Tourism Management 63(2017)315-328 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Tourism Management Tourism Management ELSEVIER journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman Structured inter-network collaboration:Public participation in CrossMark tourism planning in Southern China Dan Lin a.,David Simmons b Department of Tourism Management,Shenzhen Tourism College.Jinan University.OCT Nanshan District,Shenzhen,PR China b Lincoln University.New Zealand HIGHLIGHTS A case study of a tourism destination in Jiao Chang Wei,Shenzhen,China was conducted. .A structured inter-network collaboration led-by government organised non-governmental organisations(GONGOs)was found to be the dominant paradigm of public participation in the case study area The model might have potential to apply in a political context which is framed by a strong central power. Three main contributions to knowledge were discussed. ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: Public participation is considered a cornerstone of sustainable tourism planning.Although this process is Received 20 November 2016 well established and tested in western democracies,there is an emerging trend of developing it within Received in revised form 14 April 2017 the liberalizing Chinese tourism economy.Using a qualitative research strategy,this paper applies the Accepted 22 lune 2017 theoretical construction of community participation in tourism planning to the analysis of the planning Available online 10 July 2017 process of a tourism destination in Jiao Chang Wei,Shenzhen,China.The paper finds that:1)public participation has played a significant role in the formulation and implementation of the tourism desti- Keywords: nation plan in the case study area.2)Structuralized inter-network collaboration led-by government Public participation organized non-governmental organizations has the potential to become dominant paradigm of public Collaborative tourism planning participation in tourism planning in China in the future.The paper concludes with the contributions of Community development this research to wider theory. Shenzhen 2017 Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved. China 1.Introduction transformation in tourism planning corresponds with the communicative or collaborative turn in planning thought that has In tourism research and in the academic planning literature,the attempts to operationalize communication among stakeholders significance of participation in tourism planning has become Underpinned by various planning models,a growing number of increasingly prominent.Arising from the concerns from both the authors within the tourism planning literature are highlighting the personal interests of host communities and of the broader interests importance of involving diverse stakeholders in participatory pro- of the society,scholars propose the involvement of various stake- cesses of consensus-building and partnership formation. holder to address the need for a better informed tourism planning Notwithstanding the above ideals,the effective implementation of strategy which is more effective,equitable and legitimate(Murphy. the collaborative paradigm is still a matter of concern (lorio 1988:Simmons,1994).The goals are to protect local communities Corsale,2013).Flyvbjerg (1998)postulates that collaborative from tourism's adverse impacts(Jurowski,Uysal,Williams,1997) planning entails an idealized notion of democracy-a notion that and to help them benefit from tourism development.This presumes civil society to be non-political with no inherent con- flicts.We need a more critical understanding of the process of collaborative planning practices.Specifically,we must clarify who Corresponding author.Tel:0086 18938075253. has been involved and why,and how those different stakeholders E-mail addresses:lindan@sz.jnu.edu.cn (D.Lin).David Simmons@lincoln.ac.nz are involved in participation in the planning process. (D.Simmons). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.024 0261-5177/2017 Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved
Structured inter-network collaboration: Public participation in tourism planning in Southern China Dan Lin a, * , David Simmons b a Department of Tourism Management, Shenzhen Tourism College, Jinan University, OCT Nanshan District, Shenzhen, PR China b Lincoln University, New Zealand highlights A case study of a tourism destination in Jiao Chang Wei, Shenzhen, China was conducted. A structured inter-network collaboration led-by government organised non-governmental organisations (GONGOs) was found to be the dominant paradigm of public participation in the case study area. The model might have potential to apply in a political context which is framed by a strong central power. Three main contributions to knowledge were discussed. article info Article history: Received 20 November 2016 Received in revised form 14 April 2017 Accepted 22 June 2017 Available online 10 July 2017 Keywords: Public participation Collaborative tourism planning Community development Shenzhen China abstract Public participation is considered a cornerstone of sustainable tourism planning. Although this process is well established and tested in western democracies, there is an emerging trend of developing it within the liberalizing Chinese tourism economy. Using a qualitative research strategy, this paper applies the theoretical construction of community participation in tourism planning to the analysis of the planning process of a tourism destination in Jiao Chang Wei, Shenzhen, China. The paper finds that: 1) public participation has played a significant role in the formulation and implementation of the tourism destination plan in the case study area. 2) Structuralized inter-network collaboration led-by government organized non-governmental organizations has the potential to become dominant paradigm of public participation in tourism planning in China in the future. The paper concludes with the contributions of this research to wider theory. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In tourism research and in the academic planning literature, the significance of participation in tourism planning has become increasingly prominent. Arising from the concerns from both the personal interests of host communities and of the broader interests of the society, scholars propose the involvement of various stakeholder to address the need for a better informed tourism planning strategy which is more effective, equitable and legitimate (Murphy, 1988; Simmons, 1994). The goals are to protect local communities from tourism's adverse impacts (Jurowski, Uysal, & Williams, 1997) and to help them benefit from tourism development. This transformation in tourism planning corresponds with the communicative or collaborative turn in planning thought that has attempts to operationalize communication among stakeholders. Underpinned by various planning models, a growing number of authors within the tourism planning literature are highlighting the importance of involving diverse stakeholders in participatory processes of consensus-building and partnership formation. Notwithstanding the above ideals, the effective implementation of the collaborative paradigm is still a matter of concern (Iorio & Corsale, 2013). Flyvbjerg (1998) postulates that collaborative planning entails an idealized notion of democracy e a notion that presumes civil society to be non-political with no inherent con- flicts. We need a more critical understanding of the process of collaborative planning practices. Specifically, we must clarify who has been involved and why, and how those different stakeholders are involved in participation in the planning process. * Corresponding author. Tel.: 0086 18938075253. E-mail addresses: lindan@sz.jnu.edu.cn (D. Lin), David.Simmons@lincoln.ac.nz (D. Simmons). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.024 0261-5177/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328
316 D.Lin,D.Simmons Tourism Management 63 (2017)315-328 In China,public participation in tourism planning has drawn particular,we demonstrate how the ITDP has been formulated and increasing academic attention since the 1990s.Particular attention implemented through structuralized inter-organizational collabo- has been paid to addressing normative elements with a particular ration.The paper concludes by reflecting on this study's key find focus on developing tools and techniques for participation,and ings,contributions to knowledge,and implications for future providing constructive suggestions on the management of the research. engagement processes(e.g..Bao Sun,2003:Wang Zhou,2003: Ye.2012:Zhang Wu.2002).Recent case studies,however, 2.Theory demonstrate that state-centric,top-down participative decision- making has not gained wide acceptance in practice.Instead. 2.1.Sustainable tourism and collaborative planning:the various forms of bottom-up (pro)active involvement of local engagement of stakeholders in tourism development communities and economic (private)operators are becoming evident,no matter whether it is around the organization of mega- In response to the well socialized concept of "sustainable events (e.g.,Lamberti,Noci,Guo,Zhu,2011).promoting rural development"in the wake of the report,Our Common Future tourism (Ying Zhou,2007),or demonstrating distinctive Chinese (Brundtland World Commission,1987),sustainable tourism can characteristics (Li Zhao,2001).Such practices are commonly be seen as"linked with the preservation of ecosystems,the pro- characterized by dynamic,multi-actor interactions,complex power motion of human welfare,inter-and intra-generational equity,and differentials and uneven exchanges of resources and information public participation in decision-making"(Bramwell,2015,p.204). between actors and agencies.Although these features have been The concept of sustainable tourism covers a broad spectrum,from partially investigated (e.g.,Lin Bao.2015),there remains the need "light green"variants of sustainability to "dark green"sustainable for further exploration of the nature and effectiveness of public tourism (Harris,Griffin,Williams,2002).These various de- participation by destination stakeholders in formulating and scriptions of different commitments to sustainable tourism sup- implementing tourism planning within the contemporary Chinese ports the broad recognition of the concept as an attractive notion social,economic and political context (Wang,Yang,Chen,Yang. emphasizing balanced development which covers ecological,social Li,2010:Ying.Jiang.Zhou,2015). and economic sustainability. Our case-study of Jiaochangwei is emblematic of issues cited Attempts to move sustainable tourism from ideology to imple- above.Jiaochangwei Bed and Breakfast Destination(JCW)is located mentation have called for practices that pay more attention to on the Dapeng Peninsula,which is approximately 50 km away from justice,equity and democracy in planning and policymaking Shenzhen city center in southern China.Covering an area of 54 ha, (Dredge,2006,p.562).Planning has played a significant role in this destination is the only well-preserved indigenous coastal tourism development at destinations due to its abilities to integrate village on the city's Peninsula.As of the end of April 2015,there tourism and other sectors,shape and control physical patterns of were a total of more than 350 re-decorated local inns,accommo- development,conserve significant resources and even provide dating approximately 15 million annual tourist arrivals.The JCW frameworks for "selling"destinations (Williams,1998).For a has now become Shenzhen's favored BB destination and will considerable length of time,tourism planning followed the elite become an important part of the proposed 'Long Qi Bay'5A-level dominant,linear,and rational planning paradigm(Williams,1998). scenic attractions.The success of the JCW has been regarded by which ignores value differentiations among stakeholders.The many as the result of the JCW Bed and Breakfast Tourism Desti- implementation of sustainable tourism however compels nation Plan (TDP).which was officially launched by the Shenzhen acknowledgement of these various values and searches for suitable Municipal Government in September 2013.In contrast to tradi- ways of balancing their interests in the planning of tourism desti- tional top-down planning processes,this plan has been widely nations.Among these endeavors,stakeholder participation and regarded as a bottom-up planning process supported by the active empowerment in planning are regarded as crucial elements within participation of local people. all planning stages including the identification of problems. This paper's objectives are therefore threefold:(1)to provide decision-making and implementation (Araujo Bramwell,1999: theoretical explanations of public participation in tourism planning Murphy,1988:Simmons,1994).This in turn is argued to enhance in China through an examination of the formulation and imple- their ability to manage and respond to unpredictable circumstances mentation process of the JTDP;(2)to reflect on what the JTDP case (Jurowski et al.,1997).and support the broader objectives of sus- reveals about the nature for public participation in tourism plan- tainable tourism (France,1998). ning in China;and(3)to discuss more broadly how the Chinese Public participation in decision-making has been widely dis case contributes to the theory of participatory planning in tourism. cussed in the planning literature.In her typology of participation, The development and implementation of the ITDP reflects the use Arnstein (1969)indicates three levels of citizens'involvement:non- of public participation to support both the formulation and participation (Manipulation Therapy),tokenism (Informing. implementation of an official tourism plan.Rather than simply read Consultation &Placation)and citizen power (Partnership,Dele- the case of jTDP as an example of the exercise of public participa gated Power Citizen Control).These three levels of participation tion in tourism planning.we suggest that the form it took reflects a were further developed into five stages by IAP2 in 2000,identified more nuanced story about the uneven distribution of both the as:informing,consulting,engaging,collaborating,and empower- power of individual stakeholders involved and networks in plan- ing (IAP2,2000).In line with research on community participation ning and policy processes. in the field of development studies,Tosun proposes three different This paper is structured as follows.We begin by reviewing forms of public participation in tourism planning (1999):pseudo- recent debates and literature in stakeholder theory,social network community participation,passive community participation,and theory,and governance theory to establish an analytical framework spontaneous community participation.For Tosun (1999),collabo- through which to understand the nature of participation in tourism rative planning,which is based on the work of Habermas(1984),is planning.We then move on to the ITDP case study in Shenzhen, an effective public participation process that make the tourism China.Our analysis commences with a brief introduction to the planning process more effective,equitable and legitimate. participatory processes of the JTDP in respect of its origins,ratio- Over time,collaborative planning has gained increasing atten- nales and outcomes.We analyze the stakeholders involved in the tion within tourism research and practice(e.g..Bramwell Lane, planning process and identify how they relate to each other.In 2000:Bramwell Sharman,1999;Jamal Getz,1995).In a
In China, public participation in tourism planning has drawn increasing academic attention since the 1990s. Particular attention has been paid to addressing normative elements with a particular focus on developing tools and techniques for participation, and providing constructive suggestions on the management of the engagement processes (e.g., Bao & Sun, 2003; Wang & Zhou, 2003; Ye, 2012; Zhang & Wu, 2002). Recent case studies, however, demonstrate that state-centric, top-down participative decisionmaking has not gained wide acceptance in practice. Instead, various forms of bottom-up (pro) active involvement of local communities and economic (private) operators are becoming evident, no matter whether it is around the organization of megaevents (e.g., Lamberti, Noci, Guo, & Zhu, 2011), promoting rural tourism (Ying & Zhou, 2007), or demonstrating distinctive Chinese characteristics (Li & Zhao, 2001). Such practices are commonly characterized by dynamic, multi-actor interactions, complex power differentials and uneven exchanges of resources and information between actors and agencies. Although these features have been partially investigated (e.g., Lin & Bao, 2015), there remains the need for further exploration of the nature and effectiveness of public participation by destination stakeholders in formulating and implementing tourism planning within the contemporary Chinese social, economic and political context (Wang, Yang, Chen, Yang, & Li, 2010; Ying, Jiang, & Zhou, 2015). Our case-study of Jiaochangwei is emblematic of issues cited above. Jiaochangwei Bed and Breakfast Destination (JCW) is located on the Dapeng Peninsula, which is approximately 50 km away from Shenzhen city center in southern China. Covering an area of 54 ha, this destination is the only well-preserved indigenous coastal village on the city's Peninsula. As of the end of April 2015, there were a total of more than 350 re-decorated local inns, accommodating approximately 15 million annual tourist arrivals. The JCW has now become Shenzhen's favored B & B destination and will become an important part of the proposed ‘Long Qi Bay’ 5A-level scenic attractions. The success of the JCW has been regarded by many as the result of the JCW Bed and Breakfast Tourism Destination Plan (JTDP), which was officially launched by the Shenzhen Municipal Government in September 2013. In contrast to traditional top-down planning processes, this plan has been widely regarded as a bottom-up planning process supported by the active participation of local people. This paper's objectives are therefore threefold: (1) to provide theoretical explanations of public participation in tourism planning in China through an examination of the formulation and implementation process of the JTDP; (2) to reflect on what the JTDP case reveals about the nature for public participation in tourism planning in China; and (3) to discuss more broadly how the Chinese case contributes to the theory of participatory planning in tourism. The development and implementation of the JTDP reflects the use of public participation to support both the formulation and implementation of an official tourism plan. Rather than simply read the case of JTDP as an example of the exercise of public participation in tourism planning, we suggest that the form it took reflects a more nuanced story about the uneven distribution of both the power of individual stakeholders involved and networks in planning and policy processes. This paper is structured as follows. We begin by reviewing recent debates and literature in stakeholder theory, social network theory, and governance theory to establish an analytical framework through which to understand the nature of participation in tourism planning. We then move on to the JTDP case study in Shenzhen, China. Our analysis commences with a brief introduction to the participatory processes of the JTDP in respect of its origins, rationales and outcomes. We analyze the stakeholders involved in the planning process and identify how they relate to each other. In particular, we demonstrate how the JTDP has been formulated and implemented through structuralized inter-organizational collaboration. The paper concludes by reflecting on this study's key findings, contributions to knowledge, and implications for future research. 2. Theory 2.1. Sustainable tourism and collaborative planning: the engagement of stakeholders in tourism development In response to the well socialized concept of “sustainable development” in the wake of the report, Our Common Future (Brundtland & World Commission, 1987), sustainable tourism can be seen as “linked with the preservation of ecosystems, the promotion of human welfare, inter- and intra-generational equity, and public participation in decision-making” (Bramwell, 2015, p. 204). The concept of sustainable tourism covers a broad spectrum, from “light green” variants of sustainability to “dark green” sustainable tourism (Harris, Griffin, & Williams, 2002). These various descriptions of different commitments to sustainable tourism supports the broad recognition of the concept as an attractive notion emphasizing balanced development which covers ecological, social and economic sustainability. Attempts to move sustainable tourism from ideology to implementation have called for practices that pay more attention to justice, equity and democracy in planning and policymaking (Dredge, 2006, p. 562). Planning has played a significant role in tourism development at destinations due to its abilities to integrate tourism and other sectors, shape and control physical patterns of development, conserve significant resources and even provide frameworks for “selling” destinations (Williams, 1998). For a considerable length of time, tourism planning followed the elite dominant, linear, and rational planning paradigm (Williams, 1998), which ignores value differentiations among stakeholders. The implementation of sustainable tourism however compels acknowledgement of these various values and searches for suitable ways of balancing their interests in the planning of tourism destinations. Among these endeavors, stakeholder participation and empowerment in planning are regarded as crucial elements within all planning stages including the identification of problems, decision-making and implementation (Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Murphy, 1988; Simmons, 1994). This in turn is argued to enhance their ability to manage and respond to unpredictable circumstances (Jurowski et al., 1997), and support the broader objectives of sustainable tourism (France, 1998). Public participation in decision-making has been widely discussed in the planning literature. In her typology of participation, Arnstein (1969) indicates three levels of citizens' involvement: nonparticipation (Manipulation & Therapy), tokenism (Informing, Consultation &Placation) and citizen power (Partnership, Delegated Power & Citizen Control). These three levels of participation were further developed into five stages by IAP2 in 2000, identified as: informing, consulting, engaging, collaborating, and empowering (IAP2, 2000). In line with research on community participation in the field of development studies, Tosun proposes three different forms of public participation in tourism planning (1999): pseudocommunity participation, passive community participation, and spontaneous community participation. For Tosun (1999), collaborative planning, which is based on the work of Habermas (1984), is an effective public participation process that make the tourism planning process more effective, equitable and legitimate. Over time, collaborative planning has gained increasing attention within tourism research and practice (e.g., Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Bramwell & Sharman, 1999; Jamal & Getz, 1995). In a 316 D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328
D.Lin.D.Simmons Tourism Management 63 (2017)315-328 317 seminal work by Jamal and Getz (1995),collaborative planning in 2015:Kimbu Ngoasong.2013)and;(3)undertake critical as- tourism is defined as "a process of joint decision-making among sessments and appraisals to understand the processes and im- autonomous,key stakeholders...to resolve planning problems... pacts of the government's involvement in the participatory and/or to manage issues related to planning and development' process.In the following section,we construct an analytical (p.188).In the collaboration process,residents and other stake- framework via the combination of governance theory,stakeholder holders are invited to participate in decision making with methods theory and network theory as outlined above to help us concep- such as questionnaires,web forums,focus groups,public meetings tualize public participation in tourism planning and and field trips,and this participation has the potential to lead to implementation. negotiation,shared decision-making and consensus-building about planning goals and actions(Araujo Bramwell,1999).The effective involvement of stakeholders as promised by the collaborative 2.2.The analytical framework:structuralized inter-network planning paradigm,however.has been criticized by those who collaboration follow the Foucauldian theorization of inherently embedded power relations within society (e.g..Flyvbjerg.1998).Academics in Below,a set of three propositions and their sub-positions is tourism also experience difficulties in achieving consensus due to advanced to elaborate the analytical framework.These propositions value differentiations among stakeholders (Araujo Bramwell. relate to the key conditions that facilitates tourism planning col- 1999);problems in attaining and maintaining representation in laborations,with each proposition considered an essential facili- the decision-making process due to legitimacy limitation and tator of success in the collaboration process.These assumptions embedded power imbalances within society(Ladkin Bertramini. then lead to key research questions that requires testing in 2002);inefficiency in participation due to institutional limitations empirical study. (Simmons.1994);and constraints on participation ability due to Proposition 1.Tourism planning at destinations is a form of knowledge and technical gaps among participants(Frisk Larson, 2011). governance,within which hierarchical tiers of formal government, Subsequent researchers have further explored the theory and actors beyond government,and markets and quasi-markets often practices of collaborative planning in tourism from the perspective work together of network and the governance theories.There is a wide debate on There have been different conceptualizations of destinations the effectiveness of networked approaches in supporting stake- ranging from the conventional economic/geographical orienta- holder involvement and collaboration.Some discuss the nature of tion to socially constructed frameworks (Saraniemi Kylanen, particular networks and how they can impact positively on 2011).Pearce(2014)develops an integrative framework of desti- collaborative planning processes within certain interest groups. nations by systematically identifying and then synthesizing the Recent examples include the consideration of how networks shape key elements of five major concepts used:industrial districts. a sense of community and improve communication,knowledge clusters,networks,systems,and social constructs.From this transfer and learning among individual actors (e.g.,Beritelli,2011): stance,tourism planning at destinations,as one aspect of desti- and how cooperation among firms is achieved through networks nation management,would adopt a more holistic governance (e.g.,Romeiro Costa,2010).Other authors explore how various approach,particularly if sustainable tourism is more likely to be categories of networks can strengthen the collaborative connec- successful at such destinations(Bramwell,2011).Such governance tions among government,business and civil society and how these activity acknowledges the breadth of state institutions and orga- relationships shape tourism policymaking and implementation nizations and accepts the coexistence of both top-down state (e.g.Erkus-Oztuirk Eraydin,2010:Morrison.Lynch,Johns, regulation and bottom-up social engagement (Bramwell,2011; 2004).Dredge(2006)recognizes that network interrelations have Pearce,2014:Pechlaner et al.,2010).Planning is subsequently a significant effect upon the extent to which collaboration takes seen as a set of processes comprising a set of interventions place in the planning process.Kimbu and Ngoasong(2013)explore (including legislation and other forms of social practices)dedi- a collaborative tourism development model that is formed through cated to promoting sustainable tourism (Tavallaee,Asadi,Abya, the creation of a centrally coordinated but decentralized tourism Ebrahimi,2014). network in which representative stakeholders are mobilized into a Proposition 2.The activity of planning provides a focus for nego- system of action.Researchers informed by various governance tiation,in which a mix of state and non-state stakeholders,situated at perspectives emphasize that the direct empowerment of in- dividuals'participation by government regulation can be an different geographical scales of decision-making,are usually involved. important ingredient of success in tourism planning (Seyfang. In this study,we follow Wood and Gray's (1991)definition of 2010:Hall,2016). stakeholders as individuals,groups or organizations with an in- In both streams of research,however,one issue has not terest in a specific area or domain.Within tourism systems these received adequate attention.Despite the significance of networks stakeholders can be categorized into four types(Murphy Murphy. in supporting collaborative planning in tourism,further under- 2004):consumers,tourism business operators,local residents and standing of the interrelationship between networks and both public governing bodies.More details on these groups are enriched policy and regulatory frameworks is required because the former by empirical works in the field of tourism planning (Araujo are always constrained by the institutional(and legal)framework. Bramwell,1999:Nogueira Pinho,2015:Sautter Leisen,1999). This is particularly evident at destinations where the power of the which identify categories such as:public authorities(all levels of state is strong (Bramwell,2011).In order to understand better the government,tourism management department,resource man- nature of collaborative planning in tourism(Kimbu Ngoasong. agement department,planning department and other related 2013)and to achieve an effectively managed collaboration plan- government departments):tourism developers (developers from ning process (e.g.,Beaumont Dredge,2010:Bramwell Lane. outside the local:area local residents operators,government sector 2000:Dredge Jamal,2015).there is a need to:(1)identify operators,informal sector operators);destination area residents representative stakeholders;(2)understand the connection they (tourism participants,non-participants);and others (donors,non- have with other stakeholders,the nature of these interactions and governmental organizations,research groups,financial and credit how they may influence the planning process (Dredge Jamal, institutions,neighborhood competitors and even tourists
seminal work by Jamal and Getz (1995), collaborative planning in tourism is defined as “a process of joint decision-making among autonomous, key stakeholders … to resolve planning problems … and/or to manage issues related to planning and development” (p.188). In the collaboration process, residents and other stakeholders are invited to participate in decision making with methods such as questionnaires, web forums, focus groups, public meetings and field trips, and this participation has the potential to lead to negotiation, shared decision-making and consensus-building about planning goals and actions (Araujo & Bramwell, 1999). The effective involvement of stakeholders as promised by the collaborative planning paradigm, however, has been criticized by those who follow the Foucauldian theorization of inherently embedded power relations within society (e.g., Flyvbjerg, 1998). Academics in tourism also experience difficulties in achieving consensus due to value differentiations among stakeholders (Araujo & Bramwell, 1999); problems in attaining and maintaining representation in the decision-making process due to legitimacy limitation and embedded power imbalances within society (Ladkin & Bertramini, 2002); inefficiency in participation due to institutional limitations (Simmons, 1994); and constraints on participation ability due to knowledge and technical gaps among participants (Frisk & Larson, 2011). Subsequent researchers have further explored the theory and practices of collaborative planning in tourism from the perspective of network and the governance theories. There is a wide debate on the effectiveness of networked approaches in supporting stakeholder involvement and collaboration. Some discuss the nature of particular networks and how they can impact positively on collaborative planning processes within certain interest groups. Recent examples include the consideration of how networks shape a sense of community and improve communication, knowledge transfer and learning among individual actors (e.g., Beritelli, 2011); and how cooperation among firms is achieved through networks (e.g., Romeiro & Costa, 2010). Other authors explore how various categories of networks can strengthen the collaborative connections among government, business and civil society and how these relationships shape tourism policymaking and implementation (e.g., Erkus¸ -Oztürk € & Eraydın, 2010; Morrison, Lynch, & Johns, 2004). Dredge (2006) recognizes that network interrelations have a significant effect upon the extent to which collaboration takes place in the planning process. Kimbu and Ngoasong (2013) explore a collaborative tourism development model that is formed through the creation of a centrally coordinated but decentralized tourism network in which representative stakeholders are mobilized into a system of action. Researchers informed by various governance perspectives emphasize that the direct empowerment of individuals' participation by government regulation can be an important ingredient of success in tourism planning (Seyfang, 2010; Hall, 2016). In both streams of research, however, one issue has not received adequate attention. Despite the significance of networks in supporting collaborative planning in tourism, further understanding of the interrelationship between networks and both policy and regulatory frameworks is required because the former are always constrained by the institutional (and legal) framework. This is particularly evident at destinations where the power of the state is strong (Bramwell, 2011). In order to understand better the nature of collaborative planning in tourism (Kimbu & Ngoasong, 2013) and to achieve an effectively managed collaboration planning process (e.g., Beaumont & Dredge, 2010; Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Dredge & Jamal, 2015), there is a need to: (1) identify representative stakeholders; (2) understand the connection they have with other stakeholders, the nature of these interactions and how they may influence the planning process (Dredge & Jamal, 2015; Kimbu & Ngoasong, 2013) and; (3) undertake critical assessments and appraisals to understand the processes and impacts of the government's involvement in the participatory process. In the following section, we construct an analytical framework via the combination of governance theory, stakeholder theory and network theory as outlined above to help us conceptualize public participation in tourism planning and implementation. 2.2. The analytical framework: structuralized inter-network collaboration Below, a set of three propositions and their sub-positions is advanced to elaborate the analytical framework. These propositions relate to the key conditions that facilitates tourism planning collaborations, with each proposition considered an essential facilitator of success in the collaboration process. These assumptions then lead to key research questions that requires testing in empirical study. Proposition 1. Tourism planning at destinations is a form of governance, within which hierarchical tiers of formal government, actors beyond government, and markets and quasi-markets often work together. There have been different conceptualizations of destinations, ranging from the conventional economic /geographical orientation to socially constructed frameworks (Saraniemi & Kylanen, € 2011). Pearce (2014) develops an integrative framework of destinations by systematically identifying and then synthesizing the key elements of five major concepts used: industrial districts, clusters, networks, systems, and social constructs. From this stance, tourism planning at destinations, as one aspect of destination management, would adopt a more holistic governance approach, particularly if sustainable tourism is more likely to be successful at such destinations (Bramwell, 2011). Such governance activity acknowledges the breadth of state institutions and organizations and accepts the coexistence of both top-down state regulation and bottom-up social engagement (Bramwell, 2011; Pearce, 2014; Pechlaner et al., 2010). Planning is subsequently seen as a set of processes comprising a set of interventions (including legislation and other forms of social practices) dedicated to promoting sustainable tourism (Tavallaee, Asadi, Abya, & Ebrahimi, 2014). Proposition 2. The activity of planning provides a focus for negotiation, in which a mix of state and non-state stakeholders, situated at different geographical scales of decision-making, are usually involved. In this study, we follow Wood and Gray's (1991) definition of stakeholders as individuals, groups or organizations with an interest in a specific area or domain. Within tourism systems these stakeholders can be categorized into four types (Murphy & Murphy, 2004): consumers, tourism business operators, local residents and public governing bodies. More details on these groups are enriched by empirical works in the field of tourism planning (Araujo & Bramwell, 1999; Nogueira & Pinho, 2015; Sautter & Leisen, 1999), which identify categories such as: public authorities (all levels of government, tourism management department, resource management department, planning department and other related government departments); tourism developers (developers from outside the local; area local residents operators, government sector operators, informal sector operators) ; destination area residents (tourism participants, non-participants); and others (donors, nongovernmental organizations, research groups, financial and credit institutions, neighborhood competitors and even tourists D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328 317
318 D.Lin,D.Simmons Tourism Management 63(2017)315-328 themselves).In a participatory planning process,these stake- themselves create "sites"where the social processes "unfold" holders are invited to participate in planning decision making with (Marston et al.,2005,p.422).At the center of discourse around methods such as questionnaires,web forums,focus groups,public participatory planning is whether the spaces and scales of national, meetings and field trips,and this participation has the potential to regional and local state structures remain as the primary configu- lead to negotiation,shared decision-making and consensus- rations of social relations and processes (Bulkeley.2005). building about planning goals and actions (Araujo Bramwell, Both hierarchical and horizontal social interactions co-exist 1999). within the process of tourism planning when planning is regar- ded as a form of governance.Horizontal interactions reflect the Proposition 3a.The plethora of stakeholders connect with other members through networks that exist within destination planning and network features comprising social capital,which represents the management frameworks. advantage of organization.This advantage is created by resource- based and network-based power or by the types of social struc- A growing number of empirical researchers acknowledge the tural resources that flow through the network to facilitate coop- interconnectedness of stakeholders in the private and public sec- eration and inclusion among stakeholders (Hazra,Fletcher, tors of tourism as well as with actors outside of these areas Wilkes,2015).Hierarchical interactions,conversely,are based on (Albrecht,2013).A "whole-of-destination view incorporating net- institutional capital,whereby competitive advantage is determined works"(Albrecht.2013,p.640)provides a useful lens for under- by institutional formal powers and informal arrangements standing the structures and social interrelations among encompassing resources and resource strategies that enhances or government,tourism producers and civil society and,as such,has inhibits the optimal use of scarce resources (Oliver,1997).Institu- the potential to inform collaborative destination management tional capital (and embedded competitive advantage through the policy and practice (Dredge,2006).Provan and Kenis (2008) management of internal and external contexts)is evident at three identify three types of networks that might arise during the pro- levels:the individual level as cognitive capital;the intraorganiza- cess of tourism planning:(1)participant-governed networks- tional level as normative capital;and at the interorganizational which are governed by network members without an enabling level as regulative capital. government entity.Within such a network,members interact on a Given the above analysis,we argue that when the power of the relatively equal basis.These interactions can be achieved through state including its role in managing and improving the outcomes of both formal(e.g.,regular meetings of designated representatives) planning and policy is maintained,key stakeholders may have to and,informal(e.g.,uncoordinated efforts of members)methods.(2) cooperate with other stakeholders through horizontal networks Lead organization-governed networks,where participation is (social capital)and engage with regulatory bodies through hierar- governed by a so-called "lead organization".(3)A Network chical relations (institutional capital)to ensure effective partici- Administrative Organization (NAO).where participation is gov- pation by a broad set of stakeholders.In this sense,they organize a erned by a specially designed administrative entity.Both "lead or- structuralized inter-network collaboration (Fig.1)that in- ganization-governed"networks and "network administrative corporates the overlapping functional roles of government minis- organizations"can be classified as centralized decentralization tries and integrates overlapping tourism-related activities to networks (Kimbu Ngoasong.2013). mobilize the tourism network into a system of action (Coleman, Proposition 3b.Within the process of tourism planning,there are 1988:Lin,2002).While the concepts of public participation in key stakeholders within a network who have both power and legiti- tourism planning have been well established and debated in the macy to engage and interact with other stakeholders west,the more structured Chinese economy requires the consid- eration of a more formal set of structures to accommodate these Mitchell,Agle,and Wood(1997)propose three core attributes of goals. a stakeholder typology,involving:power,legitimacy,and urgency. Driscoll and Starik(2004)further expand these criteria to include a 3.JCW:the case study area fourth spatial dimension of stakeholder status,-"proximity"When represented in a network,all four of these attributes can differen- The JCW Bed and Breakfast Tourism Destination is a rural village tiate key stakeholders from general stakeholders,where the former of 54 hectares,located on the Dapeng Peninsula within the mu- have both power and legitimacy to engage with other stakeholders nicipality of Shenzhen,China(see Fig.2).This coastal destination is while the latter are seen as having less agency within networks approximately 50 km away from the city center,with Huizhou city (Kimbu Ngoasong,2013). on its west,and it overlooks Hong Kong across DaPeng Bay.JCW Proposition 3c.These interactions include two main sources of had been inhabited by soldiers and their families for years since AD legitimacy:non-official social interactions based on social capital;and 1394 to defend against pirates along the coast.Among the 40 official interactions based on institutional capitals. original coastal settlements that remained,the JCW is the only one Within social theory,there have been two discernible schools of that is well preserved.Since 2007,surfing and windsurfing en- thusiasts have come to the village to rent existing dwellings and thought that align with the above dichotomy.These can be distin- operate them as bed and breakfast inns.In subsequent years,many guished as a hierarchical model of social relations and a model of freelancers entered the market and converted more and more horizontal interscalar networks of sociospatial interdependence existing residential houses into visitor accommodations.In 2010. and interaction.The emergent hierarchical model of interactions forms a pyramid-like model whereby scales are hierarchically or- the bottom-up growth of Bed and Breakfast settlements attracted attention from authorities of the Dapeng New District,which was, dered from the local to the global in ever increasing circles (Taylor. at the time,actively exploring sustainable ways of integrating local 1982).For those who subscribe to the notion of a non-scalar hori- economic development and ecological conservation.In 2011,to zontal "flat ontology"(Marston.Jones lll,Woodward,2005, support the World University Games taking place in Shenzhen,the p.422).the hierarchical division from local to global is merely a municipal government allocated special funds to improve coastal normative creation.It is not however in the material composition infrastructure,which promoted the rapid development of the JCW that the divergent relations emerge;rather,the relations following the games.In 2013,the Shenzhen municipal government
themselves). In a participatory planning process, these stakeholders are invited to participate in planning decision making with methods such as questionnaires, web forums, focus groups, public meetings and field trips, and this participation has the potential to lead to negotiation, shared decision-making and consensusbuilding about planning goals and actions (Araujo & Bramwell, 1999). Proposition 3a. The plethora of stakeholders connect with other members through networks that exist within destination planning and management frameworks. A growing number of empirical researchers acknowledge the interconnectedness of stakeholders in the private and public sectors of tourism as well as with actors outside of these areas (Albrecht, 2013). A “whole-of-destination view incorporating networks” (Albrecht, 2013, p. 640) provides a useful lens for understanding the structures and social interrelations among government, tourism producers and civil society and, as such, has the potential to inform collaborative destination management policy and practice (Dredge, 2006). Provan and Kenis (2008) identify three types of networks that might arise during the process of tourism planning: (1) participant-governed networkswhich are governed by network members without an enabling government entity. Within such a network, members interact on a relatively equal basis. These interactions can be achieved through both formal (e.g., regular meetings of designated representatives) and, informal (e.g., uncoordinated efforts of members) methods. (2) Lead organization-governed networks, where participation is governed by a so-called “lead organization”. (3) A Network Administrative Organization (NAO), where participation is governed by a specially designed administrative entity. Both “lead organization-governed” networks and “network administrative organizations” can be classified as centralized decentralization networks (Kimbu & Ngoasong, 2013). Proposition 3b. Within the process of tourism planning, there are key stakeholders within a network who have both power and legitimacy to engage and interact with other stakeholders. Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) propose three core attributes of a stakeholder typology, involving: power, legitimacy, and urgency. Driscoll and Starik (2004) further expand these criteria to include a fourth spatial dimension of stakeholder status, - “proximity” When represented in a network, all four of these attributes can differentiate key stakeholders from general stakeholders, where the former have both power and legitimacy to engage with other stakeholders while the latter are seen as having less agency within networks (Kimbu & Ngoasong, 2013). Proposition 3c. These interactions include two main sources of legitimacy: non-official social interactions based on social capital; and official interactions based on institutional capitals. Within social theory, there have been two discernible schools of thought that align with the above dichotomy. These can be distinguished as a hierarchical model of social relations and a model of horizontal interscalar networks of sociospatial interdependence and interaction. The emergent hierarchical model of interactions forms a pyramid-like model whereby scales are hierarchically ordered from the local to the global in ever increasing circles (Taylor, 1982). For those who subscribe to the notion of a non-scalar horizontal “flat ontology” (Marston, Jones III, & Woodward, 2005, p.422), the hierarchical division from local to global is merely a normative creation. It is not however in the material composition that the divergent relations emerge; rather, the relations themselves create “sites” where the social processes “unfold” (Marston et al., 2005, p. 422). At the center of discourse around participatory planning is whether the spaces and scales of national, regional and local state structures remain as the primary configurations of social relations and processes (Bulkeley, 2005). Both hierarchical and horizontal social interactions co-exist within the process of tourism planning when planning is regarded as a form of governance. Horizontal interactions reflect the network features comprising social capital, which represents the advantage of organization. This advantage is created by resourcebased and network-based power or by the types of social structural resources that flow through the network to facilitate cooperation and inclusion among stakeholders (Hazra, Fletcher, & Wilkes, 2015). Hierarchical interactions, conversely, are based on institutional capital, whereby competitive advantage is determined by institutional formal powers and informal arrangements encompassing resources and resource strategies that enhances or inhibits the optimal use of scarce resources (Oliver, 1997). Institutional capital (and embedded competitive advantage through the management of internal and external contexts) is evident at three levels: the individual level as cognitive capital; the intraorganizational level as normative capital; and at the interorganizational level as regulative capital. Given the above analysis, we argue that when the power of the state including its role in managing and improving the outcomes of planning and policy is maintained, key stakeholders may have to cooperate with other stakeholders through horizontal networks (social capital) and engage with regulatory bodies through hierarchical relations (institutional capital) to ensure effective participation by a broad set of stakeholders. In this sense, they organize a structuralized inter-network collaboration (Fig. 1) that incorporates the overlapping functional roles of government ministries and integrates overlapping tourism-related activities to mobilize the tourism network into a system of action (Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2002). While the concepts of public participation in tourism planning have been well established and debated in the west, the more structured Chinese economy requires the consideration of a more formal set of structures to accommodate these goals. 3. JCW: the case study area The JCW Bed and Breakfast Tourism Destination is a rural village of 54 hectares, located on the Dapeng Peninsula within the municipality of Shenzhen, China (see Fig. 2). This coastal destination is approximately 50 km away from the city center, with Huizhou city on its west, and it overlooks Hong Kong across DaPeng Bay. JCW had been inhabited by soldiers and their families for years since AD 1394 to defend against pirates along the coast. Among the 40 original coastal settlements that remained, the JCW is the only one that is well preserved. Since 2007, surfing and windsurfing enthusiasts have come to the village to rent existing dwellings and operate them as bed and breakfast inns. In subsequent years, many freelancers entered the market and converted more and more existing residential houses into visitor accommodations. In 2010, the bottom-up growth of Bed and Breakfast settlements attracted attention from authorities of the Dapeng New District, which was, at the time, actively exploring sustainable ways of integrating local economic development and ecological conservation. In 2011, to support the World University Games taking place in Shenzhen, the municipal government allocated special funds to improve coastal infrastructure, which promoted the rapid development of the JCW following the games. In 2013, the Shenzhen municipal government 318 D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328
D.Lin,D.Simmons Tourism Management 63(2017)315-328 319 State Regulatory Governments centralization ucturalized Relations Institutional Capital Policy Space of Govemance Decentralization KEY STAKEHOLDERS Network Mobilization Social Capital Network Mobilization Networks Networks within within Civil Economic Society Internetwork collaboration Domain Fig.1.Policy domains and analytical framework. Source:authors 一SEZ border SHEN ZHEN SEZ DAPENG IN SHENZHEN JIAOCHANGWEI IN DAPENG JIAOCHANGWEI Fig.2.The location of the JCW. Source:authors,drawing based on http://www.chinapage.com/map/map.html and Google map
Fig. 1. Policy domains and analytical framework. Source: authors Fig. 2. The location of the JCW. Source: authors, drawing based on http://www.chinapage.com/map/map.html and Google map D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328 319
320 D.Lin,D.Simmons Tourism Management 63(2017)315-328 launched the TDP,in an effort to promote further the development (e.g.,newspapers,memoirs). of tourism in the region.In September,the municipal government Three types of interviews were employed in the second stage of initiated the specific strategy of placing "planners into the com- the research to generate primary data:open-ended interviews, munity"to secure the implementation of the JTDP.In December of semi-structured interviews (a"form of interviewing that has some the same year,the municipal government established the official degree of predetermined order but still ensures flexibility in the "Leading Group of the Development of JCW".This institution then way issues are addressed by the informant"(Dunn,2000,p.52)) commissioned the Shenzhen Center of Design(SCD)to openly re- and focus group interviews that explored consistent and shared cruit suitable architects from the society to form an expert advisory views(Patton,1990).Open-ended interviews were conducted with team that supported local homeowners in re-designing and reno- officers who held positions that made them good"key informants" vating their dwellings in accordance with the formulation and the (e.g..the project leader of several master plans and strategic plans implementation of the JTDP. in the case study area).These first contacts provided the re- According to many.the JTDP represents a new model of searchers with the names of other stakeholders.To establish trust participation in tourism planning.Against this background,the with the participants,frequent contacts were maintained through following discussion examines the stakeholders'involvement and phone calls and on-line chatting.Based on the views of these and the ways in which they networked.As an exploratory study.this other stakeholders,a snowball strategy (Atkinson Flint,2001) paper explores the relevance of these factors to the development of was also adopted to identify and access additional stakeholders the JTDP. (Rowley,1997). Twenty-two in-depth semi-structured interviews were con- ducted with key informants in the participation process in the 4.Methodology study area.The sample was constituted based on the general findings of the first stage and the accessibility of interviewees.The The goal of this study is to understand the ways in which public sample also purposefully included representation from each of the participation in tourism destination planning are formalized in the stakeholder groups(government,private sector,non-governmental unique social,economic and political context that is emerging in organizations and consultants)(Table 1).The face-to-face in- contemporary China.To achieve this goal,this study collected terviews usually took place at the interviewees'place of work detailed qualitative data through a case study research strategy.As (although some preferred to be interviewed at their homes).were suggested by Yin(2009)."A case study is an empirical inquiry that tape recorded,and lasted between 45 and 75 min.All of the in- investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life terviews were conducted in Chinese. context,especially when the boundaries between phenomenon Finally,two focus group interviews were conducted.One was and context are not clearly evident"(p.23).To generalize results in with planners from the JTDP planning team,and another was with terms of theory.not populations,a single case study can be business operators in the JCW.The questions asked aimed to deployed (Yin,2009).The case study discussed in this paper was ascertain the respondents'experiences with the JDTP,the salience conducted from March 2015 to June 2016 in three overlapping of their involvement,and their views of the extent of this stages.It employed continuous and interactive processes reflecting involvement. the grounded theory model of"data collection,followed by analysis Three data iterations are interwoven in the third stage of data and memo writing,leading to questions that lead to more data analysis,which is guided by research questions that were formu- collection,and so on"(Corbin Strauss,2008.p.197).These three lated on the basis of the conceptual framework(Table 2).The data overlapping stages enabled a prolonged engagement in the were first coded and organized to establish a preliminary analytical research setting.which enhanced the credibility of the findings framework.Those data that fell outside the framework were coded (Decrop.2004).To support data analysis and interpretation,the with descriptive free codes for further analysis.Following the initial first stage of research entailed mapping the material,institutional, data organization and coding process,codes were categorized and regulatory,and political contexts of the case study.This was ach- sub-categorized through systematic and constant comparison ieved through non-participant observation,a desk review of policy (Corbin Strauss,2008).In this process,each item was checked or documents,and open-ended interviews.Documentary analysis was compared with the rest of the data,and with the research ques- based on documents recording the development of the JCW.local tions.Informed by the analytical and theoretical ideas developed plans for Shenzhen over the past 30 years and strategic plans for during the research,categories were further refined and grouped the city for the next 20 years.The analysis was sufficiently broad to together by revisiting the research questions (Corbin Strauss, include economic and social development strategies as well as 2008)to model relations among themes.The members of the official (e.g.,governmental policies)and non-official documents Table 1 List of interviewee roles involved in the in-depth interviews. Type of stakeholder Representing Reference Number State Functional Units Shenzhen Municipal Government Officials,Planning Bureau SMGO no.1:SMGO no.2 Shenzhen Municipal Government Officials,Culture and Tourism Development Bureau SMGO no.3;SMGO no.4 Shenzhen Municipal Government Officials,Reform and Development Committee SMGO no.5:SMGO no.6 Economic Stakeholders Real estate developers ES no.1:ES no.2 B&B operators in JCW ES no.3:ES no.4:ES no.5:ES no.6:ES no.7 Experts Planners in Aube Conception SARL d'Architecture E no.1:E no.2:E no.3:E no.4 Independent architects E no.3:E no.4 Resort residents Indigenous residents living in JCW R no.1:R no.2 Migrants living in JCW R no.3:R no.4 Civil Society Members of the SCD CS no.1:CS no.2 Members of reTUMU TM no.1 Media(Newspaper journalists,Magazine editors etc) CS no.3 Source:authors
launched the JTDP, in an effort to promote further the development of tourism in the region. In September, the municipal government initiated the specific strategy of placing “planners into the community” to secure the implementation of the JTDP. In December of the same year, the municipal government established the official “Leading Group of the Development of JCW”. This institution then commissioned the Shenzhen Center of Design (SCD) to openly recruit suitable architects from the society to form an expert advisory team that supported local homeowners in re-designing and renovating their dwellings in accordance with the formulation and the implementation of the JTDP. According to many, the JTDP represents a new model of participation in tourism planning. Against this background, the following discussion examines the stakeholders' involvement and the ways in which they networked. As an exploratory study, this paper explores the relevance of these factors to the development of the JTDP. 4. Methodology The goal of this study is to understand the ways in which public participation in tourism destination planning are formalized in the unique social, economic and political context that is emerging in contemporary China. To achieve this goal, this study collected detailed qualitative data through a case study research strategy. As suggested by Yin (2009), “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (p.23). To generalize results in terms of theory, not populations, a single case study can be deployed (Yin, 2009). The case study discussed in this paper was conducted from March 2015 to June 2016 in three overlapping stages. It employed continuous and interactive processes reflecting the grounded theory model of “data collection, followed by analysis and memo writing, leading to questions that lead to more data collection, and so on” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 197). These three overlapping stages enabled a prolonged engagement in the research setting, which enhanced the credibility of the findings (Decrop, 2004). To support data analysis and interpretation, the first stage of research entailed mapping the material, institutional, regulatory, and political contexts of the case study. This was achieved through non-participant observation, a desk review of policy documents, and open-ended interviews. Documentary analysis was based on documents recording the development of the JCW, local plans for Shenzhen over the past 30 years and strategic plans for the city for the next 20 years. The analysis was sufficiently broad to include economic and social development strategies as well as official (e.g., governmental policies) and non-official documents (e.g., newspapers, memoirs). Three types of interviews were employed in the second stage of the research to generate primary data: open-ended interviews, semi-structured interviews (a “form of interviewing that has some degree of predetermined order but still ensures flexibility in the way issues are addressed by the informant” (Dunn, 2000, p. 52)), and focus group interviews that explored consistent and shared views (Patton, 1990). Open-ended interviews were conducted with officers who held positions that made them good “key informants” (e.g., the project leader of several master plans and strategic plans in the case study area). These first contacts provided the researchers with the names of other stakeholders. To establish trust with the participants, frequent contacts were maintained through phone calls and on-line chatting. Based on the views of these and other stakeholders, a snowball strategy (Atkinson & Flint, 2001) was also adopted to identify and access additional stakeholders (Rowley, 1997). Twenty-two in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants in the participation process in the study area. The sample was constituted based on the general findings of the first stage and the accessibility of interviewees. The sample also purposefully included representation from each of the stakeholder groups (government, private sector, non-governmental organizations and consultants) (Table 1). The face-to-face interviews usually took place at the interviewees' place of work (although some preferred to be interviewed at their homes), were tape recorded, and lasted between 45 and 75 min. All of the interviews were conducted in Chinese. Finally, two focus group interviews were conducted. One was with planners from the JTDP planning team, and another was with business operators in the JCW. The questions asked aimed to ascertain the respondents' experiences with the JDTP, the salience of their involvement, and their views of the extent of this involvement. Three data iterations are interwoven in the third stage of data analysis, which is guided by research questions that were formulated on the basis of the conceptual framework (Table 2). The data were first coded and organized to establish a preliminary analytical framework. Those data that fell outside the framework were coded with descriptive free codes for further analysis. Following the initial data organization and coding process, codes were categorized and sub-categorized through systematic and constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In this process, each item was checked or compared with the rest of the data, and with the research questions. Informed by the analytical and theoretical ideas developed during the research, categories were further refined and grouped together by revisiting the research questions (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to model relations among themes. The members of the Table 1 List of interviewee roles involved in the in-depth interviews. Type of stakeholder Representing Reference Number State Functional Units Shenzhen Municipal Government Officials, Planning Bureau SMGO no. 1; SMGO no. 2 Shenzhen Municipal Government Officials, Culture and Tourism Development Bureau SMGO no. 3; SMGO no. 4 Shenzhen Municipal Government Officials, Reform and Development Committee SMGO no. 5; SMGO no. 6 Economic Stakeholders Real estate developers ES no. 1; ES no. 2 B&B operators in JCW ES no. 3; ES no.4; ES no. 5; ES no. 6; ES no. 7 Experts Planners in Aube Conception SARL d’Architecture E no. 1; E no. 2; E no. 3; E no. 4 Independent architects E no. 3; E no. 4 Resort residents Indigenous residents living in JCW R no. 1; R no. 2 Migrants living in JCW R no. 3; R no. 4 Civil Society Members of the SCD CS no. 1; CS no. 2 Members of reTUMU TM no.1 Media (Newspaper journalists, Magazine editors etc.) CS no. 3 Source: authors 320 D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328
D.Lin.D.Simmons Tourism Management 63(2017)315-328 321 Table 2 Research questions In what ways is public participation in tourism destination planning What does the governance of tourism planning in the case study area involve? formalized in the case study area? Which stakeholders are involved? How are those different stakeholders involved and networked into a system that allows for participation in the planning process? What does the case study reveal about the broader context for public participation in tourism planning in China? How might the Chinese study contribute to the theory of public participation in tourism planning? Source:authors research group served as external auditors in assessing the bright future.We therefore believe that it might be wise to dependability and confirmability of the findings. preserve what is already there rather than making something totally new". 5.Research results and discussions (Interview,SMGO no.1,2015) 5.1.Planning governance within the regulatory hierarchy In its early stage,the JCW was a tourist destination formed by 5.2.Non-state stakeholders within networks the bed and breakfast (B&B)operators,who worked from the bottom up with little governmental intervention.Conversations 5.2.1.Tourism business operators and the JBBA-led network with city-level officials reveal that the involvement of public au- Almost all of the interviewees agreed that tourism business thorities in the planning and management of the JCW aimed to operators acted as an important stakeholder group in the JTDP.As support its success as a tourism destination,which has emerged to noted by one governmental official in his interview,the expected be the "name card"for tourism development on the DaPeng objectives of the JTDP defined the significant role of business op- Peninsula."While its market value becomes increasingly prominent, erators in the planning process. its negative externalities,on the other hand,are becoming obvious.The "The whole planning process seems to be closely linked with city municipal government thus actively intervened in the planning those operators:no matter whether it is about the provision of and management of the destination"(Interview,SMGO no.5,2015). Public authorities relevant to the jTDP include the Urban Plan civil infrastructure,or about the organization of destination tourism products,or about the rebuilding of original houses". ning and Land Resources Committee of Shenzhen Municipal Gov- ernment (UPLRC),the Dapeng District Management Committee (Interview,SMGO no.4,2015) (DDMC).and Dapeng District Pengcheng Community (DDPC). These authorities formed a three-level management hierarchy that involved city,district,and community scales.At the city scale,the In combination with on-site investigations,we found this UPLRC is the most central actor by virtue of its responsibility for "business operator group"a heterogeneous concept:B&B opera- tors,restaurant and bar owners,sports clubs operators and other formulating and approving the development plans of the entire area on behalf of the city municipal government.The UPLRC has service providers were involved,with B&B operators playing a two directly involved sub-departments:the urban regeneration major role.These operators came mainly from outside the JCW. office and the land planning and supervising department.The Interviews with business operators uncovered three main factors former is responsible for the work plan and for supervising its that encouraged them to get involved into the planning decision- implementation;the latter is mainly responsible for land surveying. making process.The first factor was "profit-making".Some B&B mapping and documenting.The DDMC is the power center at the operators suggested in the interviews that "JCW is recently mainly district scale.Among its subordinated departments,the working relying on the development of B&B to attract tourists,the function of which may be too simple to maintain a sustainable development of the office and planning supervision team played the most significant role in the JTDP.At the other end of the power spectrum is the area"(Interview,ES no.4,2015).Instead,what the B&B operators DDPC,which is subordinate to the guidance of the DDMC and in- had expected was to "introduce multiple industries into the area through planning arrangements,for instance,creative art zones,high- cludes the Dapeng Community Working Committee and the Pen- gCheng Branch of Community Party. quality resorts,more cafeterias etc.,and thus to promote the attrac- tiveness of the /CW(Interview,ES no.6,2015). However,the intervention of the three-scale regulatory hierar- chy in the JCW does not premise the top-down delivery of the JTDP. The demand for infrastructure improvements was another as there is a commitment to integrating all relevant stakeholders reason for B&B operators to be involved.Some of the operators had into the process.As mentioned by one of the interviewees,at the realized that"the inadequate provision of public services like public early stage of governmental intervention,"the media has questioned parking,the absence of tourist centers and focal points,and the whether the TDP would become another chance for the real estate management of coastal shops are affecting the BB business to varying degrees"(Interview,ES no.3,2015).Such recognition drew developers to take over new territories"(Interview,SMGO no.1,2015). Even though the initial intention of the government was to their attention to whether infrastructure,e.g.,power supply. reconstruct the whole area,this changed after a site investigation sewage treatment and the supply of gas pipelines,could be improved through the plan. by the Vice Major,who noted that "JCW has been spontaneously The regeneration of the built environment was the third shaped by the market.What the goverment should do is to guide and support such development"(Interview,SMGO no.1,2015)from the dimension of business operators'engagement.Most of the opera- perspectives of both a provider of public goods and a public tors were renting local houses to run their businesses.Therefore, they wanted to renovate those houses to attract more tourists and regulator. stimulate long-term development.But "there is a constraint,that is, "The geographical superiority.the abundant ecological re- (we have)no property rights,no legal status to do so"(Interview,ES sources.and the thriving of the B&B(sector).all may promise a no.3,2015).Operators who wanted to rebuild houses"could only do
research group served as external auditors in assessing the dependability and confirmability of the findings. 5. Research results and discussions 5.1. Planning governance within the regulatory hierarchy In its early stage, the JCW was a tourist destination formed by the bed and breakfast (B&B) operators, who worked from the bottom up with little governmental intervention. Conversations with city-level officials reveal that the involvement of public authorities in the planning and management of the JCW aimed to support its success as a tourism destination, which has emerged to be the “name card” for tourism development on the DaPeng Peninsula. “While its market value becomes increasingly prominent, its negative externalities, on the other hand, are becoming obvious. The city municipal government thus actively intervened in the planning and management of the destination” (Interview, SMGO no. 5, 2015). Public authorities relevant to the JTDP include the Urban Planning and Land Resources Committee of Shenzhen Municipal Government (UPLRC), the Dapeng District Management Committee (DDMC), and Dapeng District Pengcheng Community (DDPC). These authorities formed a three-level management hierarchy that involved city, district, and community scales. At the city scale, the UPLRC is the most central actor by virtue of its responsibility for formulating and approving the development plans of the entire area on behalf of the city municipal government. The UPLRC has two directly involved sub-departments: the urban regeneration office and the land planning and supervising department. The former is responsible for the work plan and for supervising its implementation; the latter is mainly responsible for land surveying, mapping and documenting. The DDMC is the power center at the district scale. Among its subordinated departments, the working office and planning supervision team played the most significant role in the JTDP. At the other end of the power spectrum is the DDPC, which is subordinate to the guidance of the DDMC and includes the Dapeng Community Working Committee and the PengCheng Branch of Community Party. However, the intervention of the three-scale regulatory hierarchy in the JCW does not premise the top-down delivery of the JTDP, as there is a commitment to integrating all relevant stakeholders into the process. As mentioned by one of the interviewees, at the early stage of governmental intervention, “the media has questioned whether the JTDP would become another chance for the real estate developers to take over new territories” (Interview, SMGO no.1, 2015). Even though the initial intention of the government was to reconstruct the whole area, this changed after a site investigation by the Vice Major, who noted that “JCW has been spontaneously shaped by the market. What the government should do is to guide and support such development” (Interview, SMGO no.1, 2015) from the perspectives of both a provider of public goods and a public regulator. “The geographical superiority, the abundant ecological resources, and the thriving of the B&B (sector), all may promise a bright future. We therefore believe that it might be wise to preserve what is already there rather than making something totally new”. (Interview, SMGO no.1, 2015) 5.2. Non-state stakeholders within networks 5.2.1. Tourism business operators and the JBBA-led network Almost all of the interviewees agreed that tourism business operators acted as an important stakeholder group in the JTDP. As noted by one governmental official in his interview, the expected objectives of the JTDP defined the significant role of business operators in the planning process. “The whole planning process seems to be closely linked with those operators; no matter whether it is about the provision of civil infrastructure, or about the organization of destination tourism products, or about the rebuilding of original houses”. (Interview, SMGO no.4, 2015) In combination with on-site investigations, we found this “business operator group” a heterogeneous concept; B&B operators, restaurant and bar owners, sports clubs operators and other service providers were involved, with B&B operators playing a major role. These operators came mainly from outside the JCW. Interviews with business operators uncovered three main factors that encouraged them to get involved into the planning decisionmaking process. The first factor was “profit-making”. Some B&B operators suggested in the interviews that “JCW is recently mainly relying on the development of B&B to attract tourists, the function of which may be too simple to maintain a sustainable development of the area” (Interview, ES no. 4, 2015). Instead, what the B&B operators had expected was to “introduce multiple industries into the area through planning arrangements, for instance, creative art zones, highquality resorts, more cafeterias etc., and thus to promote the attractiveness of the JCW” (Interview, ES no. 6, 2015). The demand for infrastructure improvements was another reason for B&B operators to be involved. Some of the operators had realized that “the inadequate provision of public services like public parking, the absence of tourist centers and focal points, and the management of coastal shops are affecting the B & B business to varying degrees” (Interview, ES no. 3, 2015). Such recognition drew their attention to whether infrastructure, e.g., power supply, sewage treatment and the supply of gas pipelines, could be improved through the plan. The regeneration of the built environment was the third dimension of business operators' engagement. Most of the operators were renting local houses to run their businesses. Therefore, they wanted to renovate those houses to attract more tourists and stimulate long-term development. But “there is a constraint, that is, (we have) no property rights, no legal status to do so” (Interview, ES no. 3, 2015). Operators who wanted to rebuild houses “could only do Table 2 Research questions. In what ways is public participation in tourism destination planning formalized in the case study area? What does the governance of tourism planning in the case study area involve? Which stakeholders are involved? How are those different stakeholders involved and networked into a system that allows for participation in the planning process? What does the case study reveal about the broader context for public participation in tourism planning in China? How might the Chinese study contribute to the theory of public participation in tourism planning? Source: authors D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328 321
322 D.Lin,D.Simmons Tourism Management 63 (2017)315-328 so with support from the government.Otherwise,all relevant activities property markets,will yield benefits to the common good" will be compelled to stop"(Interview,ES no.6,2015).Operators were (Campbell,2006,p.93). thus interested in "taking the chance of planning making to regen- After the site investigations,we initially decided to demolish 81 erate the area and thus to attract more visitors"(Interview,ES no.4, 2015). houses and rebuilt 9.In order to achieve this aim,Secretary Yu of the DDMC has been communicating with house owners Business operators had formed an incorporated membership- based association the Jiaochangwei Bed and Breakfast Association repeatedly.JCW is very complex in terms of the land user ship, (JBBA)(hereafter JBBA-led network).Under the direction of an and the power of village representatives is part of this fight. Houses are really hard to move. elected Board,the General Manager managed the network,and identified and implemented a range of activities to develop local (Interview,R no.2,2015) tourism.The JBBA was akin to Provan and Kenis'(2008)network administrative organization,which operated as a central node for communication and coordination.During the process of the JTDP. On the other hand,residents were expecting that the JTDP would the JBBA collected suggestions from its members through face-to- lead to an increase in real estate rents.Many interviews with face communication,questionnaires,and committee conferences indigenous residents reflected that,although they feel a bit reluctant to compile reports that submitted to the governmental authorities. to rent out their own houses where they have lived for decades,they It also communicated government decisions to its members are happy overall,given their increasing rental income.Our field through the same channels.In this sense,as one JBBA member work has shown that monthly rents had increased from the original explained,"our voices will be easily to be heard and we would 1000-2000 Yuan in 2007 up to 20-50 thousand Yuan in 2016. expect the plan could be developed in the direction that may The Residents'Committee of JCW(RCJ)is a self-governing entity. benefit us"(Interview.ES no.3,2015).The JBBA-led network the numbers of which have been elected by indigenous residents to demonstrated a high level of positive engagement (reflected reg- take charge of the community's daily affairs.The RCl can be regarded ular and well-attended meetings)and a strong commitment to as a lead organization-governed network (Provan Kenis,2008) sharing information.The role of the BBA in organizing the partic- wherein the RCl plays a central coordinating role,facilitating and ipation of business operators had been evidenced by the ITDP enabling collaboration among residents.The RCJ has a "joint-stock planner. company"that "pays attention to the planning and construction of public infrastructure"(Interview,SMGO no.2,2015).Being mutually This is an innovation in the JTDP to communicate among rele- empowered by both the state and the peasantry (Wang.1997).the vant parties through one organizer(the President).Information RCJ acts as a mediator between the "outsiders"and the community has been collected and disseminated to B&B operators through during the JTDP.Interviewed residents generally acknowledged that this lead person.The match between architects and B&B oper- the RCJ collected the demands of indigenous residents through site ators is also made by the President.Such large-scale commu- investigations,collective meetings,and group interviews,which nication can hardly be based on one-on-one connections used to facilitate their collaboration with other stakeholders to between the planning team and individual B&B operators.JBBA complete the plan.One prominent example emerged in the process effectively assists this process. of identifying houses to be demolished.As a further example of their (Interview,E no.2,2015) brokering role the party secretary of the RCJ accompanied the planning team to negotiate with inhabitants by going door-to-door. However,due to its membership requirements,not all business 5.2.3.Independent architects and reTUMU operators were involved in the association,which required 800 During the planning process.the government recruited 35 Yuan/year membership fee.Those who complained about the BBA volunteer architects to support the regeneration of the JCW.These tended to be newly involved in the B&B sector,and they were not architects came from all over the country,including Shenzhen, yet familiar with the JCW.Our talk with one of the operators,who Beijing,and Chongqing.They had diverse motivations for joining came to the JCW by the end of 2014,suggested that he"is unsatisfied the project.Some believed it was a"rare opportunity"for"young with many issues.for instance,the inadequacy of parking lots".There architects to make their first step towards being a famous architect' is no opportunity for his "voice to be heard",because,he had "not (Interview,E no.1,2015).Others thought this was a project that yet been a member of JBBA"(Interview,ES no.7,2015).Many B&B could actually be implemented rather than a "pure theoretical operators who reported similar experience were not members of discussion"(Interview,TM no.1,2015).Some were attracted by the JBBA,suggesting that the JBBA excluded non-members from the possibility that they could make the JCW"a better,high quality benefits of its coordinated activities. place"(Interview,E no.2,2015). These design experts were loosely networked through reTUMU 5.2.2.Indigenous residents and the RCJ-led network Launched in 2008,reTUMU is a non-governmental organization As a result of the flourishing of tourism in the JCW,by the end of composed of professionals in urban planning and architecture from 2015,there were more than 350 B&Bs,but only 10%were owned by Shenzhen,Hong Kong and Taiwan.It exemplifies a participant- indigenous residents.The vast majority of accommodations were governed network (Provan Kenis,2008)through which,archi- rented out to newcomers,after the indigenous residents had tects are involved in the entire planning process,in this case to help moved away,either to the Shenzhen city center,or overseas.Our B&B operators and indigenous communities to renovate their site investigation suggested that although some elderly people houses.Participant-governed network relations are generally have remained due to the inconvenience of moving,their number decentralized,less formal and dependent upon the social and hu- was fewer than five.Nevertheless,most of the interviewees insisted man capital that exists among members. that indigenous residents were the main subjects of the JTDP.On the one hand,indigenous residents were maintaining their house 5.3.Structuralized inter-network collaboration through GONGOs ownership and their use of the land.These actions were closely related to the planning activity.which is"a subset of public policy. Interactions between public authorities and non-state stake- which assumes that collective intervention,particularly in land and holders have been negotiated by two governmental organized non-
so with support from the government. Otherwise, all relevant activities will be compelled to stop” (Interview, ES no. 6, 2015). Operators were thus interested in “taking the chance of planning making to regenerate the area and thus to attract more visitors” (Interview, ES no. 4, 2015). Business operators had formed an incorporated membershipbased association the Jiaochangwei Bed and Breakfast Association (JBBA) (hereafter JBBA-led network). Under the direction of an elected Board, the General Manager managed the network, and identified and implemented a range of activities to develop local tourism. The JBBA was akin to Provan and Kenis' (2008) network administrative organization, which operated as a central node for communication and coordination. During the process of the JTDP, the JBBA collected suggestions from its members through face-toface communication, questionnaires, and committee conferences to compile reports that submitted to the governmental authorities. It also communicated government decisions to its members through the same channels. In this sense, as one JBBA member explained, “our voices will be easily to be heard and we would expect the plan could be developed in the direction that may benefit us” (Interview, ES no. 3, 2015). The JBBA-led network demonstrated a high level of positive engagement (reflected regular and well-attended meetings) and a strong commitment to sharing information. The role of the JBBA in organizing the participation of business operators had been evidenced by the JTDP planner. This is an innovation in the JTDP to communicate among relevant parties through one organizer (the President).Information has been collected and disseminated to B&B operators through this lead person. The match between architects and B&B operators is also made by the President. Such large-scale communication can hardly be based on one-on-one connections between the planning team and individual B&B operators. JBBA effectively assists this process. (Interview, E no. 2, 2015) However, due to its membership requirements, not all business operators were involved in the association, which required 800 Yuan/year membership fee. Those who complained about the JBBA tended to be newly involved in the B&B sector, and they were not yet familiar with the JCW. Our talk with one of the operators, who came to the JCW by the end of 2014, suggested that he “is unsatisfied with many issues, for instance, the inadequacy of parking lots”. There is no opportunity for his “voice to be heard”, because, he had “not yet been a member of JBBA” (Interview, ES no. 7, 2015). Many B&B operators who reported similar experience were not members of JBBA, suggesting that the JBBA excluded non-members from the benefits of its coordinated activities. 5.2.2. Indigenous residents and the RCJ-led network As a result of the flourishing of tourism in the JCW, by the end of 2015, there were more than 350 B&Bs, but only 10% were owned by indigenous residents. The vast majority of accommodations were rented out to newcomers, after the indigenous residents had moved away, either to the Shenzhen city center, or overseas. Our site investigation suggested that although some elderly people have remained due to the inconvenience of moving, their number was fewer than five. Nevertheless, most of the interviewees insisted that indigenous residents were the main subjects of the JTDP. On the one hand, indigenous residents were maintaining their house ownership and their use of the land. These actions were closely related to the planning activity, which is “a subset of public policy, which assumes that collective intervention, particularly in land and property markets, will yield benefits to the common good” (Campbell, 2006, p. 93). After the site investigations, we initially decided to demolish 81 houses and rebuilt 9. In order to achieve this aim, Secretary Yu of the DDMC has been communicating with house owners repeatedly. JCW is very complex in terms of the land user ship, and the power of village representatives is part of this fight. Houses are really hard to move. (Interview, R no.2, 2015) On the other hand, residents were expecting that the JTDP would lead to an increase in real estate rents. Many interviews with indigenous residents reflected that, although they feel a bit reluctant to rent out their own houses where they have lived for decades, they are happy overall, given their increasing rental income. Our field work has shown that monthly rents had increased from the original 1000e2000 Yuan in 2007 up to 20e50 thousand Yuan in 2016. The Residents' Committee of JCW (RCJ) is a self-governing entity, the numbers of which have been elected by indigenous residents to take charge of the community's daily affairs. The RCJ can be regarded as a lead organization-governed network (Provan & Kenis, 2008), wherein the RCJ plays a central coordinating role, facilitating and enabling collaboration among residents. The RCJ has a “joint-stock company” that “pays attention to the planning and construction of public infrastructure” (Interview, SMGO no. 2, 2015). Being mutually empowered by both the state and the peasantry (Wang, 1997), the RCJ acts as a mediator between the “outsiders” and the community during the JTDP. Interviewed residents generally acknowledged that the RCJ collected the demands of indigenous residents through site investigations, collective meetings, and group interviews, which used to facilitate their collaboration with other stakeholders to complete the plan. One prominent example emerged in the process of identifying houses to be demolished. As a further example of their brokering role the party secretary of the RCJ accompanied the planning team to negotiate with inhabitants by going door-to-door. 5.2.3. Independent architects and reTUMU During the planning process, the government recruited 35 volunteer architects to support the regeneration of the JCW. These architects came from all over the country, including Shenzhen, Beijing, and Chongqing. They had diverse motivations for joining the project. Some believed it was a “rare opportunity” for “young architects to make their first step towards being a famous architect” (Interview, E no.1, 2015). Others thought this was a project that could actually be implemented rather than a “pure theoretical discussion” (Interview, TM no. 1, 2015). Some were attracted by the possibility that they could make the JCW “a better, high quality place” (Interview, E no.2, 2015). These design experts were loosely networked through reTUMU. Launched in 2008, reTUMU is a non-governmental organization composed of professionals in urban planning and architecture from Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Taiwan. It exemplifies a participantgoverned network (Provan & Kenis, 2008) through which, architects are involved in the entire planning process, in this case to help B&B operators and indigenous communities to renovate their houses. Participant-governed network relations are generally decentralized, less formal and dependent upon the social and human capital that exists among members. 5.3. Structuralized inter-network collaboration through GONGOs Interactions between public authorities and non-state stakeholders have been negotiated by two governmental organized non- 322 D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328
D.Lin,D.Simmons Tourism Management 63(2017)315-328 323 Table 3 Participation in the planning process. Planning Agenda Key Stakeholders Participatory stages Planning activities Other Stakeholders Planners into AUBE and CSWADI Stakeholders engagement On-site investigations UPLRC the community (visits and field observations. DDPC questionnaires,collection of RC] comments by poll or interviews) Design Workshop Indigenous residents and business operators to participate via JBBA and RC Connection with Leading group meetings UPLRC,DDMC and the governmental officials planning team Architect Advisory SCD Stakeholders engagement One-day Trip in JCW Architects,indigenous residents. Panel business operators Bi-City Biennale of Architects,indigenous residents. Urbanism/Architecture (UABB) business operators design competition Architects,indigenous residents. design workshop business operators Connection with official "joint meeting" JBBA,RCJ and DDPC governmental officials Source:authors government organizations (GONGOs):the Planning Team and the Shenzhen Center of Design(SCD).Due to their unique identity of To understand better the demands of the residents and to being GONGOs with both institutional and social capitals,they communicate in-depth with indigenous residents and B&B opera- created a structured inter-network collaboration at different scales tors,the planning team stayed at the JCW for a month,where they of planning application.In summary participation mechanism conducted 20 on-site investigations,6 Design Workshops,and 9 throughout the planning process can be seen in Table 3. group meetings to complete the planning program.The DDPC and RCJ were required to assist these experts in conducting field trips. Various techniques were deployed during on-site investigations. 5.3.1.Planners facilitating community engagement including:visits and field observations,questionnaires,and Governmental decision-makers,represented by the UPLRC, collection of comments using polls or interviews.These techniques recognized the necessity of formulating the JTDP.Ifit is to be approved improved experts'understanding of local needs,especially among in practice,such an understanding requires broad acceptance by both tourism business operators. internal government departments and society.After ensuring the approval of the project proposal by the municipal government,a "We did in-depth research on-site.Also,we communicated with planning team was assigned to formulate the jTDP.This team con- them (local residents),trying to propose comparative schemes sisted of two commissioned institutions:Aube Conception SARL to respond to their demands...mainly some fundamental living d'Architecture (AUBE)and China Southwest Architectural Design requirements,such as civil infrastructure,for instance drainage Institute Co.,Ltd.(CSWADI).Within the planning team,AUBE was facilities.We found that some of the house is under the zero commissioned by UPLRC as the chief designer and took responsibility horizon which means houses might be flooded during heavy for various aspects of the development of the JCW. rains.Residents also paid attention to whether their houses On the one hand,the planning team obtained institutional could be improved in respect to upgrading electricity.sewage capital through official empowerment.One officer in the tourism and other infrastructure". management department noted in his interview that govern- (Interview,E no.2,2015) mental empowerment gave the planning team legitimacy when acting within governmental institutions.For instance,the plan- ning team jointly completed planning preparation work at the The "Design Workshop"further integrated local demands into municipal level with the UPLRC.On the other hand,the position of planning programs.Organized by the Planning Team,the "Design the planning team as a third-party gives it the social capital to Workshop"invited indigenous residents and business operators to connect with local groups and thus to understand their demands. participate via JBBA and RCJ.They gathered together to ask ques- After determining the feasibility of the planning project,the tions,discuss issues and make decisions on-site.The design traditional top-down planning approach was replaced by expert- workshop was not intended to merely collect feedback from the led consultations organized by the process of "Planners into public,but to propose alternative strategies by integrating public Community".During this process,planning experts changed their opinions,thus leading to a planning process that pays more original value positions and identification as government attention to fully capturing a broad range of ideas.One of the spokesmen,and instead,positioned themselves as members of a business operators reflected that,"I often raised questions in the neutral third party. collective meeting.When everyone is coming together to discuss on- site,many problems could be resolved"(Interview.R no.4,2015). "As the design institute,we are regarding ourselves as more The proposed plan.which integrated the feedback of indigenous neutral rather than as the 'instrument'of the government;nor residents and business operators reported back to decision-making are we standing in line with these business operators or indig departments within government through the formal channel of the enous communities.We merely want to make the JCW a better "leading group meeting".The main participants in this leading destination from the perspective of tourism development, group meeting included the UPLRC,DDMC and the planning team. landscape and space-making.Therefore,we hope that we can In the meantime,due to its institutional capital,the planning team keep our role as an independent third party". still had opportunities to pursue effective connections with the (Interview,E no.1,2015) government through informal channels.As a result,the bottom-up
government organizations (GONGOs): the Planning Team and the Shenzhen Center of Design (SCD). Due to their unique identity of being GONGOs with both institutional and social capitals, they created a structured inter-network collaboration at different scales of planning application. In summary participation mechanism throughout the planning process can be seen in Table 3. 5.3.1. Planners facilitating community engagement Governmental decision-makers, represented by the UPLRC, recognized the necessity of formulating the JTDP. Ifitis to be approved in practice, such an understanding requires broad acceptance by both internal government departments and society. After ensuring the approval of the project proposal by the municipal government, a planning team was assigned to formulate the JTDP. This team consisted of two commissioned institutions: Aube Conception SARL d’Architecture (AUBE) and China Southwest Architectural Design Institute Co., Ltd. (CSWADI). Within the planning team, AUBE was commissioned by UPLRC as the chief designer and took responsibility for various aspects of the development of the JCW. On the one hand, the planning team obtained institutional capital through official empowerment. One officer in the tourism management department noted in his interview that governmental empowerment gave the planning team legitimacy when acting within governmental institutions. For instance, the planning team jointly completed planning preparation work at the municipal level with the UPLRC. On the other hand, the position of the planning team as a third-party gives it the social capital to connect with local groups and thus to understand their demands. After determining the feasibility of the planning project, the traditional top-down planning approach was replaced by expertled consultations organized by the process of “Planners into Community”. During this process, planning experts changed their original value positions and identification as government spokesmen, and instead, positioned themselves as members of a neutral third party. “As the design institute, we are regarding ourselves as more neutral rather than as the ‘instrument’ of the government; nor are we standing in line with these business operators or indigenous communities. We merely want to make the JCW a better destination from the perspective of tourism development, landscape and space-making. Therefore, we hope that we can keep our role as an independent third party”. (Interview, E no.1, 2015) To understand better the demands of the residents and to communicate in-depth with indigenous residents and B&B operators, the planning team stayed at the JCW for a month, where they conducted 20 on-site investigations, 6 Design Workshops, and 9 group meetings to complete the planning program. The DDPC and RCJ were required to assist these experts in conducting field trips. Various techniques were deployed during on-site investigations, including: visits and field observations, questionnaires, and collection of comments using polls or interviews. These techniques improved experts' understanding of local needs, especially among tourism business operators. “We did in-depth research on-site. Also, we communicated with them (local residents), trying to propose comparative schemes to respond to their demands … mainly some fundamental living requirements, such as civil infrastructure, for instance drainage facilities. We found that some of the house is under the zero horizon which means houses might be flooded during heavy rains. Residents also paid attention to whether their houses could be improved in respect to upgrading electricity, sewage and other infrastructure”. (Interview, E no. 2, 2015) The “Design Workshop” further integrated local demands into planning programs. Organized by the Planning Team, the “Design Workshop” invited indigenous residents and business operators to participate via JBBA and RCJ. They gathered together to ask questions, discuss issues and make decisions on-site. The design workshop was not intended to merely collect feedback from the public, but to propose alternative strategies by integrating public opinions, thus leading to a planning process that pays more attention to fully capturing a broad range of ideas. One of the business operators reflected that, “I often raised questions in the collective meeting. When everyone is coming together to discuss onsite, many problems could be resolved” (Interview, R no.4, 2015). The proposed plan, which integrated the feedback of indigenous residents and business operators reported back to decision-making departments within government through the formal channel of the “leading group meeting”. The main participants in this leading group meeting included the UPLRC, DDMC and the planning team. In the meantime, due to its institutional capital, the planning team still had opportunities to pursue effective connections with the government through informal channels. As a result, the bottom-up Table 3 Participation in the planning process. Planning Agenda Key Stakeholders Participatory stages Planning activities Other Stakeholders Planners into the community AUBE and CSWADI Stakeholders engagement On-site investigations (visits and field observations, questionnaires, collection of comments by poll or interviews) UPLRC DDPC RCJ Design Workshop Indigenous residents and business operators to participate via JBBA and RCJ Connection with governmental officials Leading group meetings UPLRC, DDMC and the planning team Architect Advisory Panel SCD Stakeholders engagement One-day Trip in JCW Architects, indigenous residents, business operators Bi-City Biennale of Urbanism/Architecture (UABB) Architects, indigenous residents, business operators design competition design workshop Architects, indigenous residents, business operators Connection with governmental officials official “joint meeting” JBBA, RCJ and DDPC Source: authors D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328 323
324 D.Lin,D.Simmons Tourism Management 63(2017)315-328 demands of the residents have been recognized at different scales of government regulation The marriage of architects and owners was achieved through a series of events organized by the SCD,involving the "One-day Trip to JCW",the Bi-City Biennale of Urbanism/Architecture(UABB),and 5.3.2.Architect Advisory Panel a design competition. If the agenda of "planners into the community"provided more We use this year's UABB venue to invite designers and resi- opportunities for public participation in the JTDP.the activities of dential owners to meet and discuss.From our perspective,this the "Architects Advisory Panel"(AAP)further promoted the is,at least,a chance for owners to upgrade their understanding strength of public participation in the implementation stage of the of accommodation rebuilding ..During the process,architects JTDP.Despite being formulated as "Guidelines",the JTDP remains provide models to demonstrate their design initiatives...It is an ineffective at controlling the autonomous reconstruction of local effective way of persuading the indigenous residents. communities'. (Interview.SMGO no.2.2015) "We found it hard to control or to say regulate...all the prop- erties are collectively-owned yet occupied by private users.It is in fact private interest...which is hard to control". The design competition was an innovation that promoted the participation of both the architects and local residential owners. (Interview,SMGO no.4,2015) Subsidies of 10,000 RMB,the informal rules that created a con- struction area expanded by up to 10%,and the honor of winning Even though government is the power center with regard to the competition all stimulated participation (Interview,CS no.3. exerting regulation,it nevertheless faces difficulties in regulating 2015). the collective market for public land.It is in this context that the At design workshops,the SCD also brought together stake- Shenzhen Centre of Design(SCD)was brought in as a key stake- holders to discuss and develop possible solutions to specific. holder to collaborate with other networks and to mobilize various place-based challenges posed by residential regeneration. networks into a system that allows participation. Through the design workshops,options were investigated inter- The SCD is an affiliated institution of the UPLRC and plays a role actively through design,then debated and illustrated to reach as a GONGO.It aims to integrate resources from the governmental, preferred outcomes.Eventually,the renovations included work in industrial,and academic fields;to establish a database of design four categories:reconstruction of entire buildings reconstruction ideas and thoughts around urban developments in Shenzhen:and (especially for newly-built houses):garden revitalization and to offer services for designers such as communication channels, reuse (e.g.,roof gardens);redesign of inner space;and the uti- trainings,and promotion opportunities.Together with the UPLRC, lization of public space.The design proposal had to be reviewed the SCD jointly proposed a reconstruction plan for the residential and approved by the SCD,after which it could be implemented. buildings of the JTDP. The design services were free,but the renovation required funding from the operators. I received the task of regeneration of the B&B buildings from SCD creates connections between "top and down"dimensions UPLRC by the end of 2012.UPLRC wished to do something.We within the planning framework mainly through two channels.The chatted during our investigation of the JCW,confirming the first is through the official "joint meetings",which were held work plan.We found that in the ITDP,the design and con- every week and were intended to bring together JBBA,RCJ and struction of individual accommodations was left without in- DDPC to solve practical problems on-site.A second channel is depth consideration,even though this is the most intuitive through the SCD's informal social relations.Although it is not a part and is urgently needed by those house owners.It requires direct regulator,its identity as a subdivision of UPLRC provides the guidance,based on which we intervened. basis for convenient connections between SCD and public (Interview,SC no.2,2015) authorities. There is a macro background.Even though the SCD is an affiliate For public authorities,the degree of centrality of the SCD within of UPLRC,it has its own positioning:a communicative platform the social capital network could contribute to active engagement for the Shenzhen Design Industry.In this project,we are the with civil society. third party:the government has its desire to do things;the owners and operators of B&B have demands regarding "We have those social capitals,including:governmental sup- improving house quality:there is also a group of voluntary ports,commercial associations,as well as a joint-stock company. designers who would like to contribute.All of this gives us op- We could link them together to get involved in the process of the portunities to bring them together as a third party. upgrading and planning the JCW destination". (Interview,CS no.2,2015) (Interview,SC no.2,2015) Due to government empowerment,the SCD was able to effi- The SCD obtained power and legitimacy from the government ciently contact the government.As described by one of the in- due to its identity as a GONGO.Nevertheless,it was regarded by terviewees,in most cases,when the owners of B&Bs experienced many as a substitute for the government problems during the process of reconstruction,they informed the "To B&B operators,if they want to renovate their houses,they SCD through the president of the BBA.The SCD then deployed its can only do so through relevant government departments, social capital to deliver this information to the city government otherwise,any rebuilding work will be required to stop.In this (e.g.urban regeneration office).As a result,the bottom-up de- process,what we were doing is to help them to communicate mands of the residents were recognized at different levels of gov- with the government". ernment regulation. (Interview,SC no.2,2015)
demands of the residents have been recognized at different scales of government regulation. 5.3.2. Architect Advisory Panel If the agenda of “planners into the community” provided more opportunities for public participation in the JTDP, the activities of the “Architects Advisory Panel” (AAP) further promoted the strength of public participation in the implementation stage of the JTDP. Despite being formulated as “Guidelines”, the JTDP remains ineffective at controlling the autonomous reconstruction of local communities'. “We found it hard to control or to say regulate … all the properties are collectively-owned yet occupied by private users. It is in fact private interest … which is hard to control”. (Interview, SMGO no. 4, 2015) Even though government is the power center with regard to exerting regulation, it nevertheless faces difficulties in regulating the collective market for public land. It is in this context that the Shenzhen Centre of Design (SCD) was brought in as a key stakeholder to collaborate with other networks and to mobilize various networks into a system that allows participation. The SCD is an affiliated institution of the UPLRC and plays a role as a GONGO. It aims to integrate resources from the governmental, industrial, and academic fields; to establish a database of design ideas and thoughts around urban developments in Shenzhen; and to offer services for designers such as communication channels, trainings, and promotion opportunities. Together with the UPLRC, the SCD jointly proposed a reconstruction plan for the residential buildings of the JTDP. I received the task of regeneration of the B&B buildings from UPLRC by the end of 2012. UPLRC wished to do something. We chatted during our investigation of the JCW, confirming the work plan. We found that in the JTDP, the design and construction of individual accommodations was left without indepth consideration, even though this is the most intuitive part and is urgently needed by those house owners. It requires guidance, based on which we intervened. (Interview, SC no. 2, 2015) For public authorities, the degree of centrality of the SCD within the social capital network could contribute to active engagement with civil society. “We have those social capitals, including: governmental supports, commercial associations, as well as a joint-stock company. We could link them together to get involved in the process of the upgrading and planning the JCW destination”. (Interview, SC no. 2, 2015) The SCD obtained power and legitimacy from the government due to its identity as a GONGO. Nevertheless, it was regarded by many as a substitute for the government. “To B&B operators, if they want to renovate their houses, they can only do so through relevant government departments, otherwise, any rebuilding work will be required to stop. In this process, what we were doing is to help them to communicate with the government”. (Interview, SC no. 2, 2015) The marriage of architects and owners was achieved through a series of events organized by the SCD, involving the “One-day Trip to JCW”, the Bi-City Biennale of Urbanism/Architecture (UABB), and a design competition. We use this year's UABB venue to invite designers and residential owners to meet and discuss. From our perspective, this is, at least, a chance for owners to upgrade their understanding of accommodation rebuilding … During the process, architects provide models to demonstrate their design initiatives … It is an effective way of persuading the indigenous residents. (Interview, SMGO no.2, 2015) The design competition was an innovation that promoted the participation of both the architects and local residential owners. Subsidies of 10,000 RMB, the informal rules that created a construction area expanded by up to 10%, and the honor of winning the competition all stimulated participation (Interview, CS no. 3, 2015). At design workshops, the SCD also brought together stakeholders to discuss and develop possible solutions to specific, place-based challenges posed by residential regeneration. Through the design workshops, options were investigated interactively through design, then debated and illustrated to reach preferred outcomes. Eventually, the renovations included work in four categories: reconstruction of entire buildings reconstruction (especially for newly-built houses); garden revitalization and reuse (e.g., roof gardens); redesign of inner space; and the utilization of public space. The design proposal had to be reviewed and approved by the SCD, after which it could be implemented. The design services were free, but the renovation required funding from the operators. SCD creates connections between “top and down” dimensions within the planning framework mainly through two channels. The first is through the official “joint meetings”, which were held every week and were intended to bring together JBBA, RCJ and DDPC to solve practical problems on-site. A second channel is through the SCD's informal social relations. Although it is not a direct regulator, its identity as a subdivision of UPLRC provides the basis for convenient connections between SCD and public authorities. There is a macro background. Even though the SCD is an affiliate of UPLRC, it has its own positioning: a communicative platform for the Shenzhen Design Industry. In this project, we are the third party: the government has its desire to do things; the owners and operators of B&B have demands regarding improving house quality; there is also a group of voluntary designers who would like to contribute. All of this gives us opportunities to bring them together as a third party. (Interview, CS no. 2, 2015) Due to government empowerment, the SCD was able to effi- ciently contact the government. As described by one of the interviewees, in most cases, when the owners of B&Bs experienced problems during the process of reconstruction, they informed the SCD through the president of the JBBA. The SCD then deployed its social capital to deliver this information to the city government (e.g., urban regeneration office). As a result, the bottom-up demands of the residents were recognized at different levels of government regulation. 324 D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328
