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 touristsseminal 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 stake￾holders 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 stake￾holder 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 connec￾tions 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 in￾dividuals' 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 under￾standing 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 plan￾ning 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 as￾sessments and appraisals to understand the processes and im￾pacts 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 concep￾tualize 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 col￾laborations, with each proposition considered an essential facili￾tator 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 orienta￾tion to socially constructed frameworks (Saraniemi & Kylanen, € 2011). Pearce (2014) develops an integrative framework of desti￾nations 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 desti￾nation 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 orga￾nizations 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) dedi￾cated to promoting sustainable tourism (Tavallaee, Asadi, Abya, & Ebrahimi, 2014). Proposition 2. The activity of planning provides a focus for nego￾tiation, 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 in￾terest 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 man￾agement 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, non￾governmental organizations, research groups, financial and credit institutions, neighborhood competitors and even tourists D. Lin, D. Simmons / Tourism Management 63 (2017) 315e328 317