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-upgovernment 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 con￾sisted 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 govern￾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 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 expert￾led 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 indig￾enous 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 opera￾tors, 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 ques￾tions, 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 on￾site, 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