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 governmentthemselves). In a participatory planning process, these stake￾holders 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 consensus￾building 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 sec￾tors of tourism as well as with actors outside of these areas (Albrecht, 2013). A “whole-of-destination view incorporating net￾works” (Albrecht, 2013, p. 640) provides a useful lens for under￾standing 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 pro￾cess of tourism planning: (1) participant-governed networks￾which 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 gov￾erned by a specially designed administrative entity. Both “lead or￾ganization-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 legiti￾macy 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 differen￾tiate 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 distin￾guished 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 or￾dered from the local to the global in ever increasing circles (Taylor, 1982). For those who subscribe to the notion of a non-scalar hori￾zontal “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 configu￾rations of social relations and processes (Bulkeley, 2005). Both hierarchical and horizontal social interactions co-exist within the process of tourism planning when planning is regar￾ded 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 resource￾based and network-based power or by the types of social struc￾tural resources that flow through the network to facilitate coop￾eration 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). Institu￾tional 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 intraorganiza￾tional 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 hierar￾chical relations (institutional capital) to ensure effective partici￾pation by a broad set of stakeholders. In this sense, they organize a structuralized inter-network collaboration (Fig. 1) that in￾corporates the overlapping functional roles of government minis￾tries 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 consid￾eration 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 mu￾nicipality 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 en￾thusiasts 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