The Impact of Recent Policies on the Transformation of Local Participatory Urban Planning in Saudi Arabia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper explores the impacts since the implementation of Vision 2030 in 2016 in the urban participatory planning of Saudi Arabia. Through the literature review of various policy changes and the survey, the paper highlights both positive results showing that opportunities for public participation in the decision-making and project implementation process have increased, but also identifies some challenges, such as the exclusion of some more marginalized groups from the process and issues of displacement and limited transparency.
This is a topic of relevance and interest for the Journal.
In general, the topic of the paper seems interesting enough, but I suggest some revisions in order to make it stronger and better documented. I suggest adding to the literature review some examples of public participation in the process of project planning and implementation and their results, so that through specific practices, both the positive elements of participatory processes implemented in Saudi Arabia and the challenges that may exist can be highlighted. I also suggest that the literature in the theoretical framework should be enhanced so that the paper and the findings of the research are theoretically framed in a more comprehensive and complete way. Regarding the methodology, I think that the survey of 453 participants has not been carried out according to certain criteria to ensure the representativeness of the responses. Perhaps it would be good to remove this survey and leave only the interviews, which are quite well structured and need to be further analysed and linked to the theoretical framework.
More specifically, regarding the introduction to this paper, it seems to be well structured. However, some improvements can be made to its structure to make it clearer. An effective structure of the introduction can be (per paragraph): a) main topics of the paper, b) literature on them and what gaps are identified, c) research aim, research question, contribution of the paper, d) case study and methodology, e) structure of the paper.
As for the theoretical framework, it needs to be enhanced so that there is a better theoretical framing and analysis of the whole paper and the research findings. Literature could be added to highlight the general trend towards a shift to a more participatory model of governance and the reasons for this. There is quite a large literature discussing this trend towards more bottom-up approaches to decision-making and project implementation, for example Healey, P. (2001). Planning theory: the interaction with institutional contexts. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, Rakodi, C. (2003). Politics and performance: the implications of emerging governance arrangements for urban management approaches and information systems. Habitat International, 27(4), 523–547. Also, I suggest to strengthen the theoretical framework with literature discussing participatory planning, which is becoming increasingly popular in this context of governance transformation, as well as what positive outcomes participatory planning can bring about and enhance urban sustainable development. There is also a lot of literature discussing these issues, for example Kostaki, E., Frangopoulos, Y., Makridou, A., & Kapitsinis, N. (2024). Participatory governance for the temporary use of urban abandoned areas. A socio-spatial approach to the “Old Hospital” area in Alexandroupolis, Greece. Cities, 154, 105378, Slocum, N. (2003). Participatory methods toolkit: A practitioner’s manual. King Baudouin Foundation. Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment (viWTA), United Nations University–Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU/CRIS), Creighton, J. (2005). The Public Participation Handbook – Making Better Decisions through Citizens’ Involvement, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, etc. It also needs to be referred the different types of participatory procedures that may be applied, as in some cases public participation may be active / actual, while in others it may be consultative or passive, etc. A very important paper dealing with the different types of participatory process is Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4): 216-224. This clarification of the types of participatory process can potentially help to identify what type of participation tends to be applied through the policy changes in Saudi Arabia and what the implications are.
Regarding the literature review, more emphasis needs to be placed on participatory processes that have been carried out at the urban level. Apart from simply stating " Digital initiatives, such as 'Your Voice Is Heard,' encourage public participation in urban planning" (lines 115-116), it might be helpful to provide some examples of such practices where public participation in decision-making and project implementation has taken place at the urban level. Who were the key players in each case? What type of public participation took place ( actual or tokenism? etc.), what was the result?
Some initiatives such as "Balady" and "Istitlaa" mentioned in the paper that facilitate public participation (lines 21-22), need to be further analyzed in the literature review section, pointing out such examples where public participation has taken place through these initiatives. How do these platforms work? What opportunities for public participation do they offer, when do they offer them (at an early stage of the project planning and implementation process or at a later stage and after the most important decisions have already been taken by the institutions?). At the same time, it is mentioned that public participation is also carried out through workshops (lines 11-12). Such examples need to be mentioned in the literature review section. What type of public participation seems to have taken place through these workshops and what were the results? This will highlight more clearly what are the advantages and disadvantages of such participatory processes implemented in Saudi Arabian cities.
The paper also states that public participation, especially in mega projects, is limited and sometimes there can be exclusion of certain groups within these mega projects. This is a very important point. Some examples of such practices that have been implemented must be mentioned to better substantiate this. For example, in the introduction of the paper (lines 34-44) one such example is briefly described. This example needs to be further analyzed in the literature review, where it will be clearly stated who were the main actors of this project (public, private bodies etc.), what kind of public participation took place ("tokenism", actual or no participation at all etc.) and what was the result (e.g. displacement of some more marginalized groups, etc). Also, in line 728 the mega project NEOM is briefly mentioned where there was exclusion of more marginalized groups. This example needs to be analyzed in the literature review, explaining how it was done, which groups were excluded and so on. In addition, the paper mentions that some "Smart Cities" have been established in Saudi Arabia (lines 165-166). It should be helpful to describe specifically what these smart cities are and how they differ from other cities. Do they enhance citizen participation in decision-making and project implementation? Examples of this need to be provided.
Regarding the methodology of interviews taken from 20 experienced urban planners as mentioned in lines 456-457, the authors need to explain why did they methodologically choose to interview only experts/urban planners? Did they want to see the opinion and perspective of the experts on the positive and negative outcomes that emerge following the implementation of Vision 2030? It is important to justify this choice so that it is methodologically appropriate and thorough. Also, audio recordings, transcripts and translations of interviews do not need to be mentioned in the methodology. Also in Table 4 it would be useful to add a coding of the interviewees (e.g. I1, I2, I3 etc.), so that when analyzing the results of the survey referring to interviewee's speech, this coding can be put, instead of repeating the word "Interviewee" over and over again, as for example in lines 522, 528 etc.
The methodology for the survey of 453 participants cannot provide a representative sample of the public's views, since the respondents were, as the authors say, "selected at random, with no specific pre-set criteria, to reflect a general cross-section of the population". In order for the responses of the participants in the survey to be representative, the sample should have been weighted primarily on the basis of certain criteria (e.g. maximum margin of error, confidence level of the survey, the sample size based on the actual population, etc.) Also, since the participants were selected through researchers' personal and institutional networks and a part of the survey was conducted through social media (facebook, twitter, etc.), it is clear that this cannot be a probability sampling method, as the probability for each person in the population to be asked was not the same, but was done at the discretion of the researcher. This is a non-probability sampling method, which is not suitable for quantitative surveys. Based on this, I suggest this survey to be removed from this paper and to keep only the interview survey, which is very interesting and well structured, after the authors enhance and analyze it further and link its findings well to the theoretical framework.
In terms of the analysis of the interview survey results, there seem to be several interesting findings. Table 5 (pp. 17-18) is very well structured and interesting, as it clearly presents the main findings and helps the reader to identify key nuances in perspectives on local participatory urban planning in Saudi Arabia. I suggest adding more pieces of interviewee speech. In addition, the findings of this survey need to be linked to the theoretical framework, which would have been reinforced with literature as I mentioned above. Also, in some cases is simply mentioned "the interviewee" (e.g. lines 526, 537-538 etc.). It would be useful to emphasize in the text the profile and relevance of the interviewee (e.g. according to an urban planning expert who has often been involved in participatory planning processes etc.). This helps the reader to understand the importance of the interviewee's words, depending on his or her status in relation to the topic of the paper.
Finally, I suggest a few minor revisions: Some citation issues need to be corrected, as in line 48 "Moshashai, Leber, and Savage (2020)", it might be better to be in the form "Moshashai et. al. (2020)". Also, in Figure 1 it would be useful to add in the title that the classification categories for the distribution of municipalities is in Saudi Arabia, so that the reader can understand where this classification is just from the figure and without having read the text. I also suggest that figure 4, which shows how the theoretical framework discusses the case of Saudi Arabia, should be transferred to the discussion section, as the theoretical framework usually describes the key concepts that frame the topic of the paper. Also, there are two tables with the same numbering 5 (pp. 16-17 and 17-18). Finally, the recommendations for future research mentioned in lines 710-716 in the discussion section, I suggest to be transferred to the last paragraph of the conclusions section. That way the reader, having first read the research of this paper and its conclusions, will then be ready to see what other kinds of future research could be done on the issue.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study "The Impact of Recent Policies on the Transformation of Local Participatory Urban Planning in Saudi Arabia" addresses a relevant topic - the analysis of decentralization processes and the implementation of participatory urban planning in Saudi Arabia within the framework of the strategic Vision 2030 program. However, I believe it would be appropriate to make the following clarifications in the text:
1. Although the meaning of the term "Participatory Urban Planning" can be inferred from the article's context, providing a more detailed explanation of this concept in the first part of the text would facilitate understanding and increase reader interest in the work.
2. Include available analytical or numerical data on actual public involvement in the implementation of the studied concept. This will offer a clearer understanding of the real situation.
3. If available, add examples of real cases of participatory urban planning implementation in Saudi Arabia.
4. Provide a more detailed description of the methodology for data analysis and the analytical tools used.
5. To enhance the credibility of the study's results, provide examples of survey questions or even samples of questionnaires.
6. Formulate practical recommendations for governmental or non-governmental organizations based on the study's results. Specify how the research findings can be applied in practice.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsurbansci-3443606
"The Transformation of Local Participatory Urban Planning in Saudi Arabia under Vision 2030: Opportunities and Challenges"
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to read this work.
I've included a summary of its advantages and recommendations for improvement.
The document work is full of strong intellectual traits, including the following:
Strengths
The study conducts a well considered mixed-methods approach comprising a comprehensive literature review, semi-structured interviews with urban managers, and a sizable 453-responding survey.
This triangulation helps the data to be more trustworthy, particularly when comparing participatory planning in urban and rural settings.
Kingdon's policy window model is a creative and analytical framework for investigating at how participatory reforms occurred inside Saudi Arabia's centralized government under Vision 2030.
Comparative study in like governance environments benefits much from the theoretical perspective. Under Vision 2030, the study offers a reasonable assessment of the developments and difficulties of local government reform.
Emphasizing regional distinctions, digital platforms, and local sovereignty, it offers government officials and legislators a critical assessment they may handle.
Ethical issues like displacement brought on by megaprojects and issues with the openness of decision-making procedures are very carefully addressed. Further broad discussions on participatory justice and smart city development relate to these issues.
Guide for minor Corrections
- The authors might expand the conversation about governance models to suit Saudi Arabia's problems in more general terms (e.g., centralized vs. scattered (local) administration).
2.The authors should point out the dearth of impoverished groups in the study and suggest further lines of investigation to close this disparity.
3 The authors may Include a closer and concise review of survey results to embrace the reasons of public neutrality in Vision 2030's engagement initiatives.
- The authors need to mention policy Suggestions: Demand community consultations for megaprojects or carry out open policy audits to specifically help to lower institutional obstacles.
This paper clarifies the urban governance changes of Vision 2030 in Saudi Arabia considerably. Its methodological clarity and critical eye on participation gaps provide insightful analysis for scholars and legislators equally. With a few changes to handle the aforementioned, I think this work might fit publishing in "Urban Science" with an emphasis on urban planning and governance.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper The Impact of Recent Policies on the Transformation of Local Participatory Urban Planning in Saudi Arabia is a valuable contribution for Urban Science mdpi journal with a coherent logical discourse.
Certain aspects that may be improved in view of publication would be:
- A more general and compacted introduction centered around theoretical concepts approached in the study. Vision 2030 strategy already represents the topic of a subchapter in the paper.
- A formulation of the aim of the study instead of the current central research question and of several research questions (two or three) deriving from it and to which the research attempts to answer
- The discussion and / or conclusion should address them and conclusively answer these research questions according to qualitative and pseudo-quantitative results obtained in the study.
- A more appropriate title for Chapter 2 (suggestion: Literature review and study background). Another possible variant is two have two appropriate distinctive chapters.
- Native English proofreading and in depth corrections of terms (e.g. remainder of the paper - line 100)
The authors could take above suggestions into consideration for improvements in view of publication of their paper that I fully encourage for the Urban Science mdpi journal.
Kind regards
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageWording should be checked and revised by native speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
