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.