Collaborative Hotel Development

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism a Case Study of Chipping, UK Design Research Project (LICA 426) Seungil Lee MA in Design Management Email: lee.seungillee@gmail.com 10 Sep 2012

1

4

The Research Overview Project Summary Topic Theoretical Background Focus Objective

2

5

Methods & Process Research Programme Research Network Field Research in the UK

3

Insights Discussions Reflections

Conclusion

Results Findings

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

Contents

Project Summary

The

villa

A rk

g

in e is

wrig

re s

ta

ht M

Gr ill (

nt u ra

Fig

th e

sa

u re

cen ad

nd

tre

). C e II

caf

e 3N

c of a

ws

ĂŠs.

pap

hip

S

ons

pin

r eve

er a

gh

al

rtic

e rv

atio

as

ps sho

ac a ttr

le

n

a a re

tive

ou ann

wit

, sc

inn

ncin

hs

hoo

sc

g th

to n

ls,

c

e

ch hur

es

and

sev

e ra

an

ec

lo

eo sur

fH

JB

e rr

y

Furniture factory Workshop with local residents

K U , g n i p p i Ch

Chipping Village Plan 2011

Generating Ideas together Tourism

Doing research !

With LICA Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

A development company Seungil Lee

1.The Research Overview

Topic Community-based approach

Co-design

What about hotel?

?

Rural Tourism

Sustainable Tourism Using co-design in tourism as sustainable design

UK Tourism is a vital industry in the countryside

Sustainable tourism requires a holistic approach in planning to solve problems derived from tourism.

Encouraging direct participation to promote sustainable tourism

The transition towards sustainability requires radical changes.(Jansen, 1993; Braungart & McDough, 1998; Manzini, 2007; Walker, 2008)

Rural tourism accounts for ÂŁ14 billion in income and supports 380,000 jobs.

Sustainable Tourism generates benefits for countryside visitors and local communities without damaging the environment.

(Countryside Commission, 1995)

A community-based approach to tourism development is a precondition for sustainability.

(Woodley, 1993; Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997)

Co-design is a method to generate new ideas to meet society’s needs, aiming to create a new vision and purpose for society and the environment. (Fuad-Luke (2007)

UK adults make 14 million holiday trips to the English countryside each year and 1.1 billion leisure day visits are also taken in the countryside.

VisitBritain (2005)

Sustainable Tourism requires effective planning and management to achieve the potential benefits of rural tourism.(Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997)

The participation of relevant stakeholders is a social dimension of sustainable tourism.

(WTO, 2004; Panyik et al., 2011)

Co-design is increasingly popular in many businesses and organizations.

(Binder, Brandt, & Gregory; Steen, 2008)

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

1.The Research Overview

Theoretical Background

Co-design Sanders and Stappers (2008: 6) define co-design as creative designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process.

Broadbent (2003) describes the following characteristics of co-design (Faud-Luke, 2007: 38): • Being holistic, intuitive, descriptive, experiential and empirical, pragmatic and wisdom/values-based approach; • Being an iterative, non-linear interactive process; • Being “action-based” research; • Involving top-down and bottom-up approaches; • Simulating the real world; • Being useful for complex systems or problems; • Being situation driven, especially by common human situations; • Satisfying pluralistic outcomes; • Being internalised by the system.

Definition of co-design differs from context to context and according to the disciplinary outlook.

(LSE, 2009: 7)

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

1.The Research Overview

Topic

Existing Scholarship of co-design in tourism Tourism planning through collaboration with the community (e.g. Jamal & Getz, 1995) Tourism policymaking (cf. Bramwell & Sharman, 1999) Urban and regional planning (cf. Cross, 1972; Communityplanning, 2008; Nasser & Holyoak, 2012) Collaborative destination design (cf. Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007; Taboada et al., 2009)

Shepherd (1998) argues that participation in rural development is still regarded as very idealistic and ideological, although Macdonald (1993) sees this as an appropriate method.

(Osborne et al., 2002: 1)

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

1.The Research Overview

Focus

Community-based approach

Co-design

What about hotel?

?

Rural Tourism

Sustainable Tourism

UK

Can the application of collaborative hotel development to sustainable rural tourism be introduced into current scholarship? ⌠Hotels are a key component of tourism.

(Wight, 1997: 210)

⌠Collaborative planning methodologies may be a viable alternative for sustainable tourism planning, as they stimulate trans-disciplinary discussion among diverse local and social groups and meet the need to consider multiple interactions, feedback relationships, complexities and uncertainties.

(Taboada et al., 2010: 72)

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

1.The Research Overview

Focus

53N Presentation To Chipping Parish Council Former H J Berry & Sons Complex

!"#$%&'()"* +,,%"'$-

!./("0&%#1%)2&* !./("0)/'()"*

Customer-Firm: Continuous Involvement/Dialogue Type

3)%0#4%)2&* 5&%2)$&67**"2'()"* Production Process

!"#,%"4.$()"* +,,%"'$-

Firm-Customer: Sporadic

Consumption/ Usage Process

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY REPORT INNOVATION 8'%%)&%/9 8'%%)&%/9 Internal barriers Cost and resources Trust Organisational resistance Top-down commitment Cultural barriers Structural and cultural barriers High labor turnover External barriers Conflict of interest Regulatory barriers Context related barriers Lack of acceptance from customers Trust between customers and hotel

Customer-driven Customisation

Firm-driven Innovation

COLLABORATION

ENVIRONMENT

COMMUNITY

Co-creation

8&*&:)(/9 Feedback and learning loops Completencies of employees Improved loyalty Sales of other hotel services Higher customer satisfaction Enhanced profitability Unique positive experiences

Co-production

Needs a direct example Co-creation and Co-production from a Hotel Service Context (n.d.)

Last updated March 2012 / www.ihg.com/cr

IHG Cooperate Responsibility Report (2011)

Chipping, UK

Countryside in the UK Community-led Chipping Village Plan 2011

Few indirect examples of codesign in hotel development

⌠Emphasising local tourism ⌠Regeneration of the former HJ Berry furniture site

Hotel development company

Case studies can provide knowledge about previously under-investigated research areas.

(Eisenhardt, 1989; Gummesson, 2000; Kristensson et al., 2008: 479)

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

1.The Research Overview

Focus Case Study site_Chipping

Chipping Brook

The former factory site

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

1.The Research Overview

Objectives

The main aim of this research is to develop a co-design approach for hotel development within a sustainable rural tourism framework by analysing a case study, the “Chipping hotel development project�.

Objectives: To determine whether there are opportunities for collaborative hotel development through co-design.

To investigate issues arising when co-design principles are applied to hotel development.

To identify a collaborative hotel development for sustainable rural tourism in this context.

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

1.The Research Overview

Research Programme for Chipping project Research Period

April 2012

May 2012

July 2012

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Diagnose

Co-discover

Design Development

Co-design

Synthesis

Visualization

Research Phase

Community led

Company led

June 2012

Village Plan

Response

Consultation

Research activities

The overall design process is convergent, but it will contain periods of deliberate divergence.

(Nigel Cross, 2000)

Emphasising “Walking process” as descriptions of actual behaviour rather than “theoretical and prescriptive” in many models of the design process.

(Lawson, 1991)

The Dott methodology adopts a ‘bottom-up’ approach, encouraging both professionals and the public to share ideas and to have greater ownership of the solutions.

(Design Council, 1996) Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

2. Methods & Process

Research Network Fundamental Research x3

Service designer

Architect

Hotel Planning Manager

Other researchers

Councillor

Academic design practice yielding discussions, papers and conceptual objects

Additional Interview (P7-P9)

External Interview (P3-P6) Researcher

Internal Interview (P1-P2)

Workshop

Field meeting & workshop

x 10 Landscape architect

Ecology company

Hotel development company project manager

Environmental engineering company (Flood)

Arboricultural consultants

Architect

Planning consultants (Highways)

Commercial design practice

Local residents

Landscaping

Topographical survey

Applied Research

Fundamental design research in academia (Influenced by Walker, 2011)

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

2. Methods & Process

Field Research

Phase 1: Diagnose Understanding Chipping contexts !"#$%&'"(')"*+,-.'/01)')2%3-$%%'4-&$#5#3%$'62#7$8'9$5"#&':;<<'

)2%3-$%%'4-&$#5#3%$'62#7$8'9$5"#&' /2&2=-':;<<'

Option 1: Aspiration Land To West: + 9 Detached + 20 Semi-Detached + 32 Terrace + 1 Apartment Block Cycle & Walking Routes

Mill Pond

Kirk Mill Heritage

Allotments

Former HJ Berry & Sons Complex: + 10 Detached Eco Cabins + 12 Semi-Detached Cottages + 3 Terrace Cottages Waste 50 Car Parking Spaces +Energy

Renewable Energy

The joint efforts of Chipping village and 53N could present significant opportunities and benefits for all. Some of these benefits could include:

+ +

+ + + + + +

NEW EMPLOYMENT ECOLOGY / NATURE Riverside Walk

Schools

The Future : The Sustainable Vision

+ Water Wheel

Leisure & Tourism

Car Parking

Land To North: + 5 Detached

+

New Housing

+

Towards Carbon Neutral

New employment opportunities; Provision of housing, including starter / affordable homes; Enhanced accessibility through the site and to adjacent countryside; Support for existing services / facilities; New tourism related uses to further strengthen the local economy; Preservation of the existing village character; Additional car parking; A new allotments; Possible relocation of the Cricket Club to new improved facilities; Improved accessibility to broadband and other infrastructure; and Support for implementation of village wide renewable energy measures.

53N Presentation To Chipping Parish Council

Sense of Place Toolkit Forest of Bowland AONB PO Box 9, Guild House Cross Street, Preston, PR1 8RD Tel: 01772 531473

Former H J Berry & Sons Complex

Fax: 01772 533423 bowland@env.lancscc.gov.uk www.forestofbowland.com The Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is a nationally protected landscape and internationally important for

Registered Providers

its heather moorland, blanket bog and rare birds. The AONB is managed by a partnership of landowners, farmers, voluntary

CHIPPING VILLAGE

organisations, wildlife groups, recreation groups, local councils and government agencies, who work to protect, conserve and enhance

Supporting Local Facilities Cricket Pitch & Pavillion

the natural and cultural heritage of this special area.

Lancashire County Council acts as the lead authority for the

Existing Shops / Pub / Hotel

Forest of Bowland AONB Joint Advisory Committee a partnership comprising: Lancashire County Council, North Yorkshire County

Superfast Broadband

Council, Craven District Council, Lancaster City Council, Pendle

''

Borough Council, Preston City Council, Ribble Valley Borough Council, Wyre Borough Council, Lancashire Association of Parish and Town Councils,Yorkshire Local Councils Association, NWDA, DEFRA, Countryside Agency, United Utilities plc, Environment Agency, English Nature, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

'

(RSPB), Forest of Bowland Landowning and Farmers Advisory Group and the Ramblers Association.

FOREST OF

BOWLAND Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty >$&&8')8#-$' ?$@$=A$#':;<<'

'

!"#$%&'"(')"*+,-.'/01)'

Community-led Village Plan

Company-led Plan

Company aspirations

<'

AONB materials

Analysing Chipping contexts

Existing Tourism Resources

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

SWOT

Seungil Lee

2. Methods & Process

Field Research

Phase 2: Co-discover

%

Phase 1: Diagnose Working with key informants

Regulation

&EASIB

Gaining In-depth understanding of Chipping context A focus on constraints implies sufficient identification and understanding to make choices as solutions.

(Vandenbosch & Gallagher, 2004: 199)

Local peopleʼs attitudes towards the changes planned for Chipping were revealed in passive and past-oriented forms.

Field meeting_1

Idea Workshop

Co-design: a beneficial and a positive method

P2 Project manager

“I feel community involvement with the evolution of Chipping is very important.”

0RELIM

Field meeting_2

Internal Interview Examining the perspective of co-design

(OST %NVIRONME

P1

$ETAILE

Hotel Development company Project manager

Current process is co-design.

0RODU

No involvement of local input Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

2. Methods & Process

Field Research

Phase 2: Co-discover

% External Interview

Emphasising the participation of local stakeholders in the early stages of the co-design process

Exploring different perspectives related to hotel planning and codesign in order to maintain objectivity

&EASIB

P3 Common ground Founder

Hotel development through codesign could bring benefits to both local residents and the development company: (P4) Providing better facilities (P5) Sharing cultural values & reflecting local identity

P4 PAD Architects LLP Director

0RELIM

P5 THE SHILLA Project Manager

(P6) Easier way for the planning committee

P6 Lancaster Councillor

$ETAILE

Additional Interview

Identifying current design process in Chipping

P7

The constraint on communication by researchers with local residents is a barrier to more in-depth understanding of the community, such as their desires and needs.

P8

0RODU P9 Researchers

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

2. Methods & Process

Field Research

Phase 3: Design Development

ity bil ina

-ex Co e ist e nc

Ex

Easy & Attractive Information

Criteria

ten dib ilit y

Distinctiveness

Ap pr op ria

sta Su

ten es

s

Figure 8 Criteria for Design Development

Design Criteria

Hotel Community Business Partnership

Stakeholders始 Map

company during field meetings and workshops. The following design criteria were

The aim of the design is to develop conceptual scenarios based on the Chipping context for the hotel development project, which would be practical and academically reasonable and appropriate in terms of a development for the village.

used as part of alternative development process for the project, as opposed to

conventional hotel development processes which involve generating new designs.

The criteria are based on the following (see Figure 8):

1) Appropriateness: Does it fit reasonably with the context of Chipping and trends in

Objectives: rural tourism? (Source: Field meetings) To realise the development in Chipping To facilitate local residents始 access to the hotel development To formulate proactive engagement.

Page 43 of 98

The scenarios have to be flexible to include the diverse opinions of local residents, while helping to communicate with the hotel development company and local stakeholders.

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

2. Methods & Process

Field Research

Phase 3: Design Development

Conceptual maps for zones

Zone 1 Heritage experience

Mill Pond Mill Building

Zone 2 Former Factory site

Friendly Business environment & Healthcare

Chipping Brook

Zone 3 Natural Experiences

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

2. Methods & Process

Field Research

Phase 3: Design Development

Conceptual maps for zones

Figure 14 Four Future Scenarios for Zone 3 Enjoy Accommodation

Development

Figure 20 Balanced Scenario for zone 3

Natural Camp

Natural

Eco-House

Manmade

Balance Natural Ground

Outdoor Living Room

Conservation

Enjoy Nature

Four future scenarios for Zone 3

According to Visser et al. (2009: 244), one of the important positive side effects of working with future scenarios is that participants feel free to put aside their current

which are introduced in conceptual mapping based on aspects of rural tourism. In the Visualisation of scenario for Zone 3

vested interests and leave disagreements out of the discussion.

concepts presented here, the scenarios are not fixed but flexible. Therefore,

conceptual suggestions that eliminate the negative effects of participation, such as

6.2 Results: Features and Benefits of Collaborative Hotel

proposing a fixed design created by a designer, might promote positive feedback

Development

One of the important positive side effects of working with future scenarios is that participants feel free to put aside their current vested interests and leave disagreements out of the discussion. with space for more communication in design. Furthermore, this could provide new insights into local residents. However, the result cannot be imagined before

proceeding with the workshop with local residents, due to practical considerations.

The result of the hotel design development project is a hotel within the Hotel

The following chapter will discuss this particular issue.

Community Business Partnership Programme (HCBP) (see Figure 15), a programme

Visser et al. (2009: 244)

designed to shift the paradigm of hotel design and encourage participation by local residents of all ages and all proactive clubs. HCBP is important in encouraging

PeopleĘźs mental images of the future can be articulated in a picture.

employment and local businesses, as these are the major challenges facing

Zeisel (2006:Page272) 50 of 98 Page 57 of 98

One architectural sketch is â&#x20AC;&#x153;worth 10,000 wordsâ&#x20AC;? and can be used for communication to aid design collaboration.

Tzonis (2004: 69) Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

2. Methods & Process

Field Research

Phase 4: Co-design with workshop To collect different perspectives of: 1) their participation in the hotel development 2) their opinions of the visualised scenarios Goal (Desire State)

x 10

Local residents

Action

Measurement

Small workshop was conducted with 10 local residents.

Feedback (Transfer of information)

6LJQLÀFDQW WUHH 6LJQLÀFDQW WUHH

=RQH

=RQH

+XE )ULHQGO\ %XVLQHVV +HDOWK FDUH

+XE )ULHQGO\ %XVLQHVV +HDOWK FDUH $QRWKHU VLOODJH &KLSSLQJ LQ &KLSSLQJ &UHDWLQJ VW VLOODJH

$QRWKHU VLOODJH &KLSSLQJ LQ &KLSSLQJ &UHDWLQJ VW VLOODJH

6LJQLÀFDQW WUHH

6LJQLÀFDQW WUHH

3HDFHIXO &DPS

0\ KRXVH HYHQW DUHD

2XWGRRU &DPS

2XWGRRU &DPS

Most participants felt comfortable relating their opinions.

2XWGRRU GLQQLQJ ]RQH

2XWGRRU GLQQLQJ ]RQH

3HDFHIXO &DPS

0\ KRXVH HYHQW DUHD

=RQH

=RQH

6LJQLÀFDQW WUHH

6LJQLÀFDQW WUHH

1DWXUDO ([SHULHQFH

1DWXUDO ([SHULHQFH

$XWKHQWLF +RXVH 1DWXUH EDVHG TRXULVP

$XWKHQWLF +RXVH 1DWXUH EDVHG TRXULVP

(FR KRXVH W\SH (FR KRXVH W\SH

*ODPSLQJ W\SH *ODPSLQJ W\SH

The flexible scenarios described in the sketches helped reduce participants’ doubts.

Some participants hesitated to speak and preferred to listen.

Adapted from Goal-action-feedback loops (Pangaro, 2002) Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

2. Methods & Process

Findings from workshop

lity dib i ten

pr

ce

en

ist

-­ex

Co

Ex

Ap

ity

bil

x 10

Easy & Attractive Information

Criteria

Distinctiveness

Most local people felt that, without them, planning activities would not respect their interests, although these partially agreed with the initial ideas presented

op

ina

ria

ten

sta Su

The workshop revealed their passion for Chipping and their desire to work together on the development, as it will directly affect their lives and so they want to monitor any changes

es s

Measurement

Feedback of Design Proposal

Respondents required involvement at the earliest stages of the project, displaying a proactive attitude towards participation.

Limited number of participants in achieving objectivity

Schematic workshop responses about the four scenarios for Zone 3 (P: Participant in workshop)

Needs guidelines to combine various opinions

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

3. Results

Findings: Inclusion of co-design in Chipping research - Positive method for hotel development - Benefits of broadening ideas - Providing knowledge to local residents in the change of environment

Internal interview

- Positive method for hotel development - Stable hotel business - Agreement on earlier involvement of local residents - Concern about various barriers

External interview

Additional interview Co-design

Company level

- In Chipping, co-design with local residents is hard because of their passive and past-oriented attitudes

Positive response

- Negative constraint in design process

Negative response

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Residents level

en e d w n t a e b n sig e Gap d o c l a r i ty l e a n e e r g in n g i es d o c Seungil Lee

- Importance of local context - Passion for participation - The sense of alienation - The earliest involvement - Liking for less development - Hesitation to share opinions

3. Results

Opportunities for Co-design in Chipping Hotel development company

Interviews in research

Positive motivation

Community Commission (1995) Osborne et al. (2002)

Workshop in research

Chipping Village Plan 2011 (2011)

UK Government

Local community

Chipping in the UK (1) local residents are strongly motivated to participate in the project.

(2) the hotel development company revealed a positive attitude to a co-design approach, and considered the current research as a successful example of incorporating co-design.

(3) the UK government encourages community involvement and partnerships in sustainable rural tourism.

The three key participants are well motivated to work with the design community in a collaborative development seeking sustainable rural tourism.

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

4. Insights

Barriers presented by the Company and Local Residents ic d u j P re

B : Barriers in theoretical background and existing cases

EC: Barriers in external interviews related to hotel planning

W: Barriers in workshop with local residents

M: Barriers in field meetings & workshop with development company

a d n ea

io t a n l ie

n

C: Barriers in internal interviews related to Chipping project

Distinctive constraints were generated by specific local characteristics, the change in local situation and the attitudes of local residents.

They differ from barriers in existing scholarship, as the constraints are based on the characteristics of Chipping and its situations

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

4. Insights

Collaborative Hotel Development in Chipping Thinking

Together Working Local community

Hotel development company

New social activity

Existing social activity

Co-design relies heavily on location context, “Being situation driven” (Broadbent, 2003; Faud-Luke, 2007: 38).

The researcher must recognise the “personality of the place”. Local characteristics are integral to developing a collective understanding of the communityʼs needs, problems and future opportunities (Lachapelle et al., 2012: 90).

“Collaborative hotel development” must bring together thinking and working from different perspectives, and involve resolving considerable conflicts; it can be seen as a social activity (Bucciarelli, 1996; Adams et al., 2011; 588).

Co-design in hotel development will require a customised process for each community's involvement in the process of designing, planning and implementing the development.

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

4. Insights

Future Stages of Co-design in Chipping

Current Process of Hotel Development in Chipping from a corporate

Desired Process of Hotel Development in Chipping from local residents

Next step of Hotel Development in Chipping

(Influenced by Lee, 2008)

Steps in process 1. Induction from Chipping Plan 2011, 2. Initial meeting with local residents, 3. Field meeting 1, 4. Field meeting 2, 5. Further research, 6. Idea generation, 7. Initial design suggestion for further development, 8. Workshop with all residents to generate vision

Current and desired process in Chipping project is still linear movement One of the characteristics of co-design is an iterative, non-linear interactive process. (Broadbent, 2003; Faud-Luke, 2007: 38)

To achieve this, effective communication between the hotel development company, local stakeholders and government authority in a well-organised workshop might be an essential element in an iterative co-design plan.

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

4. Insights

Conclusion Limitation

Time limitation for further researches Sensitive constraints in commercial business Trust between the company and the researcher

Learning

The importance of direct engagement of local people in deeper insights of project Co-design research through design practice Co-design relies on the context of place and characteristics of people who will be involved.

Co-design is no panacea due to existing barriers

What next?

Needs actual outcome of co-design in hotel development and the productivity of local community participation The effects of constraints and barriers in terms of co-design Ways of overcoming existing barriers

The possibility of implementing a successful co-design approach can hopefully be seen in this case study, and practical knowledge obtained through such interactions might be a cornerstone for further collaborative hotel development.

Seungil Lee Lancaster University

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

Seungil Lee

5. Conclusion

Thank you Seungil Lee Email: lee.seungillee@gmail.com

Reference Adams, R., Daly, S., Mann, L. and Dall始Alba, G. (2011) Being a professional: Three lenses into design thinking, acting, and being. Design Studies, 32, 588-607.

Jamal, B. T. and Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (1), 186-204.

Binder, T., Brandt, E., & Gregory, J. (2008) Editorial: Design participation(-s).

CoDesign, 4(1), 1-3.

Jansen, J. (1993) Toward a Sustainable Oikos. En Route with Technology! Delft : Documento di Lavoro.

Bramwell, B. and Sharman, A. (1999) Collaboration in Local Tourism Policymaking, Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 392-415.

Lachapelle, P., Emery, M. and French, C. (2012) Teaching and Implementing Community Visioning. In Walzer, N. and Hamm, G. F. (Eds.), Community Visioning Programs: Process and Outcomes. Oxon: Routledge.

Braungart, M. and McDough, A. (1988) The Next Industrial Revolution. Atlantic Monthly, 282(4), 82-92.

Lawson, B. (1991) How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. 2d ed.

Cambridge: The University Press.

Broadbent, J. (2003) Generations in design methodology. The Design Journal, 6 (1), 2-13.

Lee, Y. (2008) Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31-50.

LSE (2009) Co-creation: New pathways to value an overview. Available at: http:// www.promisecorp.com/documents/COCREATION_REPORT.pdf [Assessed 11 April 2012]

Bucciarelli, L. L. (1996) Designing engineers. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chipping and Bowland-with-Leagram Parish Council (2011) Chipping Village Plan Communityplanning.net (2008) community planning | casestudies | Caterham Barracks Village. [online] Available at: http://www.communityplanning.net/ casestudies/casestudy009.php [Accessed: 18 April 2012].

Countryside Commission (1995) Sustainable Rural Tourism: Opportunities for local action, Cheltenham: Countryside Commission.

Cross, N. (1972) Here comes Everyman. In Cross, N (Ed.), Design Participation: Proceedings of the Design Research Society始s Conference 1971, London, UK: Academy editions.

Manzini, E. (2007) Emerging User Demands for Sustainable Solutions, EMUDE. In: Michel, R. (Ed.), Design Research Now. Zurich: Birkhauser.

Steen, M., Manschot, M. and De Koning, N. (2011) Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 53-60.

Nasser, N. and Holyoak, J. (2012) Localism. Urban Design, 123, 16-17.

Osborne, S., Williamson, A. and Beattie, R. (2002) Community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships in the UK: evidence from England. York: Northern Ireland and Scotland Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Cross, N. (2000) Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design. 3d ed. John Wiley & Sons.

Pangaro, P. (2002) Gordon Pask archive. Available at: http://www.pangaro.com/ Pask-Archive/Pask-Archive.html [Accessed: 18 Aug 2012].

Design Council (1996) Design Council - co-design. Available at: http:// www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources-and-events/designers/design-glossary/codesign/ [Accessed: 12 May 2012 ]

Panyik, E., Costa, C. and R谩tz, T. (2011) Implementing integrated rural tourism: An event-based approach. Tourism Management, 32 (6), 1352-1363.

Dubberly, H. (2004) How you design? A compendium of models. Available at: http://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-do-you- design.html [Accessed: 18 Aug 2012].

Fuad-Luke, A. (2007) Re-defining the Purpose of (Sustainable) Design Enter the Design Enablers, Catalysts in Co-design. In: Chapmani, J. and Gant, N. (Eds.), Designers, Visionaries + Other stories: A collection of sustainable design essays.

Oxon: Earthscan.

Sanders, E. B. and Stappers, P.J. (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co Design International Journal of Co Creation in Design and the Arts, 4 (1), 5-18.

Sharpley, R. and Sharpley, J. (1997) Rural tourism: An introduction. London: Thomson Business Press.

Taboada, M. B. (2009) Collaborative Destination Branding: Planning for Tourism Development Through Design in the Waterfall Way, NSW, Australia, Ph. D, The University of New England

Reference Tzonis, A. (2004) Evolving Spatial Intelligence Tools, From Architectural Poetics to Management Methods. In Boland, R. J. and Collopy, F. (Eds.), Managing as Designing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Visit Britain (2005) Rural and Farm Tourism. England Research Visser, A. J., Jansma, J. E., Schoorlemmer, E. and SlingerlandIn, M. (2009) How to deal with competing claims in peri-urban design and development: the DEED framework in the Agromere project. In Poppe, K.J., Termeer, C. and Slingerland, M. (Eds.), Transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food chains in periurban areas. the Netherkands: Wageningen Academic.

Walker, S. (2008) Sustainable Design. In Manzini, E., Walker, S. and Wylant, B. (Eds.), Enabling Solutions for sustainable living: A workshop. Calgary: The University of Calgary Press.

Walker, S. (2011) The spirit of design: objects, environment and meaning. Oxon: Earthscan.

Wang, Y. and Fesenmaier, D. R. (2007) Collaborative destination marketing: A case study of Elkhart country, Indiana. Tourism Management, 28, 863-875.

Wight, P. A. (1997) Ecotourism accommodation spectrum: does supply match the demand. Tourism Management, 18, 209-220.

Woodley, A. (1993) Tourism and Sustainable Development: The Community Perspective. In Nelson, J., Butler, R. and Wall, G. (Eds.), Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Ontario: University of Waterloo.

World Tourism Organisation (WTO). (2004) Sustainable development of tourism e Conceptual definition. Available at: http://www.world- tourism.org/sustainable/top/ concepts.htm. [Assessed 21 November 2009] Zeisel, J. (2006) Inquiry by Design. New York: Norton & Co Ltd.