the past two decades, with younger generations (men and women) who are well educated,
Westernized, and active in public events. The authors anticipate these people will be able
to discuss with experts about the future of Dubai using Westernized planning ideas and
language. The challenge is the older generations, middle-age people, and seniors who may
be more attached and rooted to the concepts and ideas of the old culture.
We recognize that inclusive and participatory planning approaches run counter to the
political mechanisms, governance system, development practices, and cultural norms in
Dubai. We argue that developing and successfully implementing design and planning
strategies to address issues of sustainability is a very complex process that is context depen-
dent, a process that requires a shift in what governments prioritize, and how governments
engage with diverse social groups, some of which exhibit a certain voluntary isolation, in
 Journal of Urbanism 11

creating alternative futures. In view of that, this paper explores the possibility, potential
opportunities, and limitations of implementing a sustainable design project, plan, or
program, focused on making planning processes more inclusive in a neo-patrimonial
governance structure.

Research design
Data collection is divided into two parts (Figure 5). The first used two rounds of the Del-
phi technique to obtain experts’ opinions regarding sustainable urban design strategies for
developing Dubai neighborhoods. Delphi is a qualitative methodology that structures a
group of experts to facilitate problem solving, explore ideas, set policies, and deal with
complex problems (Linstone and Turloff 1975). The technique has been widely utilized to
aid decision-making in such areas as urban planning, transportation, public policy, health-
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

Round 1: Major
Question: What are the
(5 to 10) most essential
Middle form-based urban design
Global
Eastern Local strategies that would
most likely lead to more
Case study: socially,
environmentally, and
Dubai Panel of Experts economically integrated
(n= 41) neighborhoods in Dubai?

Description Delphi Delphi Round 1 Analysis:

-History Technique Round 1 (1) Compactness;
-Urban growth (2) Connectivity;
- Governance (3) Diversity;
system (4) Green and social
Delphi Delphi R1 Delphi R1 nodes in the urban fabric;
R1 Pilot Transmission Analysis (5) Culturally relevant
urbanism; (6) Climate-
sensitive urbanism; (7)
Eco-balanced design and
Exploratory Delphi Delphi Delphi R2 planning;
(8) Adaptability; and
Analyses Round 2 R2 Pilot Transmission (9) Public participation

Round 2: Strove to discover the suitability of the proposed strategies in

Delphi R2 Round 1 to Dubai’s social and political environment Major Question:
Analysis Could a participatory approach to urban design and planning be
successfully implemented in Dubai?

Outcome, both rounds: A list of sustainable urban

design guidelines and strategies (e.g. compactness,
connectivity, diversity, and public participation

Discussion and Interviews with

Synthesis public officials

Interviews: Major Questions:

What are some constraints for implementing public participation in city design
and development?
What are the opportunities for implementing public participation within the
existing government framework? What kinds of policies might be developed to
support the implementation of these proposed strategies?

Figure 5. Research design, data collection process, and major research questions.
 12 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

care, education, and energy policy (Miller 1993; Morgan, Pelissero, and England 1979).3
In the urban design and planning context, the methodology can address and posture a
number of applications: (1) assessing the impacts of comprehensive plans, forecasts, and
policy proposals; (2) assessing data that would most efficiently support city development
and decision-making processes; (3) aiding decision-making by linking big data and urban
analytics with policy applications; and (4) transforming the results of quantitative research
into recommendations and policies for planners and decision-makers (Miller 1993;
Morgan, Pelissero, and England 1979).
Second, the primary author conducted seven interviews with Dubai’s government offi-
cials. These officials had served several years in Dubai’s public agencies and had exten-
sive planning knowledge and expertise in the dynamics of Dubai’s decision-making and
implementation processes. Interviewees requested anonymity and were coded to protect
the privacy of these officials. Interviews were conducted to identify the challenges and
constraints present for implementing participatory planning techniques that were initially
defined by the experts in the Delphi.
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

The Delphi study surveyed academics and practitioners in the fields of urban design,
planning, architecture, and sustainable development in order to formulate the most effec-
tive urban design strategies for Dubai’s urban neighborhoods. Delphi was structured to
collect and analyze experts’ opinions through two questionnaires, and followed up with
two reports that complied and synthesized participants’ recommendations.
The panel consisted of experts whose practice or scholarship made meaningful con-
tributions to the literature on sustainable urbanism; had an academic or professional con-
nection or commitment to the topic; and were highly motivated to participate in the study.
We expected that experts living in the Middle East, especially those living in the Dubai
area, would be more aware of Dubai’s environmental, political, and socio-cultural context,
and that their proposed design strategies would more likely be more culturally, socially,
and politically sensitive. Therefore, we made sure that the panel included experts living in
the Middle East, the Gulf, and the UAE. Based on 15 months of investigation in the field
of urban design, looking at academic publications, sustainability conferences lists, and pro-
fessional work, we established a list of 182 potential participants, including academics and
practitioners. Invitations for participation were sent to 128 experts. Letters were emailed to
every expert individually, not as a group email, to protect their privacy. To increase the
response rate, we also included two incentives in the letter in return for the experts’ gener-
ous donation of time. The first provided the participants a package of information that
reviews Dubai’s development history showing photographs related to the traditional and
contemporary urban forms and listing the most pressing issues facing the city. The second
provided participants with a digital copy of the results, complied and synthesized.
Generally, the response rate in both rounds of the Delphi was very acceptable. On
average, 41 experts contributed to both rounds of Delphi. There is a wide range in the
sample size in Delphi studies. Witkin and Altschuld (1995) note that the approximate size
of a Delphi panel usually rests below 50. Ludwig (1997, 2) documents that the majority of
Delphi studies have used between 15 and 20 respondents. Note that in survey studies there
is a reduction in error and an increase in decision quality and generalizability as sample
size increases; however, in Delphi studies the quality of the sample is more important than
the quantity. That is, 10 who have extensive knowledge and experience yield more accu-
rate and valid results than 30 with less experience. Participants selected in Delphi do not
represent the general population; rather they provide expert insight and commentary based
upon extensive experience and knowledge that the general population typically does not
possess (Fink and Kosecoff 1985).
 Journal of Urbanism 13

The first Delphi instrument asked expert participants the following open-ended
question: What are the most effective form-based urban design strategies that would most
likely facilitate the design and development of a neighborhood that integrates social, eco-
nomic, and environmental components in a coherent manner? While not, per se, a form-
based urban design strategy, experts urged that policies and decisions that promote public
participation in city development could contribute to the creation of more coherent, inte-
grated, and sustainable living environments. The second questionnaire asked expert par-
ticipants to assess the suitability and effectiveness of design ideas and decision-making
strategies (including public participation) within Dubai’s cultural and political context. In
particular, the panel were inquired to vote (yes or no with an explanation) for whether or
not a participatory approach to planning can be successfully implemented in Dubai. The
dual rounds provided participants an opportunity to refine and reassess their opinion, and
to provide additional insights and information in light of data provided by the other
members (Landeta 2005; Row, Wright, and McColl 2005). The panel’s contribution was
analyzed and reported anonymously.
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

Results: Delphi
Major findings
Many experts in the first round argued that policies and decisions that promote public par-
ticipation in city development could contribute to the creation of more coherent, inte-
grated, and sustainable living environments. One expert argued that sustainable cities have
to be built based on the interests of people rather than on the exclusive interests of
developers and politicians. Of 41 experts, 28 believed that the idea of sustainable develop-
ment in Dubai deviates entirely from the conservative, top-down approach in city planning
and design, out of which several power struggles, including the marginalization and aban-
donment of public input, emerge.
Since the planning and decision-making process in Dubai is centralized and lacks
transparency, justification, and coordination, it rests under the control of private corpora-
tions, does not incorporate public participation, and does not require pre-project environ-
mental impact assessments, the experts in Round 1 Delphi suggested a participatory
planning approach that might lead to more practical, fair, and feasible decisions. However,
experts noted many challenges to achieving this in practice. In addition to top-down plan-
ning and the decision-making system in Dubai, the cultural differences between natives
(who are mostly privileged and are more trusting of centralized planning decisions) and
residents (who aspire for naturalization and citizenship and are more accepting of and
comfortable with debate and open dialog in a public setting) are extensive.
Given the challenges acknowledged above, experts on the panel were questioned in
the second round Delphi if a participatory approach could be successfully implemented in
Dubai. In spite of these challenges, experts believed that a more public participatory
approach was possible. Sixty-eight percent of the experts (28 out of 40) considered public
participation necessary and worth exploring in Dubai; however, some experts thought that
there are many constraints and barriers to implementing participatory approaches success-
fully in Dubai. We therefore classified the panel responses into two groups: (1) a group
that believed in the merits of public participation and which strongly argued for public
participation as part of a sustainable strategy; and (2) a group that believed that while
public participation is important, certain political economic realities exist that make its
implementation difficult, and political economic and cultural issues make implementation
even more complicated in Dubai. The following points, defined by experts, identify
 14 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

several constraints that limit genuine and effective participation; some barriers are related
to Dubai specifically, while others are more general, being well defined in the planning
literature and practice worldwide (Table 1).

Experts advocating public participation

Delphi participants noted that Dubai is an emerging city experimenting with different
strategies and methods in city design, and public participation is just one scheme that is
worth implementing. One respondent emphasized that Dubai needs a mandate from gov-
ernment and society in order to implement a significant change that participatory planning
reflects. Even though a participatory approach in any setting is typically complicated and

Table 1. Constraints to public participation in planning: generally (right column) and specifically
related to Dubai (left column) as identified by Delphi participant experts.
Constraints in Dubai General constraints
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

The planning process and decision-making in Participatory planning is dominated by politics.

Dubai is not transparent; therefore, there should The nature and reality of planning processes
be a fundamental reform of Dubai’s exclusive entail manipulation, unequal access, uneven
and neo-patrimonial planning system by first power structures in the political and public
structuring a solid planning council like that of realms, and information dissemination in
its neighboring Emirate, Abu Dhabi planning communication and discourse
Implementing this process is not easy: it needs Participatory approaches in any setting usually
time, tolerance, organization, trial, exploration, benefit just a select portion of the population,
political will, and education, at both the public usually those who yield the power or are
and local authority levels. Dubai, with its familiar with power configurations, and also
traditional top-down approach to planning, those who have the loudest voice, determination,
requires even more effort and endurance and will to participate throughout the process.
Therefore, participation might not be reflective
of the general population, especially the groups
with less interest, voice, and passion
Public participation requires not only political There is always a problem related to morality,
will also determination and enthusiasm from integrity, and competing priorities of people. For
civil society. If the public in Dubai believes that example, individuals in many cases do not
the top-down planning system operates as a consider the collective public interest, future
good sponsor for people and decides fairly on generations, long-term implications, the
behalf of them, then participatory approaches environment, or the region as a whole; they
will make no sense mainly focus on aspects that affect themselves
A big constraint of implementing public Participatory planning in many regions basically
participation successfully relates to the definition operates within the limitations of multiple
of ‘public’: publics and the constraints of institutional
arrangements, political power, and economic
resources
• There are several segments of the
population in Dubai; the mainstream
represents expatriate workers who hold
no stake in the city or have little interest
in the city’s fate as they are temporary
in nature, and stay for a limited period
• Different types of people usually
encounter different, competing
priorities, norms, values, interests, and
beliefs that in most cases do not match
 Journal of Urbanism 15

takes time in implementation, it is, indeed, ‘an exercise worth exploring’ (K2, 2011).
Another respondent stated that public participation is an ‘educational measure’; it is very
important to educate the public about different planning tactics and strategies; what plan-
ning involves; and what the impacts of proposed projects are expected to be on the cul-
tural, economic, and environmental aspects, as well as on people’s health and the city’s
well-being (P, 2010). Other experts contended that it is important to engage the public in
city design by providing an adequate stream of information based on research, facts,
evidence, what people need, best practices, and what worked in the past.
According to one expert, if Dubai incorporated public participation, the outcome will
only be positive. In fact, ‘if Dubai is to be a holistically sustainable city, it will have to
contend with such strategies and develop workable policies’ (N, 2010). Another respon-
dent commented, sooner or later, individuals will demand that their voices be heard; there-
fore, Dubai is in need of launching a strong public policy that accommodates this
anticipated request. But since the top-down approach is the tradition in Dubai, it may take
some time to engage the public in planning. In fact, implementation and reform in plan-
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

ning strategies will not happen at once, but if there is ‘a will there is a way’ (F1, 2010).
This process requires organization, frequent review, policy efforts, political will and action,
social will, experiments, efforts, education, tolerance, determination, and time that might
reach decades of trial and error; it is, in fact, ‘not a one-off exercise’ (P, 2010).
Public participation is currently being tried and explored in Abu Dhabi. The apprecia-
tion of participatory approaches in Abu Dhabi shows that this might also prove possible in
neighboring Dubai; ‘there is always a first time’ (E, 2010). One expert noted that in Abu
Dhabi public participation was experimented as an ‘extension of the Diwan, where leader-
ship sits with residents in direct conversation about their needs and of a Majlis, where
community members engage with each other and discuss local issues’ (A2, as quoted in
Gudaitis 2010, 220). In Abu Dhabi, participation was also experimented with when the
Urban Planning Council organized three design charettes involving only intellectuals,
experts, and stakeholders to update the Plan Capital 2030.
One respondent indicated it is definitely an underestimation to assume that the local
population in Dubai might not share an interest in participating in a process that considers
their needs and empowers them over time. The public should have the opportunity to
debate, reveal their views and concerns, propose different design solutions and alterna-
tives, generate involvement in the decision-making, and claim responsibility for their opin-
ions. According to another expert, there are many ‘rungs’ to the ‘ladder of participation’;
for the case of Dubai, implementing public participation can move through a series of
‘incremental levels’ starting from consultation, dialog, and exchange in which the power
holders educate the participants, listen to them, support their voices, give them confidence,
encourage teamwork and partnership, establish trust, promote their design and planning
vision, and build social capital until it reaches higher levels of public involvement and
empowerment in decision-making processes. Many experts believed that ‘bottom-up and
top-down approaches have to be combined’ in planning processes. This indicates that
power delegation should not reach the level of ‘citizen control’ such that the public holds
the absolute power and the majority of decision-making votes (Arnstein 1969).
Two experts predicted that building new neighborhoods in Dubai will certainly
necessitate public participation in future. For many years, the housing of the local popula-
tion, for whom the standards of living and parcel size allocated remain very high, and
involving significant subsidies from government in terms of a no-interest mortgage and
parcel lot size (a minimum of 10,000 square feet). However, over the past 30 years, the
Dubai local authorities have begun to reduce lot sizes in subsidized neighborhoods.4
 16 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

In future, the Dubai government may want to increase density through decreasing the
size of the subsidized lots once again. This action, according to two Delphi expert partici-
pants, might create serious debate and criticism among the natives in Dubai. These experts
argued that the public should participate in discussions and decisions associated with
‘urban transformation’ strategies and policies. Participation would enable the public to be
aware of the facts, reasons, and realities that drive the city’s new policies and direction of
urbanism. Without public involvement, the government might have difficulty in cultivating
public acceptance of decisions to increase densities through reductions in dimensions of
housing units and lots. Even if the beginning of a public participation process targets only
those people born in the UAE, the process could expand over time and include residents
who invested in the city or who have stayed for many years.

Regulatory action
When it comes to the implementation of urban policies, Delphi expert participants (n = 7)
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

believed that bold and ‘radical steps at every level of the society, culture, and governance’
need to be considered. Big ideas, including public involvement in planning, require
substantial regulatory actions through political and legislative processes; otherwise, partic-
ipatory planning strategies will never be adopted. However, initiating a transparent
decision-making system based on solid policy and public needs, instead of market force
and rapid return on investment, is the only way in which public participation can have real
meaning in Dubai. Dubai needs a fundamental transformation of its neo-patrimonial
system that controls the planning processes and public policy.
Other experts (n = 5) noted that public participation requires political will and action,
and also enthusiasm and commitment from civil society. If the public in Dubai thinks that
the current centralized system of planning decision-making is fair enough to function as a
sponsor for people that decides on their behalf, and if they do not see a need for change
because the decisions made are perceived as being non-controversial and the decision-
makers as good executers, good judges, and good assessors, then participatory approaches
lack cultural meaning and legitimacy. One cultural challenge is that there will be many in
the society who are ‘accustomed to and comfortable with’ the planning officials who claim
‘to know better’ than regular citizens (R2 2010). This portion of the public is usually
closer to the government and they are ‘the representatives of rich corporations, not the
people’; therefore, there will always be a population that benefits from the top-down,
centralized planning (R2, 2010).

Constraints to public participation

Delphi expert participants commented that part of the difficulty of implementing participa-
tory approaches stems from the fact that who constitutes ‘the public’ in Dubai is complex
and lacks definitional clarity. There are ‘many’ publics in Dubai, each with different and
competing priorities, norms, values, beliefs, and living standards. There are Emiratis (local
natives); expats who stay for short periods; expats who stay for long periods, some of whom
have been in the city for many years and even decades; expats who are greatly invested in
the city; and temporary workers who stay for approximately two years. One Delphi expert
participant emphasized that this is not a ‘unique problem’ to Dubai (F1, 2011); large and
diverse immigrant populations are common in many cities.
According to some Delphi experts (n = 10), it will be more viable to involve the
Emirati nationals first, and involving the foreign residents later on during the process
 Journal of Urbanism 17

based on their years spent in Dubai or the UAE, and the amount time and money they
invested in the city. It might not be effective and practical to engage the temporary migrant
populations. Two experts argued that the temporary nature of migrant workers’ stay in the
city does not grant them with a sense of commitment on how Dubai develops. As long as
there is no mandate to adopt a regulatory agenda that legislates minimum wages and
working laws, involving this segment of the public in city design ‘may not serve in the
best interests of the long term sustainability of the city’ because there is no reason for
them to become ‘truly interested in the fate of the city’ (M, R2, 2010).
Another constraint for implementing participatory planning identified by some experts is
that ‘genuine’ and meaningful participation in decision-making and implementation is rare
in any culture. Listening to the public and understanding their perceptions and needs is
always important, but participatory planning is ‘not always reflective of the population even
in more democratic societies’ (G, 2010). In many settings, participatory approaches usually
benefit a small group of people who have the ‘strength, patience, and insistence’ to cultivate
involvement in such processes. In addition, many individuals mostly consider aspects that
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

affect their own lives, not the collective public interest, the disadvantaged people, future
generations, neighboring communities, long-term implications, or the health and well-being
of the environment or the region as a whole (E2, S, 2010). Experts claimed that more effec-
tive and meaningful public participation can be achieved through expanding and equalizing
the discourse; providing a better and richer atmosphere for communication, debate, and
negotiation; and giving voice and power to excluded communities and interests.
The dominant role of politics in planning processes was also cited as another limitation
to participatory planning approaches. Community-based planning involves multiple layers,
interest groups, and institutions, where power and risk influence decisions, and where
levels of meaningful participation typically are rare and highly unequal, labeling the entire
process as ‘a matter of politics’ (G3, 2011). This statement was asserted by many experts
when they identified issues of manipulation, unequal access, power relations in the politi-
cal and public realms, and information dissemination in planning communication and dis-
course heavily influential on planning decisions. In most cases, the recommendations and
visions of developers, city officials, the public, and experts conflicted with one another.
One central goal, in moving forward, could be to open up discussion and information
exchange in order to articulate and discuss the variety of conflicts encountered a more
transparent and inclusive process.
Dubai is not the only city struggling with issues of asymmetrical power relations and
distortions. Respondents emphasized that distortions in information, politics, and uneven
power structures that dominate and affect planning actions holds a prominent place in
many municipalities. Even though public participation in planning is difficult to initiate
and manage generally, and even though there are additional complications in Dubai,
Delphi expert participants concurred that public planning processes play an important role
in creating cities that are healthy, vibrant, and just. Despite these challenges and the long
time period participants imaged would be involved in launching such a program in Dubai,
this approach is ‘still an ideal that can be aspired toward’ (G, 2010).

Results: government interviews

Major findings
All seven officials interviewed affirmed that there is a huge benefit of involving the
public in city design and development. For example, one interviewee argued that Dubai
should ‘embrace’ participatory planning approaches in community design and
 18 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

development. The officials in Dubai should create venues of dialog, interaction, and
communication opportunities with the public to ‘hear’ their opinions and respond to their
needs and ideas. Five out of seven interviewees believe that public participation in plan-
ning could be very successful in Dubai, but under one condition: The public should not be
given ‘full power and control’ or the majority of seats in the decision-making process. It is
more effective to develop participatory approaches that are gradual and incremental, start-
ing with consultation and discussion sessions and transitioning to a point in which the
public can take part in the decision-making process. Government interviewees noted that
developing a participatory planning approach requires that the city should make some
efforts on the ‘political, organizational, educational, and communicational levels.’ The
path towards an effective public participation process is not an ‘easy one,’ especially in
Dubai where there are major political, organizational, and social constraints and pressures.

Pressures on public participation

Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

Due to the neo-patrimonial governance and top-down decision-making approach, the

transition of power could not easily be granted to the public because any change and
modification of the political system originally comes from the government itself. Usually
the government in Dubai does not like ‘interference’ with its decisions. According to one
government official, decisions about the extent of public participation or collective deci-
sion-making approaches in Dubai are ‘politically rooted’ and difficult to adjust. The city
‘makes decisions very fast,’ and these decisions come from ‘top authorities;’ involving the
public in decision-making will run against the longstanding history of Dubai’s centralized
approach and will ‘slow down’ the decision-making process. In addition, public opinions
might ‘interfere’ with the government’s decisions and usually authorities in Dubai do not
like intrusion and infringement with decision-making (Government interviewee #1, 2011).
Interviewees noted that the lack of a central planning agency in Dubai poses another
political and organizational constraint. During the construction boom (from 1995 to the
present), the power shifted from the public agencies to quasi-government corporations
without creating a system that coordinates between the city’s agencies and private corpora-
tions. As a result, every authority has different priorities and development agendas that
‘do not meet’ with each other. There was no ‘one’ planning body to ‘legislate strategies’
and ‘overrule’ the multiple authorities. Each of those authorities and organizations works
within its ‘individual’ development framework. For example, the quasi-government
corporations’ priority was mainly based on competition in the market and profit generation
(Government interviewees #1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, 2011).
During the 2008 recession, private agencies lost ground in the market and the govern-
ment lost its belief and trust in the semi-public corporations. As a result, one interviewee
predicts the power gradually will shift once again, but this time to the public agencies.
However, the problem still remains unresolved. If Dubai adopted participatory planning
approaches, which agency would handle and govern the public involvement in planning
matters (the public agencies, the quasi-private corporations, both, or a new central plan-
ning agency)? One interviewee maintained that this is a critical unanswered question.
The last political and organizational constraint defined by two interviewees is the lack
of expertise and communication skills among staff in public institutions. In addition, these
staff also lack authority to ‘market’ their ideas and interact with the public effectively. One
interviewee argues that people should not look at the municipality as an entity that only
‘imposes regulations and fines, or an agency that makes the public lives difficult.’ Instead,
the municipality should be perceived as an institution that ‘serves and listens to the
 Journal of Urbanism 19

public.’ But unfortunately, Dubai did not successfully ‘market’ this perspective
(Government interviewee #5, 2011).
According to other interviewees, public agencies should build relations based on ‘trust
and respect’ with the public. Institutions in Dubai are still very ‘rigid’ in their communica-
tion with the public. One of the top priorities of the Sheikh is to ‘enable’ the public to
‘interact’ freely with the institutional authorities. However, the agencies in Dubai still do
not have the knowledge and communication skills to market and implement this strategy.
Public participation is ‘a very difficult and delicate subject’; Dubai agencies need people
who are trained in public outreach and organizational development in order to create and
implement effective and meaningful participatory planning methods (Government intervie-
wees #1, 2, 3, and 6, 2011).
The social constraints, on the other hand, were mainly associated with the public’s
‘desire, interest, and wish’ for participation, and that these desires vary between locals and
expatriates. One local authority believed that the majority of the indigenous population
does not have the ‘desire and interest’ in participation because their living standards are
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

fairly good and they ‘trust’ the city’s decisions in planning matters (Government intervie-
wee #1, 2011). The statement above was asserted by another interviewee who argues that
the locals in Dubai are ‘not really interested’ in public participation; it is not really of their
interest and desire ‘at the moment’ because they generally are living well and in a good
condition (Government interviewee #4, 2011). One interviewee said that it is not a matter
that the public are ‘asking’ to participate and the system in Dubai is ‘not allowing it.’ The
‘interesting part’ is that the town planning authority has an intention and plan to incorpo-
rate participatory planning approaches in future. This initiative, as a first move for public
participation, is being initiated by the government, not the public. The official continued:
people in Dubai are not ‘fighting or asking for participation’ because engagement and
involvement in decision-making processes were not part of their lives and culture. Besides,
the vast majority of locals ‘trust’ the government and they believe that it is ‘operating
well’ (Government interviewee #5, 2011).
These statements were made by another interviewee who claims that the public in
Dubai does not find participation to be ‘important or necessary, at least currently’ because
the welfare and the amount of services provided to the locals are relatively good and not
influenced by any extraordinary or unexpected decisions from the government. Most of
the locals at the present time live in a good environment and there is not ‘an acute’ urban
problem that stimulates their interest in and enthusiasm for public participation. However,
the local population might find participating in planning decisions ‘appealing or essential’
when ‘competition’ starts; when new ‘policies’ emerge; and when their living standards
change as a result of new regulations (Government interviewee #2, 2011).
Three interviewees (#3, 6, and 7) argued that a lack of interest and desire in public par-
ticipation also prevails among the expatriate population, for several reasons. First, the liv-
ing standards and quality of life of many expatriate groups are reasonably good. Second,
many expatriates, especially the working class, stay in Dubai temporarily as their resi-
dency is dependent on their employment status; accordingly, they have no real incentive
or motivation to be involved in Dubai’s fate and condition. This argument was asserted by
another interviewee who said that as most of the expatriates do not have a ‘permanent resi-
dency’ and their stay in Dubai depends upon their ‘job’ (if they lost it, they should leave),
there would be no ‘physiologically’ related reasons, desires, and aspirations among the
expatriates to participate (Government interviewee #5, 2011). One interviewee argued that
expatriates during their stay in Dubai have many ‘obligations and priorities’ to address,
such as supporting their families and enhancing their living standards in their original
 20 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

country, rather than participating in the local planning processes (Government interviewee
#1, 2011). This interviewee also noted that since the living circumstances of the expatriate
communities are not ‘stable or secured’ in Dubai, the opportunities for implementing
public participation are more ‘open to the local population than the residents.’
All interviewees concurred that public participation should be ‘legislated’ in Dubai.
One interviewee argued that ‘no plan for an area should be approved without consulting
the public because they are the users.’ A British quotation was referred to, which states:
the essence of public policy is ‘no legislation without representation and no power without
authorization’ (Government interviewee #4, 2011). Another government official stated that
it is unfeasible to think that participatory planning will provide the public with ‘all’ their
desires, but it is possible to think that this notion will provide the public with what they
need in ‘a good and better way’ (Government interviewee #1, 2011).
Interview data revealed a general agreement among all interviewees that to enhance
the quality of life in Dubai, the city should ‘listen’ to the public and take their considera-
tions into account. But at the same time interviewees believed that, if implemented effec-
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

tively, there should be ‘a limit of citizens’ power’ in public participation. Initially the
public should not be granted a high degree of freedom and authority; rather, a ‘consulta-
tion’ role would be reasonable and sufficient. The city can incrementally grant the public
some seats in the decision-making processes later on as appropriate.

Discussion
The literature on sustainable development strategies is replete with calls for public interac-
tion and participation in formulating future plans. Much of this work, however, focuses on
democratic systems of governance, with voting publics and expectations for public partic-
ipation that are rooted in history, government institutional requirements, and norms of
broader society. Neo-patrimonial systems of governance, especially in the Middle East and
the UAE specifically, are not well represented in this literature. The historical development
of the ties between ruling families and business elites (both local and global) continues to
be a strong influence on the trajectory of development patterns in the UAE, while, more
currently, groups of people and some government officials and agencies are working
towards widening the scope of public involvement in government decisions through the
informal channels of communication such as the internet, media, focus groups, brainstorm-
ing sessions, and the majlis.
Based on this analysis of Delphi and interview data, we propose a research effort that
is intended to navigate carefully the challenge of creating meaningful and culturally sensi-
tive strategies for creating and widening public participation options in the neo-patrimonial
system in Dubai. Although the specifics and qualities of a definitive public participation
model run beyond the scope of this research effort, we do propose a two-phased approach
for creating opportunities for public participation. First, we propose that public participa-
tion be implemented through a series of ‘incremental levels’ starting from consultation,
dialog, and exchange in which the neo-patrimonial power holders educate the participants,
and allow for higher levels of public involvement in decision-making processes gradually
over time, especially as the Dubai government alters its subsidies for natives. We envision
this as a two-phased effort, transitioning from ‘mere consultation’ to ‘delegated power.’
The objective of the first part is to enable the power holders first to educate the partici-
pants, listen to their concerns and desires, cultivate mutual respect, build social capital,
and facilitate behavior change among different groups of people. The main objective of
the second phase is to empower the public and build partnerships among city officials,
 Journal of Urbanism 21

developers, and interested publics. This model does not reach the level of ‘citizen control,’
a level of control introduced by Arnstein (1969). We tend to agree with both experts in
Delphi and the officials interviewed that this level of power cannot be granted to the
public within a neo-patrimonial system. We also suggest that a suitable application of a
participatory planning project should be designed on an incremental level in terms of
scale. It is better to look at the smaller city scale, such as a neighborhood scale, before
involving the public at the larger scale of city planning. People in Dubai never have had
any experience in participatory planning forms and approaches. Therefore, it is more
practical to engage them in smaller-scale community projects before involving them at the
master plan level of the city or region.
We tend to agree with the experts surveyed that it is more effective first to involve the
Emirati nationals who have a direct investment in the city’s future, and then later involve
the foreign residents at varying degrees. The diversity of expatriates includes people who
have lived more than 30 years in the Emirates exclusively, and there are the international
business entrepreneurs whose wealth and capital are largely invested in the city. Due to
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

the explicit contrast between different groups of foreigners in Dubai – some are temporary
residents and others consider the city a cultural home – we suggest a ‘preferential manage-
ment system’ in the designation of participants in any public process. Potential indicators
of selecting candidates may preliminary be based on different criteria (e.g. years spent in
Dubai, business investment, property ownership, and other investment in the city). It is
not our intention to create a formula of ethical or cultural superiority of one group over
the other. Rather, the idea is to create a system that wisely deals with the reality of diver-
sity in the expatriate communities in Dubai.
It is important to ask the following: to what extent do the foreign, ‘mobile, transient
society’ (whose residency is tied directly to employment contracts and whose hope for
receiving citizenship are not a political reality) influence public participation in Dubai?
This is indeed a very important future research question, and would require analysis of
immigration laws and a recent statistics about the demographic characteristics of different
communities, cultures, subcultures, and ethnicities in Dubai.5
It is important to note that ‘racial factors’ or acceptance of different ‘cultures and
tribes’ are major drivers in the evolution and success of international relations and busi-
ness (Kotkin 1992). For example, several global ‘tribes’ had varying impact on Dubai’s
growth. The contribution of the Arabs, the Indians, and the British in the early stages of
Dubai’s urbanism were profound. Most recently, the North Americans and British and
Asian groups including the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans have expanded Dubai’s cos-
mopolitan global economy. Moreover, the high-profile expatriate representatives in local
government or from multinational firms or financial conglomerates influence decision-
making in Dubai in informal ways. The challenge would be to formalize this participation
and expand the room to include a diverse range of tribal groups.
The social acceptance of many cultures in the city could be interpreted as the rejection
of racial exclusiveness and the embracing of multicultural integration. The city accepted
and blessed the new ideas, cultural diversity, technologies, acquisition of knowledge, and
intelligence, all of which are indicated as important indicators of the success in the global
economy (Kotkin 1992). However, the challenge of balancing different global tribes and
stressing willingness and inclusion in the planning of Dubai is a daunting project, particu-
larly with expatriate groups willingly isolating themselves from Dubai society at large.
Although Dubai embraces the idea of multiculturalism with its widespread motto ‘one
world one family,’ it is very complex to project how this cosmopolitan figure may
influence participation in city planning.
 22 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

The complexity of Dubai’s cultural and political histories and traditions make a univer-
sal model of sustainability and the assumed forms of governance difficult to implement
without a rigorous understanding of the local context. In order to understand the full com-
plexities and opportunities for public participation in the planning of Dubai’s future, we
propose the following research questions to explore further the different ways of making
public participation in the planning of Dubai culturally meaningful and politically
legitimate:

• What forms of public participation are considered politically feasible by the policy-
makers and neo-patrimonial power holders in Dubai?
• What changes in the municipality’s planning structure and decision-making strate-
gies can be made to support the implementation of plans developed with the public
that address different aspects (ecological, economic, equity) of neighborhood
sustainability?
• There are many diverse social groups in Dubai, each with different values, inter-
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

ests, and beliefs that in most cases do not align with the traditional values of the
indigenous population. A key challenge for determining a public planning process
includes defining who is the public. Critical questions include: What kinds of
social groups should and could be involved in participatory planning processes?
How can expatriates and other kinds of temporary workers be involved in a pub-
lic planning process? What are the implications of prioritizing the involvement of
local residents in a decision-making process for the cultural and political aspects
of neighborhood design? What are the impacts of limiting participation to the
local population only (20% or less of the total population)? What are some cultur-
ally appropriate forms of public participation that make men and women in Dubai
feel comfortable in public as part of a planning process in neighborhood design?
How might government planners translate Western planning concepts for non-
Westernized groups? How might Middle Eastern culturally rooted concepts of the
built environment help modify Western concepts in order make participation
among middle-age groups and seniors in Dubai (men and women) meaningful?
• Similar to places in the European Union and the United States, Dubai took a sig-
nificant hit during the recession. However, Dubai is currently witnessing a period
of recovery due to its success in winning the bid to host Expo 2020. An impor-
tant question worth exploring is: how can the government use this period of
recovery to re-strategize for a more deliberative and collective way to design a
sustainable area? What are the opportunities for crafting a public participation
process during this recovery period? What are the opportunities for crafting an
educational project aimed at informing the public about their role in building
future neighborhoods?

In many ways, planners in Europe and the Americas have a parallel history of diffi-
culty in creating legitimate and meaningful participation for the public related to
development decisions; this has been documented especially for economically and politi-
cally vulnerable people (Mueller and Dooling 2011; Roberts 2004) and where there are
culturally diverse groups (Umemoto 2001). While the political regime in the UAE is
significantly different from (North and South) American and European regimes, it is
important to recognize that the challenge of creating participatory planning models for
diverse publics appears to be common challenge across different political and
governance structures.
 Journal of Urbanism 23

Conclusions
Under a neo-patrimonial government system, participation needs to be rethought and
re-strategized. Developing venues for public participation requires careful planning that is
sensitive to the neo-patrimonial structure, the cultural traditions, and the complex sets of
diverse and, in some cases, voluntarily isolated ‘publics.’ Our research results indicate that
involving the public in planning is both valued and desired, and, based on interview data,
that an incremental approach might be advisable for potential implementation. Potential
advantages of involving the public in future planning of Dubai are fourfold:

• Public engagement increases the transparency and accountability of planning neo-

patrimonial decision-making in Dubai, which is described as non-transparent, cen-
tralized, and top-down.
• The interactive and educational nature of participatory planning approaches might
enable the public to learn about different aspects of neighborhood design and plan-
ning ideas, and different sustainability tactics and indicators.
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

• This public dialog can discuss design proposals, particularly those related to antici-
pated changes in density standards, which are considered a politically sensitive issue
and one already garnering public resistance.
• Most importantly, public engagement might reduce the accelerated pace of decision-
making and implementation processes which resulted in many developments that are
neither culturally nor environmentally sensitive.

As Dubai begins to prepare for Expo 2020, the pace of urban development is expected
to increase once again. The market in Dubai historically has weighed in favor of building a
reputation of being an extravagant place for business and elite groups as opposed to a place
that promotes equity, community input, and the sensitive occupation of land. This point in
time provides an opportunity for strategically and sensitively assessing the neo-patrimonial
system out of which planning decisions are made for Dubai in order to promote the integra-
tion of economic, ecological, and social aspects of sustainable development.

Acknowledgment
The authors extend their gratitude and appreciation to all the experts and government officials for
their contribution and informative participation in this research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes
1. Dubai’s cosmopolitan environment tracts a flow of guest workers, entrepreneurs, investors, and
tourists from all over the world. Its massive history of tolerance and multi-ethnic community
impelled the existence of Dubai as a cosmopolitan culture. The openness and acceptance of for-
eigners and “religious and cultural tolerance are fundamental elements” that shaped the cos-
mopolitan nature of Dubai (Hellyer, 2014). Recent figures indicate that the city accommodates
more than “120 nationalities” and attracts more than 5.8 million tourists in its 643 hotels. Its
efficient logistics services; distinct urban form and flavor, housing more than 248 skyscrapers;
enormous airport capacity (70 million passengers per year); and highly accessible market served
by more than 170 shipping lines and 86 airlines propelled the cosmopolitan existence of Dubai
(Dubai Statistics Center, 2014).
 24 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

2. The most notable case in its ‘participative processes was the plan for Perth.’ Over 1700 people,
from randomly selected households, were invited to share their opinions and preferences on dif-
ferent subjects (e.g. transport, density, community appearance, and the environment) (Newman
and Jennings 2008, 13).
3. A recent example using the Delphi technique in urban planning led to the production of the ‘10
Melbourne Principles for Sustainable Cities.’ These principles are a set of objectives generated
at an international Delphi Charette hosted in Melbourne, Australia, in 2002 (Newman and
Jennings 2008).
4. Three units per acre was the density of Dubai’s subsidized communities planned in the late
1980s and early 1990s, with an average lot configuration of 100 by 150 feet, with 60% lot
coverage. Four units per acre equaled the net density of Dubai’s subsidized communities
planned in the late 1990s and early 2000, with an average lot configuration of 100 by 100 feet,
with 60% lot coverage.
5. Currently, official reports and numbers about the different global tribes are not available to the
general public.

Notes on contributors
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

Khaled Alawadi is a trained architect and urban designer. He obtained his master’s degree in Urban
Design and a doctorate in Community and Regional Planning at the University of Texas – Austin.
Prior to joining Masdar Institute, he worked as an architect in DM and as an assistant professor at
UAE University. His work is focused on rethinking the city through a sustainability paradigm. His
research and teaching are focused on the role of urban design and planning in promoting sustainable
development. The big question is: ‘Which urban forms, technological solutions, and policy initia-
tives will effectively deliver greater environmental, social, and economic coherence in our regions,
cities, and neighborhoods?’ Dr. Alawadi is the founder of the Sustainable Urban Design and Plan-
ning concentration area, within the Sustainable Critical Infrastructure MSc. Degree, and he is
currrently coordinating the program at Masdar Institute of Science and Technology.

Sarah Dooling’s work draws inspiration from the idea that ecological change is never socially neu-
tral, and social change always has ecological consequences. Much of her work focuses on the social
and ecological dynamics of vulnerability associated with current and future conditions and land-
scapes. She has developed three mutually informing research topics: ecological gentrification; vul-
nerability assessment; and novel systems in planning and design education. Her research interests
build from these topics and reflect a commitment to understanding the production of urban vulnera-
bilities through environmental planning efforts. Her current research goals are invested in finding
ways to minimize the disproportionate distribution of burdens and benefits associated with regula-
tion and urban design, and applying the concept of novel landscapes to investigate long-term eco-
logical persistence in rapidly changing urban environments.

References
Al Qassemi, Sultan Sooud. 2013, “Give Expats an Opportunity to Earn UAE Citizenship.” Gulf-
news, September 22. http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/give-expats-an-opportunity-to-
earn-uae-citizenship-1.1234167#readersComments.
Aljazeera. 2006. “Booming Dubai Alienating Natives”, 31 March. http://www.aljazeera.com/
archive/2006/05/200849144441381718.html.
Al-Masri, Wael. 2008. “Contextualizing Globalization: Towards and Architectural Synthesis in the
Gulf Region.” In Instant Cities: Emergent Trends in Architecture and Urbanism in Arab World?
And Architectural Synthesis in the Gulf Region, edited by Amer Moustafa, Jamal Al-Qawasmi,
and Kevin Mitchell, 163–182. Jordan: CSAAR, Center for the Study Architecture in the Arab
Region.
AlShafiei, Salem. 1997. “The Spatial Implications of Urban Land Policies in Dubai City.” Unpub-
lished Report, Dubai Municipality.
Architecture Record. 2008. “Record News.” August 32–34.
Arnstein, Sherry. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 35 (4): 216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225.
 Journal of Urbanism 25

Bagaeen, Samer. 2007. “Brand Dubai: The Instant City; or the Instantly Recognizable City.”
International Planning Studies 12 (2): 173–197. doi:10.1080/13563470701486372.
Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington: Island
Press.
Brooks, Michael. 2002. Planning Theory for Practitioners. Chicago, IL: APA, Planners Press.
Curran, Charles. 2010. “Retrofit + Shrink Wrap Dubai: An Urban Recovery Plan.” Master thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davidoff, Paul. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 31 (4): 331–338. doi:10.1080/01944366508978187.
Davidson, Christopher. 2008. Dubai: The Vulnerability of Success. New York: Colombia University
Press.
Davis, Mike. 2006, “Fear and Money in Dubai.” New Left Review, September-October. http://
newleftreview.org/II/41/mike-davis-fear-and-money-in-dubai.
“Drawn on the Sand: John Harris, Dubai’s Pioneering Modernist.” 2007. In Al-Manakh Gulf Survey,
152–167, edited by Moutamarat, AMO, and Archis.
Dubai 2020 Urban Master Plan: A Smart Approach to Sustainable & Competent Urban Planning
for 2020. 2011. Dubai: Dubai Municipality Publications.
Elsheshtawy, Yasser, ed. 2004. “Redrawing Boundaries: Dubai, the Emergence of a Global City”.
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

In Planning the Middle East City: An Urban Kaleidoscope in a Globalizing World, 169–199.
London: Routledge.
Elsheshtawy, Yasser. 2008. “Transitory Sites: Mapping Dubai’s Forgotten Urban Spaces.” Interna-
tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (4): 968–988. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2427.2008.00819.x.
Elsheshtawy, Yasser. 2013. Dubai: Behind an Urban Spectacle (Planning, History and Environ-
ment). London: Routledge.
Emirates 24/7 News 2013. “Mohammed Calls for Brainstorm Session: Expo Win Reflects World’s
Confidence in UAE”, December 3. http://www.emirates247.com/news/government/mohammed-
calls-for-brainstorm-session-2013-12-03-1.529991.
Fink, Arlene, and Jacqueline B. Kosecoff. 1985. How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide.
London: Sage Publication.
Forrester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gabriel, Erhard. 1987. The Dubai Handbook. Ahrensburg: Institute for Applied Economic
Geography.
Graham, Stephen, and Simon Marvin. 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures,
Technological Motilities, and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.
Gudaitis, Lia. 2010. “The Modern Majlis: Public Participatory Planning in Shahama and Bahia.” In
Al Manakh Gulf Survey, edited by Moutamarat, AMO, and Archis, 220–223.
Hellyer, Peter. 2014. “The UAE’s History of Tolerance Deserves Wider Recognition.” The
National, December 22. http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/the-uaes-history-of-toler
ance-deserves-wider-recognition.
Hiscott, William. 2005. “Parallel Societies, a Neologism Gone Bad.” Multicultural Center Prague.
Accessed February 14, 2014. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fptop.only.wip.la%3A443%2Fhttp%2Faa.ecn.cz
%2Fimg_upload%2Ff76c21488a048c95bc0a5f12deece153%2FWHiscott_Parallel_Societies.pdf&
hl=en&sa=T&oi=gga&ct=gga&cd=1&ei=AKjfVLTqOoHOqQGq1oHYDw&scisig=AAGBfm1l8
9bcRGrdo6Wx23xNCuSF4Wkinw&nossl=1&ws=1097x605
Hvidt, Martin. 2006. “Governance in Dubai: The Emergence of Political and Economic Ties
between the Public and the Private Sector”, Center for Contemporary Middle East Studies,
University of Southern Denmark. http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Om_SDU/Centre/C_Melle
moest/Videncenter/Working_papers/06WP2006MH1.pdf.
Hvidt, Martin. 2009. “The Dubai Model: An Outline of Key Components of the Development
Process in Dubai”, Center for Contemporary Middle East Studies, University of Southern
Denmark. http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Om_SDU/Centre/C_Mellemoest/Videncenter/Work
ing_papers/12WP2007MH1_001.pdf.
Kanna, Ahmed. 2011. Dubai: The City as Corporation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press. Burlington.
Kazim, Aqil. 2000. The United Arab Emirates A.D. 600 to the Present: A Socio-Discursive
Transformation in the Arabian Gulf. Dubai: Gulf Book Centre.
 26 K. Alawadi and S. Dooling

Kotkin, J. 1992. Tribes: How Race, Religion, and Identity Determine Success in the New Global
Economy. New York: Random House Inc.
Krane, James. 2009. The Story of the World’s Fastest City. London: Atlantic Books.
Landeta, Jon. 2005. “Current Validity of the Delphi Method in Social Sciences.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 73 (5): 467–482. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.09.002.
Linstone, Harold, and Murray Turloff. 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications.
London: Addison-Wesley.
Ludwig, Barbara. 1997. “Predicting the Future: Have You Considered Using the Delphi Methodol-
ogy?” Journal of Extension 35 (5): 1–4. Accessed November 6, 2005. http://www.joe.org/joe/
1997october/tt2.html
Machado, Rodolfo. 2006. “Dubai is Not Yet.” Harvard Design Magazine 25: 97–103.
Meyerson, Martin, and Edward Banfield. 1955. Politics, Planning and the Public Interest. New York:
The Free Press.
Miller, Mark. 1993. “Enhancing Regional Analysis with the Delphi Method.” The Review of Regio-
nal Studies 23 (2): 191–221.
Molavi, Afshin. 2007. “Sudden City: A Feverish Dream of the Future Springs from the Sands in
Dubai.” National Geographic, January. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/01/dubai/mo
lavi-text/1
Downloaded by [Khaled Alawadi] at 23:15 19 May 2015

Morgan, David, John P. Pelissero, and Robert E. England. 1979. “Urban Planning: Using a Delphi
as a Decision Making Aid.” Public Administration Review 39 (4): 380–384. doi:10.2307/
976215.
Muller, Elizabeth, and Sarah Dooling. 2011. “Sustainability and Vulnerability: Integrating Equity
into Plans for Central City Redevelopment.” Journal of Urbanism 4 (3): 201–222. doi:10.1080/
17549175.2011.633346.
Newman, Peter, and Isabella Jennings. 2008. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems: Principles and
Practices. Washington: Island Press.
Parsons-HBA Inc: Structure Plan Team. 1995. Structural Plan for the Dubai Urban Area 1993–
2012. Dubai: Dubai Municipality, Planning and Surveying Department.
Ramos, Stephen. 2010. Dubai Amplified: The Engineering of a Port Geography. Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.
Roberts, Nancy. 2004. “Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation.” The Review
of Public Administration 34 (4): 315–353. doi:10.1177/0275074004269288.
Row, Gene, George Wright, and Andy McColl. 2005. “Judgment Change during Delphi-like Proce-
dures: The Role of Majority Influence, Expertise, and Confidence.” Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 72 (4): 377–399. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2004.03.004.
Sahtouris, Elizabet. 1998. “The Biology of Globalization.” Adapted from first publication in Per-
spectives in Business and Social Change. http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/Articles/globalize.pdf.
Sanoff, Henry. 2000. Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New Jersey:
Wiley & Sons.
Seltzer, E. 2004. “It’s Not an Experiment: Regional Planning at Metro, 1990 to the Present.” In The
Portland Edge: Challenges and Successes in Growing Communities, edited by Connie Ozawa,
35–60. Washington: Island Press.
Sepasdar, Golrokh, and Magda Sibley. 2008. “Public Participation and Urban Development in
Islamic Countries.” In Instant Cities: Emergent Trends in Architecture and Urbanism in Arab
World? And Architectural Synthesis in the Gulf Region, edited by Amer Moustafa, Jamal
Al-Qawasmi, and Kevin Mitchell, 561–575. Jordan: CSAAR, Center for the Study Architecture
in the Arab Region.
Umemoto, Kare. 2001. “Walking in Another’s Shoes: Epistemological Challenges in Participatory
Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 21 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1177/
0739456X0102100102.
Wilson, Matthew. 2010. “Vertical Landscaping, a Big Regionalism for Dubai.” International Jour-
nal of Urban and Regional Research 34 (4): 926–940. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.01007.
Witkin, Belle Ruth, and James W. Altschuld. 1995. Planning and Conducting Needs Assessment: A
Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zacks, Stephen. 2007. “Beyond the Spectacle.” MetropolisMAG, November 21. http://www.
metropolismag.com/November-2007/Beyond-the-Spectacle/.

View publication stats