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