Development of Governance Evaluation Model for Accessible and Inclusive Urban Development in the United Arab Emirates Using Analytical Network Process

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1958811/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Development of Governance Evaluation Model for Accessible and Inclusive Urban Development in the United Arab Emirates Using Analytical Network Process

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1958811/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Accessibility and Inclusion are challenging issues for decision-makers due to its impact on equity and quality of life. This research presents a novel governance evaluation model (GEM) for Accessible and Inclusive Urban Development (AIUD) to develop quantitative approach by applying Analytical Network Process (ANP). Experts feedback was sought to first: rank priorities of governance principles (GP’s), second: determine interdependencies of GI’s with respect to GP’s, third: determine interdependencies of indicators with respect to each other and finally scores for public governance. Therefore, the model was used to evaluate public governance in Sharjah Emirate by four agencies representing public sector. AIUD GEM results showed that the most important governance principle at AIUD in the UAE is (Transparency and Accountability). While the highest rated governance indicator is (representation of persons with disabilities and their families). The model implementation in Sharjah, demonstrated organizations agreement on rating (political commitment and legitimacy) as the highest in Sharjah public governance. The final outcome established reliable tool to support decision making in resource allocation, prioritizing intervention actions in addition to determining areas of improvement needed among various stakeholders and sectors. It is this gap or niche in the field of AIUD that this research endeavoured to fill by formulating a bespoke GEM for AIUD in the UAE, with the potential for adaptation in other contexts around the world. The model formulated in this research is a holistic monitoring and evaluation tool that engages stakeholders from various sectors, uses indicators for which data collection is less time- and effort-consuming, and allows for continuous and easy monitoring by decision-makers.

This research is a timely response to a trans-disciplinary subject which is a global concern to decision- makers due to its significant impact on sustainable development. Due to the impact of AIUD on social inclusion, human welfare and economic development, the development of GI’s facilitates decision-making through stakeholder’s involvement in order to allow benchmarking and comparison of performance. The model would enable the UAE to remain a role model in the field of AIUD and continue to influence knowledge and practice in this field globally. This research is the first published research that utilized MCDM tools to develop public GEM considering holistic approach in the context of AIUD. Therefore, it is forming solid base for academics and decision-makers to utilize this model to promote public governance performance not only in the UAE but also internationally.

Accessible and Inclusive Urban Developments

Governance Evaluation

Multi-criteria decision-making

Analytical Network Process

United Arab Emirates

For a long time, social inclusion has been on the top of the government agenda in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where the development of human resources is considered a priority for decision- makers. Promoting accessibility and inclusion is one of the main issues that challenge governments around the world and remain a priority on the international organizations agenda toward promoting sustainability. Therefore, UAE has responded to the international movement and encouraged several initiatives toward promoting accessibility and inclusion on the federal and local levels. AIUD refers to developments that ensures accessibility for and inclusion of persons with disabilities and elderly in all aspects of developments and follow universal design approach by removing barriers to the physical environment, transportation, employment, education, health, services, information and assistive devices such as information and communications technology (ICTs) to achieve fullest potential and independency for all society members (AlKhamis et al, 2019). Accessibility have been always evaluated in terms of physical accessibility at the built environment or virtual accessibility to websites and mobile applications while there is no holistic model which considers evaluation of public governance at AIUD. Due to the complexity of AIUD as a multi- stakeholders and multi-sectoral field, it forms a challenge for decision-makers to evaluate performance or monitor progress. Complex issues known as wicked problems are considered as governability issue. Although governance evaluation models (GEMs) are widely applied to address complex issues. Yet, there is no GEM in the UAE or elsewhere that is designed or implemented to evaluate governance of AIUD. In this research, referring to Zaman & Brudermann (2018), AIUD governance is defined as the process of coordination in which institutional properties (system of rules, policies) and interdependent (public-private) actor constellations interact to decide best ways to achieve AIUD.

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tools are used in several studies and practices in GEMs due to its powerful connection mechanism that distributes the importance of considered variables. In the field of public governance evaluation and policy evaluation, there are various applications where MCDM tools were used to determine relations between elements, prioritize criteria and determine relative importance (Zhao et al., 2017; Cobo et al., 2014; Zaman et al, 2018; Liu et al. ,2012).

GEMs utilizing MCDM tools is an attractive field for researchers as there is a strong potential for further studies due to its significance considerable applications. Despite the recommendation in literature to develop a field specific indicators and evaluation measures, the AIUD GI’s developed by AlKhamis et al (2020) are the only available indicators in the literature for the field. Since that GEMs are used in different fields and they are widely used in multi-disciplinary settings, they vary in terms of its characteristics, purpose and input source.

This study identifies international GEMs used in similar settings, addresses gaps and strengths, analyze MCDM tools used in governance evaluation and applies the recommended MCDM tool. The proposed GEM for AIUD is significant because the application of GEMs in AIUDs was found absent in the literature. The strength of the proposed AIUD GEM is presented as follows:

It can be used for AIUD generally or for specific field (i.e.: Transportation, ICT, Built Environment, Public services, Employment, Education...etc.) or a combination of fields at AIUD.
It allows decision-makers to prioritize intervention actions and resources distribution
It allows local and international comparison and benchmarking.
It promotes participation of various stakeholders in evaluating public governance and encourages engagement in decision-making.

The current study area and proposed conceptual GEM is considered significant contribution in the field of AIUD (AlKhamis et al., 2019).

The case of the UAE

Social development is one of the top agenda priorities of the UAE government. Over the years, several accomplishments and milestones have occurred through the public policy sector. One particular area of priority in social development is the empowerment of people with disabilities. Accomplishments in this area have resulted in the UAE being a model for international best practices in services for persons with disabilities, including educational, rehabilitation and public services.

The recent UAE National Policy to empower people of determination issued by the UAE Cabinet No. 1/6 in 2017 and the establishment of the Advisory Council for People of Determination in 2017 by the Ministry of Social Developments, are local initiatives that confirm the commitment of UAE government and decision-makers to disability issues. This commitment started since early stages and was empowered with the issuance of federal law No. 29 in 2006 followed by federal law amendment No. 14 issued in 2009 about the rights of people with disabilities. At the international level, the UAE ratified the UNCRPD under decree No 1/6 in 2009.

Similar to many other countries worldwide, implementation of the United Nations Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and complying with the UN SDGs remain formidable challenges for the UAE due to the complexity of disability issues and the involvement of various players in addressing the issues. UNCRPD obligates its state parties to direct research and development efforts toward fostering universally designed goals and to integrate research outcomes with organizational efforts to achieve the goals of the UNCRPD. However, the observation in this research is that when it comes to governance and public policy management in inclusion and accessibility, there is paucity of academic research at both the global and local levels.

Background - The Case of Sharjah

Sharjah is one of the seven emirates that make up the UAE Federation. It is the third largest in both population and land area. Sharjah is renowned nationally and internationally for being a leader in social development in general and disability care in particular. The Ruler of Sharjah, His Highness Sheikh Dr. Sultan Bin Mohamed AlQasimi, has given full support and attention to disability and elderly matters through policy and resource commitments. In 1979, The branch of Arab Family Organization was established under Amiri Decree to serve people with disabilities. The same organization, known afterwards as Sharjah City for Humanitarian Services (SCHS), was established under Amiri decree as the first organization in the UAE to provide specialized education and rehabilitation for people with disabilities. This organization, directed by Shaikha Jameela Bint Mohamed AlQasimi, is the engine to promote disability rights in the UAE and the Middle East and North Africa Region. Promising initiatives were born under SCHS umbrella. These have turned into remarkable achievements that shaped the future for people with disabilities and their families. Which have earned Sharjah a leading position in the UAE and at the international level[1]. The head of SCHS’s exceptional leadership style and influential management have inspired various organizations and personnel to promote the rights of persons with disabilities in addition to supporting research and development.

In the year 1990, HH Ruler of Sharjah declared Sharjah as a barrier free city. This was a response to the self-advocates demand to enforce disability rights and demand to ensure social inclusion and equity. In addition, Sharjah was announced a Healthy City by the World Health Organization in 2012, and that also focused on providing accessibility and inclusion for the persons with disabilities. The recent initiative was the designation of Sharjah as an Age-friendly City in 2016 by the World Health Organization. This is aimed at promoting full participation and social inclusion of senior citizens. Despite the efforts and political will in Sharjah toward promoting AIUDs, implementation of AIUD initiatives still faces challenges from the dimension of public governance evaluation. These challenges justify the need for intensive research and development and active local initiatives for utilizing public governance tools to support decision making processes.

AIUD Governance Indicators

The extensive use of GI’s is attributable to three main reasons. First, GI’s enable international comparisons of performances (Stewart, 2006). Second, indicators promote citizen participation (Stewart, 2006). Third, indicators facilitate assessment of quality of governance, demonstration of actual performance and identification of areas needing improvement (Lockwood, 2010). Researches recommended utilizing indicators-based evaluation models and contemplate complexity of emerging sustainable development issues and wicked problems through systematic approaches to determine relations between indicators without compromising simplicity and applicability (Huovila et al, 2019; Kisingo et al, 2016; Zaman et al, 2018). From the literature reviewed in this research thus far on GEMs and GI’s, there is a glaring lack of models and indicators developed specifically for the public governance of AIUDs. Following the researchers’ recommendation to develop field-specific governance indicators, AlKhamis et al (2020) have developed AIUD governance indicators based on the literature and experts’ feedback. The final list of indicators is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1

AIUD governance indicators (Source: AlKhamis et al, 2020)

	Governance indicator	Source / Reference
1	Clearly defined enforcement procedures	(Kamil et al, 2017) (Camargo et al, 2009) (Garces et al, 2013)
2	Political commitment and legitimacy	(Zaman & Brudermann, 2018)
3	Existence and adoption of a management plan	(Kamil et al, 2017) (Camargo et al, 2009) (Garces et al, 2013)
4	Representation of persons with disabilities, elderly and their families	(Pettenella & Brotto, 2012)
5	Existence of a decision making and management body	(Kamil et al, 2017) (Camargo et al, 2009) (Garces et al, 2013) (Gallacher et al, 2016)
6	Quality of Infrastructure	(Zaman & Brudermann, 2018)
7	Effectiveness of AIUD bylaws	(Kalonga & Kulindwa, 2017)
8	Effectiveness of institutions and implementation capacity.	(Clarvis & Allan, 2014)
9	Transparency, availability and accessibility of information on AIUD resources	(Clarvis & Allan, 2014)
10	Evaluation and planning for both short and long term AIUD issues based on accurate and appropriate data	(Clarvis & Allan , 2014)
11	Local community participation in AIUD	(Pettenella & Brotto, 2012)
12	Responsiveness to innovation, Inclusiveness and accessibility of innovative initiatives	Experts’ input
13	Budget allocated for AIUD initiatives from total budget	Experts’ input

Evaluation modeling

Models are widely used on public and corporate levels to assist decision-making in selection, prioritizing and evaluation of complex issues. Models are used to breakdown complex issues to simplify them and turn them into more understandable form. As much as UN bodies and international agencies strive toward having reliable evaluation models, they still struggle to obtain reliable data from nations to achieve needed benchmark to manage progress of SDG (Huovila et al, 2019). Assessment and evaluation of SDGs and in particular goal No. 11 was contemplated by UN and recent reports provided monitoring guide to support assessment for decision-making purposes (UN, 2018; UN-Habitat, 2016). Nonetheless there are no evaluation models developed at the UN or other organizations to consider public governance evaluation of AIUD. Therefore, recent studies offering evaluation models for SDG related issues still face a challenge with providing simple and applicable tool due to their dependency on meta data which demands efforts and time or even end up with lacking data (Rebernik et al, 2020). What is found interesting that governance related evaluation models often rely on meta data while stakeholders’ evaluation is highly recommended but there are no evaluation models for AIUD that depends on stakeholders’ evaluation to public governance without relying on meta data.

Mondini (2019) recommended conducting interdisciplinary assessment of sustainability issues and advocated for collaboration between professional associations and universities to provide experts who can offer solutions to these issues with suitable knowledge of evaluation methods. He agrees that employing interdisciplinary expertise shall identify conflicts and utilize diverse knowledge.

Overview of MCDM tools

Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) tools are used to assist in making rational judgements when it comes to complex problems with multi-criteria and multi-alternatives. MCDM tools have a wide range of applications in different fields to resolve complex issues both in theory and in practice (Sanga et al., 2013; Saaty, 2008). MCDM tools can be applied to rank criteria and alternatives and determine criteria weights to evaluate performance. The selection of the most applicable MCDM tool depends on the nature and characteristics of decision problem. Saaty (2008) believes that the nature of the real world involves complexity of events that forms an intangible base for decision-making. Based on this reasoning, he developed an innovative utility called Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), a foremost innovation in the field of decision-making. In this method, he introduced a powerful tool for decision- makers to balance intangibles tradeoffs and evaluation of tangibles by utilizing a flexible mathematical model. This innovation proved its effectiveness through its widespread commercialized applications in all fields, including choice of factors, prioritization, resource allocations, strategic planning, total quality management and evaluation. The strength of AHP is driven by its reliability, ease of programming, simple input and efficient processing which makes it a first choice for many large international corporations. AHP applications via various business models reflect its flexibility to be adopted in different environments for different purposes. In addition, AHP has been used for group decision-making and it can accept both qualitative and quantitative input. It has become a significant feature of the decision-making literature, of academic curriculums and of research. Its versatility and advantages notwithstanding, as with all other decision tools, AHP is known for its weakness when it comes to being used for multi-criteria analysis. There is a limited number of criteria that can be entered to the mathematical model to avoid complications. Another weakness of AHP is that, due to the rigidity of the mathematical model, it is considered to be a one-way process and it requires a re-processing of the entire model if the input is changed. This challenge has however been mitigated with the AHP being an easily programmable tool, thus reducing the drudgery of model reprocessing. As all other tools, AHP is dependent on the human perception input. Since AHP is used for group decision-making, then the reliability of its outcomes depends on the consistency of the input. The more the input is filtered and appraised the more the quality of the outcomes. It is highly recommended to integrate other tools and course of actions to generate criteria elements and alternatives at the same time (source). AHP has been used to serve as a tool to filter inputs to other decision tools. AHP is a MCDM tool that represents a problem in a hierarchical structure then uses pairwise comparisons to establish the relations within the structure. Saaty (1987) recommended using AHP in both physical and social domains, and to resolve societal problems. He stated that “in general a hierarchical model of some societal problem might be one that descends from a focus (an overall objective), down to criteria, down further to sub criteria which are subdivisions of the criteria and finally to the alternatives from which the choice is to be made” (Saaty, 1987, p. 162).

Saaty (2005) defined ANP as a generalization of the AHP, by considering the dependence between the elements of the hierarchy and represented in a network, unlike AHP which is represented in hierarchy. He added that the development of ANP was a response to many decision problems which cannot be structured hierarchically due to the interaction and dependence of the elements. He stated that ANP is a “useful way to deal with complex decisions that involve dependence and feedback analysed in the context of benefits, opportunities, costs and risks.” (p.27). Since the ANP deals with the interdependences between criteria and alternatives, it is recommended to be used to justify decisions and define relations between various elements in a complex system with multi factors and high interdependencies.

Applications of MCDM in GEM and policy management

Models are widely used at the public and corporate levels to assist decision-makers in selecting, prioritizing and evaluating complex issues. Models are used to breakdown, simplify and clarify complex issues. However, representations of the same complex problem can be built from different perspectives and there are various ways to represent the same issue, which leads to distinctive understandings and solutions. MCDM is used in literature and practice to represent decision-making problems of complex issues and construct the relations between various elements. According to Roy (1985), “the main aim of multiple criteria decision aid is not to discover a solution, but to construct or create a set of relations amongst actions that better inform the actors taking part in a decision process”. This relation is believed to not only identify relevant social actors, allow inclusion of multiple perspectives in alternative evaluation and analysis of conflict but also influence decision-making and suggest improvement to the policy making especially when applied to social research (Roy, 1985).

As the relations between various elements in the decision process, these relations and its analysis can be presented in both quantitative and qualitative measures. It is significant to note that, while various qualitative approaches have been employed for GE, only a few studies have used quantitative methods (Turner et al., 2014; Kisingo et al, 2016). In their research, Brucker et al (2013) recommended viewing mathematical modelling as instruments in applying multi-criteria analysis for large scale projects with significant sustainable development implications.

For both qualitative and quantitative approaches, Table 2 summarizes the use, or recommended use, of MCDM tools in evaluation models of complex systems. There are various perspectives on the application of the methods. For example, Antunes et.al (2009) compared, three deliberative methods, which are participatory modelling, deliberative visioning and multi criteria evaluation. They concluded that “multi-criteria evaluation contributes to a better appraisal of options and trade-offs.” (p.937). In addition, they referred to the research conducted by Paneque et al. (2006), in which the results “point to the potential of participatory multi-criteria evaluation in supporting the identification and promoting a wider acceptance of policy options by the social actors involved in water decisions”.

Uyl & Driessen (2015) drew specific attention to the significance of conducting a wide and detailed evaluation of complex issues related to sustainable development. They noted the gap in the literature to address governance for sustainable development issues using MCDM, stating that “the analysis of the literature debate and the empirical data are able to show that a narrow evaluation perspective may fail to diagnose and capture relevant struggles and complexities coming along with governance for sustainable development relevant issues.” (p.186). They recommended a framework to advance the understanding of governance of sustainable development and its related issues through using multiple criteria.

In the literature, there is ample evidence that evaluation models are applied in various fields related to policy management and governance (Zaman et al, 2018). It is significant to note that ANP has been successfully implemented by researchers in evaluation models in fields other than governance evaluation and policy management. Due to complex nature of AIUD, it is essential to choose a modelling technique that is simple, easy to be applied by decision-makers and capable of linking various elements to achieve the main goal of promoting AIUD. Modelling AIUD governance as a MCDM problem allows utilizing stakeholders’ feedback in public governance evaluation while exploiting the mathematical modelling techniques of MCDM. Likewise, although selecting best suited MCDM tool is significant to achieve the goal of evaluation models, there is a dearth of academic literature to provide reliable approaches to select appropriate MCDM tool for evaluation models in various fields (Guarini et al, 2017), and especially in the AIUD field. MCDM utilization in this research goes affirms its efficiency in complex environments, especially when it comes to sustainable development issues (Antunes et al., 2009; Uyl & Driessen, 2015) and social issues (Salgado et al, 2009; Haarich 2018). Accessibility and inclusion are highlighted by goal number 11 of the SDGs.

Although ANP is recommended in the literature to be applied for complex issues and multi-stakeholders fields (Saaty 1996, 2005, 2006; Liu et al, 2012; Zhao et al, 2017; Cobo et al, 2014), there is limited applications in the field of GE whilst it was applied in policy evaluation (Liu et al, 2012, Zaman et al, 2018). Furthermore, researchers recommended using ANP in dynamic fields and to address social issues (Cobo et al., 2014) because ANP is used to determine control hierarchy in social domains (Saaty, 2004). Moreover, ANP allows configuring interrelations between elements which is not offered by AHP hierarchy system. In addition, it allows direct and indirect relations (Zhao et al., 2017, Liu et al, 2011, Wong et al., 2008). Therefore, this research used ANP as a decision-making tool to prioritize criteria elements (GPs); determine interdependencies between criteria (GPs) and sub criteria (GIs); rank sub criteria (GIs); and score public governance by each stakeholder.

Stakeholder-oriented GEMs

While GE is recommended and applied for multi-stakeholders and complex environments, GEMs utilize different sources of feedback (Ehler, 2003; Antunes et al, 2009; Oliviera et al, 2013; Turner et al, 2014; Kisingo et el, 2016; Mu & Jong, 2016; Haarich, 2018). Experts agree that stakeholder-oriented multi-criteria analysis can resolve evaluation decisions on complex issues and sustainable development. Moreover, stakeholder-oriented multi-criteria analysis has considerable potential to resolve stakeholders’ conflicts and improve governance of sustainable development (Brucker et al, 2013). Involvement of multi-stakeholders in GE is preferred to avoid single assessment by individual entities or individuals (Bovaird and Loffler, 2003). Participatory approach and input to governance evaluation by stakeholders have been prescribed successfully (Antunes et al, 2009; Kisingo et el, 2016; Zhao et al 2017). Engagement of stakeholders in the evaluation process supports decision-making process as it increases stakeholders’ awareness of conflict issues and draws their attention to possible improvements that can be made. Besides, including the interests and feedback of the affected parties reflects the end users’ perceptions of public governance evaluation (Antunes et al., 2009). Sustainable development issues such as AIUD are complex. They require a reliable governance system that enables multiple sectors and stakeholders to collaborate in implementing diverse initiatives and projects.

Table 2

Application of MCDM tools in GE and policy management (Source: Compiled by researcher, 2020)

Purpose	Tools	Gaps	Strengths	Reference
used hybrid MCDM models to examine dependency among various criteria and dimensions of tourism policies	DEMATEL ANP to determine relative weights of the criteria and VIKOR was used to determine the improvement priority	• Using small sample of experts reduced generalizability • Relying on literature only to obtain criteria	Dependency between criteria identifying an influential network and a priority sequence of dimensions/criteria related to tourism policies	(Liu et al., 2012)
evaluating performance of development process of leader approach in the rural development programme in Calabria	AHP fuzzy to weight Good governance criteria and fuzzy TOSIS to rank performance	No dependency between criteria	selecting good governance factors and developing indicators from the literature and based on interviews with experts	(Romeo & Marciano, 2014)
Evaluating performance of innovative business models for sustainable buildings.	AHP-ANP-Fuzzy Integral integrated network examined the interdependencies among criteria and indicators Obtained criteria weight using AHP and ANP. Used fuzzy integral to model the impacts of the interdependencies on the weights and the derived final evaluation scores of the alternatives.		Defining interdependencies among criteria and sub-criteria. Determining final evaluation scores of the alternatives. Obtaining criteria and indicators from literature and experts	(Zhao et al., 2017)
Framework assessing how prominent strategies for sustainable development	Recommended using multiple criteria in governance evaluation of sustainable development	MCDM tools not specified	Enhance understanding about inducing change in broad perspective	(Uyl & Driessen, 2015)
IT Governance evaluation model to evaluate the level of performance of IT governance based on maturity level of COBIT processes	fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for obtaining single assessment value of criteria based on selected indicators	assumed that criteria elements were independent	Allowed ranking and determining improvements priority	(Cobo et al., 2014)
		Recommended: using an ANP model in future research would define complex interrelationships between process		(Cobo et al., 2014)

[1] SCHS initiated AlThiqa Club the first sport club in the UAE , the Disability guardian association, Sharjah Social Empowerment Foundation, Early Intervention Center (the first in the middle east), Arts for All Center , Disability Resource Center at University of Sharjah in addition to other initiatives known to be the first in the UAE including initiating driving license for people with disabilities and Tv programs sign language interpretation.

While AIUD is a global issue that responds to SDGs especially goal No. 11 which targets sustainable cities and communities (United Nations, 2017), This research responds to recommendation by Uyl & Driessen (2015) who recommended implementation of MCDM at GEMs for issues related to sustainable developments and the research developed by AlKhamis et al (2019) who proposed a conceptual model to evaluate AIUD governance fig 1. Since that the literature review generated for this research showed no evidence about availability of GEM for AIUD or related fields (AlKhamis et al, 2020), this research suggests developing a GEM for AIUD which shall be used to assist decision-makers for local comparison of performance, promoting citizens’ participation and multi stakeholders engagement, and evaluating public governance to demonstrate performance and identify needed improvement.

Due to the complexity of AIUD, the evaluation model was divided into sub-systems to simplify determination of relations and identification of areas of concern (Liu et al., 2012; Zaman et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2017). Researches recommended utilizing indicators-based evaluation models and contemplate complexity of emerging sustainable development issues and wicked problems through systematic approaches to determine relations between indicators without compromising simplicity and applicability (Huovila et al, 2019; Kisingo et al, 2016; Zaman et al, 2018).

This paper presents part of a PhD research dissertation and focus on the GEM development in the UAE and GEM implementation in Sharjah. For the robust analysis and discussion, experts from different emirates including international experts with experience in the UAE who have diverse backgrounds in different fields of expertise are involved in this study.

This study is divided into two stages as explained below:

Stage 1: Model Development

In the literature, different GEMs have linked GIs to GP’s such as research conducted by Kisingo et al (2016) beside the research conducted by Uyl and Driessen (2015) who referred to other studies conducted by Adger et al. (2003); Lafferty (2004); Adger et al. (2005) and Jordan (2008) and confirmed that the evaluation of sustainable development governance that are against single criterion will be insufficient to reveal issues in practice and theory (Uyl & Driessen, 2015). Governance principles (GP’s) – also referred to as good governance- plays vital role in sustainable development implementations and monitoring its impact along GIs has not had sufficient attention in the academic field although its enforced by UN along with SDGs. Uyl & Driessen, 2015 confirmed that “up till now, academic discourse has barely explored connecting ideas about inducing change intended to enhance sustainable development, to ideas about what ‘good’ governance for sustainable development should look like”. Therefore, the development of AIUD GEM intended to foster significance relations between both GP’s and GIs in order to represent impact of various elements on decision making.

The GEM was structured according to the conceptual framework by AlKhamis et al (2019), where the goal is to evaluate public governance at AIUD, criteria were set as GP’s and sub criteria was set as GIs. The GP’s selected for this research are as per Olieviera et al (2013) which are: Transparency and accountability, Effectiveness and efficiency, Participation and Equity. Due to the wide application of MCDM tools in the literature, especially in GEM, this research use ANP to determine ranking and criteria weights and final evaluation scores of the alternative due to its wide applications in similar environments with complex nature and for similar purpose of evaluation. The implementation of MCDM in evaluation is believed and proofed to be a success for decision makers. The reason behind utilizing MCDM tools into creating robust structure of GEM is to employ clear relations between various elements into trustworthy information and suggested actions required by decision makers.

The process of ANP application consisted of three steps (Saaty,1996; Zhao et al., 2017) as follows:

First: Model Construction: The structure of ANP comprise control hierarchy or network of criteria which controls the interactions and the network which describes the influences among the elements (Fig. 1). A problem is decomposed into network with different levels, namely; criteria and sub criteria with nodes in each level. The interdependencies between various nodes can be represented by arcs or two ways arrows.

Second: Pairwise comparison and local priorities: The priority scale developed by Saaty (1996) comprise nine points as shown in Table 3. This scale is used to determine relative importance of elements via pairwise comparison. Then eigenvector method is applied to obtain local priority for each matrix.

Third: Super matrix formation and final priorities: Local priorities are employed to form super matrix that represents relationship between two levels or clusters.

Selection of sample interviewees and data collection

Selection of experts interviewed for this stage of research was based on selective sampling. All experts who were interviewed for stage 1 were selected to fulfil the following criteria:

Have background in AIUD public, private or non-profit organization (NPO);
Represent one or more of the following sectors including public service, education, transportation, ICT and assistive technology, Universal Design, accessible cities, built environment, public policies and public administration
Have sufficient knowledge about AIUD and AIUD governance in UAE context
Self-advocates representing different disabilities.
Experts have sufficient level of English language as the survey was in English

Experts were contacted via email and phone calls to confirm their readiness and acceptance to be involved in data collection and they were asked about their preferred way of interview. Understanding that using ANP is time consuming and requires extra efforts from both researcher and experts. Therefore, face to face interviews assisted in verifying that questions are carefully answered, and respondents are not losing interest or providing random feedback. Experts input was sought to provide ranking of GIs obtained in stage 1. The purpose of the data collection was to:

Rank priority of GP’s (Criteria) using ANP
Determine relations between GP’s (criteria) and GIs (sub criteria)
Determine inter-dependency between GIs (sub criteria)

This stage uses statistical analysis ANP based governance evaluation model utilizes super decision software for date analysis. The scale used is the scale recommended by Saaty as shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Ranking scale of model elements

Relevance scale	Definition
1	Low importance
3	Moderate importance
5	Strong importance
7	Very strong importance
9	Extreme importance
2,4,6,8	Intermediate values

Stage 2: Model implementation

The GEM developed in stage 1 aimed to promote stakeholder’s participation since that AIUD is a multisectoral multi-stakeholders’field, public governance can be evaluated by stakeholders representing various sectors. As recommended by (Romeo and Marciano, 2014; Zhao et al 2017; Antunes et al, 2009; Kisingo et el 2016), involving stakeholders improves quality of public sector and promotes positive engagements and enforces efficient participation. The stakeholders oriented MCDM can determine complex decision-making issues at sustainable developments (Brucker et al, 2013; Antunes et al, 2009; Zhao et al, 2017). The approach of engaging stakeholders in governance evaluation contribute to improved governance and input by stakeholders resolve the issue of extensive time and efforts spared to collect meta data as experienced by (Rebernik et al, 2020). Beside depending on meta data in evaluation tools have not been successful practice as much as UN bodies and international agencies strive toward having reliable evaluation tools, they still struggle to obtain reliable data from nations to achieve needed benchmark to manage progress of SDG (Huovila et al, 2019). Involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process toward governance improvement enhances their awareness and responsibility to take part in the development process and achieve mutual goal of sustainable developments.

Selection of stakeholders and data collection

Selection of stakeholders for AIUD GEM is a decision-makers choice where it depends on different factors. First, the sector targeted by decision-makers for AIUD governance evaluation. Stakeholders can represent public sector, private sector, NPOs, individuals as experts or advocates and also stakeholders can represent mix of all sectors. Second, the field targeted by decision-makers. For example, AIUD involves various fields that can be either targeted by decision-makers separately such as education, recreation, .. etc or all as one system. Third, the level of authorities where it can be applied on the federal level or local level. In fact, for UAE context, local level can be on the emirate level or for cities or areas within each emirate.

For the purpose of this research, the sector was selected as public sector and no specific field was selected for AIUD so it was for AIUD in general and the level of authority was for Sharjah Emirate. Therefore, public organizations were selected in the Emirate of Sharjah to represent stakeholders in the AIUD GEM. Several organizations were contacted to set appointments with chairmen or directors to represent the organization for feedback but only four organizations responded. The selected agencies have major contribution to the AIUD field in the city and they expressed their feedback based on their role at AIUD. These organizations represented four public organizations which are: Sharjah Municipality, Department of Housing, E-Government and Sharjah Roads and Transport Authority. However, it was emphasized that the ranking provided is based on their understanding of AIUD indicators at AIUD from their perspective. The received feedback from the agencies were from their top-level management (Chairmen and Directors) and that is representing agencies not personal point of views of the experts.

Public Organizations’ feedback was obtained by surveys conducted via face to face interview settings or phone calls to ensure proper understanding to the research subject. Feedback was provided to score AIUD GIs, on a scoring scale as following: 1 (unsatisfactory), 2 (improvement needed), 3 (meets expectations), 4 (exceeds expectations) and 5 (exceptional).

Input by stakeholders was also incorporated into the ANP model using super decision software. In stage 1, three models representing feedback from experts, self-advocates and overall models which resulted in different relations between elements. Therefore, the analyzed results were then discussed with reference to the study area in case study. Results of respondents were tested on the comprehensive model in addition to both models obtained previously (practitioners and self-advocates). This stage uses statistical analysis ANP based GEM utilizes super decision software for date analysis. The scale used is the scale recommended by Saaty as shown in Table 3.

The analysis was conducted into stages the first stage is model development following experts’ feedback and the second stage is model implementation following stakeholders’ feedback represented by public organizations to evaluate AIUD public governance in Sharjah.

Stage 1: Model Development (Experts Feedback):

Respondents in this stage of research have represented diversity of interest and backgrounds which contributed to having wider perspective and coverage to various fields at AIUD. As this research supports the principles of inclusion and participation as a right of people with disabilities according to the UNCRPD, there was an emphasis to engage self-advocates from various disabilities (physical disabilities, visual disability and learning difficulties) and their responses were mapped in a separate group to determine their input beside overall contribution to experts input. Eleven Experts represented various fields and some of them have multi-disciplinary expertise so the following fields were covered: information and technology, transportation and infrastructure, accessibility and universal design, education, healthcare and public policy. In addition, respondents represented various sectors public sector, private sector, nonprofit and social business. The results of experts’ feedbacks were divided into two groups: group 1 represents self-advocates (36.4%) of total sample and group 2 represents practitioners (63.6%) of total sample in addition to the overall result of experts’ feedbacks. The outcomes of this stage are the following:

Governance Principles Importance: Experts ranked GP’s and it was analyzed using mean values to determine ranking of GP’s. Figure 3 shows the results of GP’s importance using ANP modeling. As the GP’s represents criteria in the evaluation model which is using ANP in addition to its known dynamic nature; ranking of GP’s was affected by experts’ input to the GIs (sub criteria). Highest ranked importance was for transparency and accountability and least important factor for ANP modeling was observed for participation.

Ranking of AIUD GIs in the UAE:

Experts’ feedback of rating GIs for practitioners, self-advocates and comprehensive model, resulted in three ANP models importance depending on the different point of views. Figure 4 summarized the results of importance in all models. Highest ranked indicators were (representation of persons with disabilities and their families) for practitioners and (Political Commitment and Legitimacy) for self-advocates while for the comprehensive model it was for (representation of persons with disabilities and their families). Furthermore, the least significant indicator ranked by practitioners was the (responsiveness to innovation, inclusiveness and accessibility of innovative initiatives), while it was (local community participation in AIUD) for self-advocates and the comprehensive model ranked (responsiveness to innovation, inclusiveness and accessibility of innovative initiatives) as the least significant indicators. This ranking reflects the concern of practitioners who are not self-advocates and their support to the importance of (Representation of people with disabilities and their families) in public governance. On the other hand, the same indicator wasn’t the highest significance to self-advocates who favored (Political commitment and legitimacy) and that represent their confidence in the political role in promoting AIUD.

For the purpose of focusing on the data analysis in later parts of this research, comprehensive model results shall be utilized to allow emphasis on one single data source as shown in fig. 4

Decision-makers at AIUD in the UAE should pay thoughtful considerations to (Transparency and accountability) as a priority since it has the highest impact on promoting performance of AIUD governance. Deliberate attention to be paid to the indicators with highest relations to (Transparency and accountability).

Practitioners’ model had ranked (Political commitment and legitimacy) as most important indicator affecting (Transparency and accountability) principle, followed by (Budget allocated for AIUD initiatives from total budget). While most two effecting indicators on (Transparency and accountability) principle for self-advocates’ model were (Transparency, availability and accessibility of information on AIUD resources) and (Clearly defined enforcement procedures). Although, the comprehensive model results showed agreement with practitioners’ model results. Yet, results of experts’ feedback depend on the proportion of the self-advocates number out of the experts’ sample. While it is significant for decision makers to plot separate feedback in line with the comprehensive results in order to illustrate points of interests and conflicts of target group and practitioners.

Ranking of AIUD governance indicators with respect to governance principles

The ANP model offers inter-dependence between GP’s and GI’s which have been conquered from the comprehensive model of AIUD GEM. Experts feedback resulted in interesting relations between the set of GIs with each GP’s fig 6. This verifies that the model is having internal connections with different priorities, which means it is not necessary that ranking one of the indicators higher will necessary improve the overall model total ranking for public governance as expected. Thus, ranking most significant indicators higher will indirectly and internally affect the principle ranking. This unique relation allows decision makers to prioritize decisions when certain principle of governance is favored due to strategy requisites or public demand.

Transparency and accountability: When the decision-makers in the UAE is looking for improving (Transparency and Accountability) due to its high ranking in terms of experts’ feedback, then the highest priority should be allocated to key indicators with highest importance to (Transparency and Accountability) which are illustrated in fig.7. Immediate actions are suggested to the following indicators: (Transparency, availability and accessibility of information on AIUD resources) then to (Clearly defined enforcement procedures). The least impact on (Transparency and Accountability) is for indicator (Responsiveness to innovation, Inclusiveness and accessibility of innovative initiatives).

Equity: If the decision makers is looking to improve (Equity), then crucial interventions is suggested to the following indicators (The highest three indicators): Political commitment and legitimacy, Effectiveness of AIUD bylaws, Clearly defined enforcement procedures. However, the least important indicator which has the slightest effect on (Equity) is (Evaluation and planning for both short and long term AIUD issues based on accurate and appropriate data) Figure.8.

Effectiveness and Efficiency: In order to improve governance effectiveness and efficiency at AIUD in the UAE, decision makers shall pay considerable attention to (Quality of Infrastructure) in various sectors related to AIUD as this indicator was agreed with highest ranking among all experts. On the other hand, the lowest ranking of indicators with reference to (Effectiveness and Efficiency) is (Local community participation in AIUD). Fig 9.

Participation: The obtained results displays high effect on (Representation of persons with disabilities, elderly and their families) indicator the next indicator is (Political Commitment and legitimacy). However, the least significant indicator is (Budget allocated for AIUD initiatives from total budget) which explains that the financial factor has very low impact on governance participation at AIUD in the UAE. Fig, 10.

Effect (importance) of governance indicators on each other

The strengths of the ANP lies in its ability to offer dynamic interdependencies between various elements within the model which allows interdependence between indicators.

Interdependence between various indicators is determined from AIUD GEM and illustrated in Appendix D. For the purpose of simplicity, in this section, the effect (importance) of different indicators will be discussed only on the fourth indicator (Representation of persons with disabilities, elderly and their families) and is presented as shown in Fig.11. Hence, If the intention for decision makers in UAE is to improve (Representation of persons with disabilities, elderly and their families) due to its high significance according to the AIUD GEM outcomes, then an improvement should be considered for the following indicators which have the highest impact on (Representation of persons with disabilities, elderly and their families) , these indicators in sequence are: first indicator is, (Transparency, availability and accessibility of information on AIUD resources), second indicator is (Local community participation in AIUD) and third indicator is (Effectiveness of AIUD bylaws). While (Budget allocated for AIUD initiatives from total budget) and (Clearly defined enforcement procedures) have the lowest impact. Moreover, it is also imperative to mention that the least affecting indicators would be a priority when its related to other indicators but not that particular intended indicator.

Stage 2: Model Implementation

This stage represents model implementation in the emirate of Sharjah utilizing stakeholders’ feedback according to research methodology illustrated in fig.1. subsequent to the bespoke AIUD GEM developed in stage 1 for the UAE, Emirate of Sharjah was selected as area of study and implementation of the model. For the purpose of this research, stakeholders are represented by selected group of public organizations in Sharjah while it could be represented by private sector, NPOs, individuals or mixed of all according to decision makers preference. Public Organizations’ input reflected their perception to evaluate AIUD public governance in Sharjah. Final result of this stage offers a data source for decision makers which informs and guide decisions and actions to promote AIUD. The results presented in this stage complements the outcome of stage 1 as follows:

Ranking GIs with respect to AIUD in Sharjah
Evaluating AIUD public governance performance in Sharjah

Data Analysis

As the model was developed in stage 2, the interdependencies between GP’s (criteria) and GIs (sub criteria) were developed. However, due to the dynamic nature of ANP, input by stakeholders had an impact on the total weight of elements’ dependencies but the relations didn’t change. For the purpose of identifying results of this stage, comprehensive AIUD GEM was utilized and both self-advocates and practitioners were eliminated at this stage to allow emphasis on single data source. The results of stakeholders’ feedback were incorporated in the model using super decision software forming the alternatives in the conceptual AIUD GEM ANP based model fig 12.

Selection criteria of stakeholders was based on researchers’ understanding and the four organizations were cooperating in providing feedback and supporting research and development. The stakeholders feedback provided reliable and solid feedback to decision makers in Sharjah based on each public organizations’ role within AIUD. Furthermore, it represents the following two aspects that is reflecting AIUD governance evaluation in Sharjah which shall assist decision makers in addition to the outcomes obtained in stage 1.

First: Ranking GIs with respect to AIUD in Sharjah

Fig.11 demonstrates the ranking of governance indicators in Sharjah which allows decision makers to identify priorities in resource allocation and interventions with reference to stakeholders’ perceptions in order to promote AIUD among the city as a whole.

There was an agreement among all stakeholders that (political commitment and legitimacy) is ranked highest due to the remarkable efforts by Sharjah government and Ruler of Sharjah to promote AIUD and this is recognized locally and internationally. At the same time, there was high variation between stakeholders’ responses to other indicators such as (budget allocation to AIUD initiatives from total budget) which was ranked as “unsatisfactory” by E Government but “exceptional” by Sharjah Municipality and equally rates by Housing and SRTA. This feedback to this particular indicator, advise decision makers in Sharjah to consider prioritizing improving budget allocated to AIUD initiatives at E Government to improve its contribution to AIUD performance. In addition, AIUD Bylaws at Sharjah Government related to E Government and Sharjah Municipality requires immediate intervention as it is ranked unsatisfactory. Similarly, are enforcement procedures related to E Government which requires improvement at public governance.

Second: Evaluating public governance performance

Stakeholders’ input is obtained to evaluate public governance performance. The stakeholders’ input to the comprehensive model illustrated in Fig 13 and representing average results of all experts have shown that the public governance evaluation ranking by Department of Housing 32.5%, followed by Sharjah Roads and Transport Authority 32.1% then Sharjah Municipality 19.9% and at last Sharjah E Government 15.3%. The public governance evaluation by stakeholders allow decision makers in Sharjah to consider stakeholders engagement in decision making through participatory approach as recommended by (Zhao et al, 2017; Antunes et al, 2009; Kisingo et el, 2016). The results form a guide to decision makers to recognize priority interventions among various stakeholders which represents diverse sectors within the city. It also allows comparison between various cities within the same emirate or between various emirates.

Validation

The AIUD GEM was presented to decision makers and positive feedback was received with recommendation for local adoption of the AIUD GEM and international adaptation. In addition, the application of sensitivity analysis has validated the models’ outcomes along with assessing the effect of certain ranking on the overall performance of the models. The model could be improved by additional results and feedbacks received; the authors would be glad of receiving such valuable information to improve the models’ performances.

Limitation of the study

Application of ANP was challenging to respondents in stage 1 as the scale from 1-9 caused confusion and the input was mainly using scale from 5 and above. Understanding of the concept of governance varies among experts while different perception of the AIUD issue among various fields contributed to varied responses. Therefore, it is recommended to have the same exercise of data collection conducted in a focus group exercise to larger sample of experts with adequate and common level knowledge introduced to all participants prior to feedback.

The percentage of the world’s population that is disable and elderly is growing rapidly for various reasons. The implication of this growth carries a huge financial cost and it is in this sense that accessible and inclusive societies need to aim for cost-effectiveness in their governance systems. Ascertaining this aim requires a GE tools and the lack of such tools that are universally adaptable is what this research addressed by formulating a bespoke model for AIUD GE in the UAE, with the potential for adaptation globally. This research developed an MCDM-based AIUD GEM for UAE. The model was successfully implemented on an experimental basis in Sharjah Emirate to evaluate AIUD public governance. The novel bespoke AIUD GEM utilized expert input using ANP. It enabled ranking priorities of GP’s, interdependencies of GIs with respect to GP’s, interdependencies of GI’s with respect to each other and scores for public governance. The main contribution of this research to the AIUD field is the formulation of a practical and adaptable tool that enables decision-makers to prioritize improvement actions and distribute resources efficiently among stakeholders in different sectors. In addition, this research allows academics to utilize public GE to promote AIUD not only in the UAE but also internationally. Decision-makers who validated the model formulated in this research confirmed that the model is a reliable tool for decision-makers to prioritize intervention measures and allocation of resources for AIUD governance.

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my very great appreciation To Dr. Maher Omar whose support has contributed to the valuable outcome and success of this research.

Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., & Seyfang, G. (2003). Governance for Sustainability: Towards a ‘Thick’ Analysis of Environmental Decision making. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 35(6), 1095–1110. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35289
Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005
AlKhamis, A., Dweiri, F., & Altan, H. (2019). Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Tools in Governance Evaluation of Accessible and Inclusive Urban Developments (AIUD). IEOM Society International. 3494-3503
AlKhamis, A., Dweiri, F., & Sarker, A. (2020). Development of Governance Indicators for Accessible and Inclusive Urban Development (AIUD). University of Sharjah Journal for Social Studies and Humanities.
Antunes, P., Kallis, G., Videira, N., & Santos, R. (2009). Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.004
Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2003). Evaluating the Quality of Public Governance: Indicators, Models and Methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303693002
Bovaird, T. (2005). Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852305053881
Camargo, C., Maldonado, J. H., Alvarado, E., Moreno-Sánchez, R., Mendoza, S., Manrique, N., … Sánchez, J. A. (2008). Community involvement in management for maintaining coral reef resilience and biodiversity in southern Caribbean marine protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18(4), 935–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9555-5
Clarvis, M. H., & Allan, A. (2014). Adaptive capacity in a Chilean context: A questionable model for Latin America. Environmental Science & Policy, 43, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.014
Cobo, A., Vanti, A. A., Rocha, R. (2014). A fuzzy multi criteria for IT Governance Evaluation. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management. 11. 257-276. https://doi.org/ 10.4301/S1807-17752014000200003
Ehler, C. N. (2003). Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46(3-4), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0964-5691(03)00020-6
Gallacher, J., Simmonds, N., Fellowes, H., Brown, N., Gill, N., Clark, W., … Rodwell, L. (2016). Evaluating the success of a marine protected area: A systematic review approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 183, 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.029
Garces, L. R., Pido, M. D., Tupper, M. H., & Silvestre, G. T. (2013). Evaluating the management effectiveness of three marine protected areas in the Calamianes Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines: Process, selected results and their implications for planning and management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 81, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.07.014
Guarini, M.R., Battisti, F., Chiovitti, A. (2017). Public Initiatives of Settlement Transformation: Atheoritical-Methodological Approach to selecting Tools of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Buildings, 8 (1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8010001
Haarich, S. N. (2018). Building a new tool to evaluate networks and multi-stakeholder governance systems. Evaluation, 24(2), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389018765797
Huovila, A., Bosch, P., & Airaksinen, M. (2019). Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for Smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when? Cities, 89, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.029
Jordan, A. (2008). The Governance of Sustainable Development: Taking Stock and Looking Forwards. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1068/cav6
Kalonga, S. K., & Kulindwa, K. A. (2017). Does forest certification enhance livelihood conditions? Empirical evidence from forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics, 74, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.001
Kamil, K. A., Hailu, A., Rogers, A., & Pandit, R. (2017). An assessment of marine protected areas as a marine management strategy in Southeast Asia: A literature review. Ocean & Coastal Management, 145, 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.05.008
Kisingo, A., Rollins, R., Murray, G., Dearden, P., & Clarke, M. (2016). Evaluating ‘good governance’: The development of a quantitative tool in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Management, 181, 749–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.002
Lafferty, W. M. (2004). Governance for sustainable development: the challenge of adapting form to function. Edward Elgar.
Liu, C.-H., Tzeng, G.-H., & Lee, M.-H. (2012). Improving tourism policy implementation – The use of hybrid MCDM models. Tourism Management, 33(2), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.05.002
Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3), 754–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005
Mondini, G. (2019). Sustainability Assessment: from Brundtland Report to Sustainable Development Goals. Journal Valori e valutazioni. 23, 129-137
Mu, R., & Jong, M. D. (2016). A network governance approach to transit-oriented development: Integrating urban transport and land use policies in Urumqi, China. Transport Policy, 52, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.007
Oliveira, J. A. P. D., Doll, C. N., Balaban, O., Jiang, P., Dreyfus, M., Suwa, A., … Dirgahayani, P. (2013). Green economy and governance in cities: assessing good governance in key urban economic processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 58, 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.043
Paneque, P., Corral, S., del Moral, L., Guimarães, A., Pedregal, B. (2006) Participative Multi-criteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Water Governance Alternatives. A Case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga). Ecological Economics. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2006.11.008.
Pineda, V. S. (2020). Building The Inclusive City: governance, access, and the urban transformation of Dubai. SPRINGER NATURE.
Pettenella, D., & Brotto, L. (2012). Governance features for successful REDD+ projects organization. Forest Policy and Economics, 18, 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.006
Rebernik, N., Szajczyk, M., Bahillo, A., & Marušić, B. G. (2020). Measuring Disability Inclusion Performance in Cities Using Disability Inclusion Evaluation Tool (DIETool). Sustainability, 12(4), 1378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041378
Romeo, G., & Marcianò, C. (2014). Governance Assessment of the Leader Approach in Calabria Using an Integrated AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodology. Advanced Engineering Forum, 11, 566–572. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/aef.11.566
Roy, B. (1985). Méthodologie Multicritère d'Aide à la Décision. Economica, Paris.
Saaty, R. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, US. Mathl Modelling, 9, 3-5 161-176
Saaty, T. L. (2004). The Analytic Network Process – Dependence and Feedback in Decision-Making. Business Applications and Computational Intelligence, 360–387. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-702-7.ch018
Saaty T.L. (1996) Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: the Analytic Network Process: the Organization and Prioritization of Complexity, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, US.
Saaty, T. L. (2005). The Analytic Network Process. IORS.
Saaty, T. L. (2006). Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Operational Research, 168(2), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.032
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences, 1(1). 83-98. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
Salgado, P. P., Quintana, S. C., Pereira, Â. G., Ituarte, L. D. M., & Mateos, B. P. (2009). Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of water governance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga). Ecological Economics, 68(4), 990–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.008
Sanga, C., Tumbo, S., Mlozi, M. R.S. & Kilma F (2013). Stakeholders’ Analysis using value chain analysis: AHP in action. Inter disciplinary studies on information Technology and Business (ISITB)1 (2), 47-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(02 )00043-6
Stewart, K. (2006). Designing good urban governance indicators: The importance of citizen participation and its evaluation in Greater Vancouver. Cities, 23(3), 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2006.03.003
Turner, R., Fitzsimmons, C., Forster, J., Mahon, R., Peterson, A., & Stead, S. (2014). Measuring good governance for complex ecosystems: Perceptions of coral reef-dependent communities in the Caribbean. Global Environmental Change, 29, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.004
United Nations Development Programme. (2019). Bhutan national human development report: Ten years of democracy in Bhutan. Thimphu, BT: UNDP.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2004). Urban Indicators Guidelines Monitoring the Habitat Agenda and the Millennium Development Goals.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2016). The Sustainable Development Goals Report. UNDESA.
UN Habitat. (2004). The Global Campaign on Urban Governance; Un-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya.
UN General Assembly. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, A/RES/61/106, Annex I, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4680cd212.html
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2018). UN Flagship Report On Disability And Development. UNDESA.
United Nations (2018). UN SDG indicators global database. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/ indicators/database
UN-Habitat, UNESCO, World Health Organisation, UNISDR, UN Women, UNEP (2016). SDG goal 11 monitoring framework. http://unhabitat.org/sdg-goal-11- monitoring-framework
United Nations (2016) Good Practices of Accessible Urban Development – Making urban environment inclusive and filly accessible. http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/desa/good_practices_in_accessible_urban_development_october2016.pdf
Uyl, R. M. D., & Driessen, P. P. (2015). Evaluating governance for sustainable development – Insights from experiences in the Dutch fen landscape. Journal of Environmental Management, 163, 186–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.022
W. C. o. E. a. D. WCED, Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1987
Wong, J., Li, H., & Lai, J. (2007), Evaluating the system intelligence of the intelligent building systems Part 1: Development of key intelligent indicators
and conceptual analytical framework. Automation in Construction. 17, 284-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.06.002
World Health Organization and the World Bank. (2011). World Report on Disability.
World Health Organization. (2017). Integrated care for older people - Guideline on community-level interventions to manage declines in intrinsic capacity.
World Bank. (2018). The World Bank Annual Report 2018 (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
Zaman, R., & Brudermann, T. (2018). Energy governance in the context of energy service security: A qualitative assessment of the electricity system in Bangladesh. Applied Energy, 223, 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.081
Zaman, R., Brudermann, T., Kumar, S., & Islam, N. (2018). A multi-criteria analysis of coal-based power generation in Bangladesh. Energy Policy, 116, 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.053
Zhao, X., Chen, L., Pan, W., & Lu, Q. (2017). AHP-ANP–Fuzzy Integral Integrated Network for Evaluating Performance of Innovative Business Models for Sustainable Building. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 143(8), 04017054. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001348

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Development of Governance Evaluation Model for Accessible and Inclusive Urban Development in the United Arab Emirates Using Analytical Network Process

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Literature Review

Background - The Case of Sharjah

Evaluation modeling

Applications of MCDM in GEM and policy management

Stakeholder-oriented GEMs

Methodology

Selection of sample interviewees and data collection

Selection of stakeholders and data collection

Analysis and Results

Conclusion

Declarations

Acknowledgement

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1