collaborative hotel development_paper

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism

A case study of Chipping Village

LICA 426

Summer Term

Student Name: Seungil Lee Student Number: 30087704

E-mail of student: [email protected]

MA Design Management 2011/2012

of 98

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural

Tourism

Student Name: Seungil Lee

Contents

Executive Summary 4

Chapter 1 Introduction 5

1.1 Tourism and Chipping 5

1.2 Significance of the Study 6

1.3 Research Purpose 7

1.4 Research Process and Methods 8

Chapter 2 Literature Review 12

2.1 Sustainable Tourism Development 12

2.2 Sustainable Hotel Development 14

2.3 Co-design and Planning 15

2.3.1 Advantages of and Barriers to Co-design 17

2.3.2 Considerations in Co-design 18

Chapter 3 Initial Findings Summary 24

3.1 Key Factors 24

3.2 Discussion 25

Chapter 4 Field Research 27

4.1 Chipping: Geographic and Tourism Features 27

4.2 Conceptual Study for Collaborative Hotel Development 29

4.3 Co-design in Practice 34

Chapter 5 Research Findings 36

of 98

5.1 Field Research Key Findings 36

5.1.1 Development Company’s Perspective 36

5.1.2 Current Perspective of Collaboration 37

5.2 Research Findings: Discussion 39

5.3 Development of Design Aims and Criteria 42

5.3.1 Design Aims 42

5.3.2 Criteria 42

Chapter 6 Design Developments 45

6.1 Design Process 45

6.2 Results: Features and Benefits of Collaborative Hotel Development 50

6.3 Reflection 57

Chapter 7 Discussion of Finalised Proposal 58

7.1 Stakeholders’ Response to Initial Ideas in the Workshop 58

7.2 Action-oriented Issues via the Workshop 61

Chapter 8 Conclusion and Implications 66

8.1 Summary of the Design Research of the Chipping case 66

8.2 Conclusion for Co-design in Chipping 67

8.3 Further Implications of Co-design in Collaborative Hotel Development 70

References 73

Appendices 86

of 98

Executive Summary

This paper seeks to define “co-design” within the hotel development industry and to

articulate appropriate co-design processes. Although encouraging the local

community to become involved in participating in decision-making has been

introduced by the UK government, in some areas it remains limited. The main focus

of this paper is to develop a co-design approach for hotel development within a

sustainable rural tourism framework, a subject which has been studied less in current

scholarship, even though hotel development is important for tourism. To explore the

possibility of co-design in hotel planning, a case study was actively conducted

involving interviews, observations and participation in the design stages to examine

latent practical insights of co-design for both corporations and stakeholders. The

Chipping hotel development is a successful example of the application of co-design,

showing the opportunities and constraints and defining co-design in hotel

development. Collaborative development is more than a design method for

increasing tourism through attracting visitors. It works towards local development

which is sensitive to the social sustainability of local identities and stimulates social

engagement. The results of the study suggest further research directions for possible

co-design in the hotel planning currently in existence.

of 98

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Tourism and Chipping

The countryside is an important resource for tourism in UK, dominating a quarter of

all domestic holiday nights and a third of all day trips and supporting about 400,000

jobs (Countryside Commission, 1995: 4). Nevertheless, there are problems that are

often highly localised, due to intrusive development, traffic congestion and a loss of

rural identity due to agricultural changes (Swarbrooke, 1999: 161). In the UK,

sustainable tourism has been seen as a solution to these problems. In particular,

Agenda 21 was set up to generate benefits for countryside visitors and local

communities without damaging the environment (Countryside Commission, 1995: 5).

Although the UK government manages the programme in line with sustainable

tourism principles, in the countryside, the economic downturn and loss of traditional

employment continue to challenge the government’s policy and affect local tourism

and the economy.

These issues are relevant for Chipping, a village located in the eastern part of the

Forest of Bowland in the UK. Due to the closure of one of the largest local

businesses, HJ Berry furniture, in 2010, local employment and the number of local

businesses have decreased. In 2011, Chipping Council announced its community-led

Chipping Village Plan 2011 (Chipping and Bowland-with Leagram Parish Council,

2011: 2). According to this initiative, a plan for the village’s future and local

community’s demands was articulated. The strategic plan emphasised the

importance of local tourism and the regeneration of the former HJ Berry furniture

sites, including the Mill building site, a modern factory area, and Chipping Brook, a

more rural area. Eventually, a plan to convert the Grade II listed Arkwright Mill into a

of 98

hotel and to develop the furniture factory sites was developed. The plan aimed to

encourage local employment and local business and promote sustainable tourism in

Chipping (ibid.: 9, 13, 14).

1.2 Significance of the Study

Sustainable tourism is constantly threatened by conflicts between systems and

structures, and between individuals and communities, due to the processes of

commercialisation of place assets in the environment, both cultural and social

(Taboada, 2009: 69). Therefore, sustainable hotel development planning schemes to

need to take many different positions into account. Some researchers argue that

sustainable tourism development is more focused on concept-led schemes than

project-led schemes (Krippendorf, 1982; Lane, 1990; Godfrey, 1996; Swarbrooke,

1999: 15). Roseland (2005) emphasises that sustainable development must do more

than merely protect the environment: it means economic and social changes to

improve human well-being and reduce the need for environmental protection

(Roseland, 2005; Taboada, 2009: 69).

Thus, it is necessary to consider a transition towards sustainability within hotel

planning in Chipping. This transition requires radical changes in the way of life

(Jansen, 1993; Braungart & McDough, 1998; Manzini, 2007: 161). “Significant

progress towards sustainable development cannot be achieved by maintaining our

current life styles in the economically developed countries” (Walker, 2008: 26). As an

alternative to traditional design approaches that focus on designer-based processes,

a new way of thinking geared towards sustainability has emerged which takes into

account the knowledge and expertise of clients and other experts. It aims to create a

new vision and purpose, based on the notion of sustainability, which concerns

of 98

society and the environment (Fuad-Luke, 2007: 28). With regard to this type of

design, Fuad- Luke (2007: 46) suggests using co-design as a method to generate

new ideas to meet society’s needs.

1.3 Research Purpose

Co-design is characterised as being societal rather than commercial in character

(Fuad-Luke, 2007: 46), because the dynamics and effects of design activities are

regulated by business factors, rather than purely creative factors (Findeli, 2001;

Fuad-Luke, 2007: 46). Therefore, examples of co-design might be easily found in

public projects and community-based projects, rather than in commercial enterprises.

Even though it can be argued that hotel development involves a certain degree of

collaboration between professionals, such as architects, interior designers and

technology providers from the beginning of the design process, it might still be limited

to project-led schemes as non-sustainable forms of tourism. Shepherd (1998) argues

that participation in rural development is still regarded as being very idealistic and

ideological. However, Macdonald (1993) views this as an appropriate method for

rural areas (Osborne et al., 2002: 1). Until now, the application of collaboration theory

to hotel development in rural areas has been a new phenomenon. It has not been

addressed clearly.

Therefore, the main aim of this research is to develop a co-design approach for hotel

development within a sustainable rural tourism framework. This is achieved by

considering the Chipping hotel development project as a case study. This thesis aims

to answer the following research questions:

of 98

1) What are the opportunities for collaborative hotel development through co-design

in Chipping?

2) What issues arise when co-design principles are applied to hotel development in

Chipping?

3) How can collaborative hotel development for sustainable rural tourism be defined

in the context of Chipping?

To attain the main aim of this research, the following objectives need to be

accomplished:

1) Review and discuss the theories of co-design, rural tourism and hotel

development;

2) Articulate an initial methodology for collaborative hotel development through

primary research;

3) Explore how a co-design approach can be used in the initial stages of practical

hotel development;

(4) Articulate further discussions and conclusions in terms of opportunities, barriers

and defining collaborative hotel development in the context of Chipping.

1.4 Research Process and Methods

Regarding design practices in a hotel development project, the methodology of this

research involves background theoretical research. First, this research scrutinises

the theory of community involvement and tourism planning in the context of

sustainable rural tourism and hotel development. Second, a combination of primary

and secondary research to understand the contextual background of hotel

development is used. Finally, this combination is interpreted via self-reflection by the

design researcher in order to find answers to the research questions stated above.

According to Walker (2007: 57), the way to develop a more comprehensive

of 98

appreciation of design processes is to engage in them. Thus, the ideas and

approaches generated by this form of research could be considered an important

step in collaborative hotel development.

The secondary research presented in the literature review below examines existing

studies on the subject, in the form of books, journals, conference papers and online

resources. The purpose of a literature review is to uncover research problems for

further study (Machi & McEvoy, 2009: 2) by focusing on the current state of

knowledge about the study questions. Therefore, background data and findings from

previous research are reviewed to validate some practical aspects of theoretical

frameworks underlying collaborative hotel development. Secondary research

provides an understanding of the advantages, barriers and other issues related to

collaborative hotel development, which is necessary for further study.

This paper utilises a case study method for primary research. Case studies can

provide knowledge about previously under-investigated research areas (Eisenhardt,

1989; Gummesson, 2000; Kristensson et al., 2008: 479). They can investigate

complex and unique subjects that cannot be investigated by analytical or quantitative

1.Literature review

Sustainablerural tourism

Hoteldevelopment

Data collectionfrom case study

2.Primary research

Interviewof co-designCo-design

Design Developmentin case study

Defineco-design approach

based on a case study

3.Develop a design

5.Define a model

4. Discussion 4. Discussion

4. Discussion

of 98

methods (Sato, 2009: 39). Moreover, according to Yin (1989), an unusual subject in

existing knowledge is viewed as having an important role to play in a case study.

Therefore, the researcher conducts a case study to develop an in-depth

understanding of collaborative hotel development, which is still under-investigated in

co-design. Moreover, Chipping encountered difficulties in reaching agreement

between a hotel development company and local residents, as the former did not

have a clear vision to share with local residents. Hotel development in Chipping can

affect the local ecology as well as residents’ everyday lives. In the field research

conducted in this study, the major activities are:

1) Field meetings and workshop with the hotel development company in

Chipping;

2) Workshop with Chipping local residents.

Qualitative data obtained from these activities were organised into different

categories and qualitative analysis was carried out.

To gain feedback and a local perspective from the residents, a case study proposal

was designed with various scenarios for hotel development. Polanyi (1967) highlights

that tacit knowledge can only be communicated and shared by people when they are

given “adequate means for expressing themselves” (Polanyi, 1967; Taboada, 2009:

193). According to Zeisel (2006: 272), people’s mental images of the future can be

articulated in a picture.

To understand co-design perspectives, two internal interviews with the hotel

development company, as key informants in the project, were conducted. The

interviews covered nine questions, based on the main theoretical principles of co-

design discussed in the literature review. In addition, four external interviews were

of 98

conducted with a service designer, a hotel project manager, an architect, and a

councillor, via emails and Skype, to explore the possibilities and challenges of

collaborative hotel development from an outside perspective, with individuals not

involved in the project. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed. Finally, to

evaluate the current design processes of the hotel development company, interviews

with three internal participants were conducted.

This thesis is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 2 comprises a literature review of

sustainable rural tourism, hotel development planning processes and the role of

collaborative design in tourism and hotel development. Chapter 3 discusses the main

theoretical principles that emerge from the theoretical review of collaborative tourism

and hotel development, together with some case studies in this area. Chapter 4

examines a case study of collaborative hotel development. Chapter 5 presents the

findings of observations of design practices in Chipping hotel development as an

initial planning stage, based on main theoretical principles. Chapter 6 focuses on

design development to engage local communities in collaborative hotel projects.

Chapter 7 discusses the contributions of this research and real feedback. Chapter 8

draws a conclusion in response to the research questions posed in this paper.

of 98

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Sustainable Tourism Development

Tourism plays an important role in the regeneration and diversification of rural

economies and communities, it provides a means to counteract economic decline

(Walford, 2001: 331). However, there are growing concerns about the negative

effects of tourism, such as natural resources degradation, lack of interaction between

hosts and visitors, lack of control by operators in local tourism, temporal

concentration, and the gap between host supply and visitor demand (Swarbrooke,

1999: 162). Therefore, the main concern of sustainable rural tourism is to find better

ways to manage and develop tourism in rural areas without damaging the

environment (Countryside Commission, 1995: 4-5). This requires effective planning

and management to achieve the potential benefits of rural tourism and to optimise

these benefits, while seeking to minimise any negative effects on the environment,

economy and society in rural areas (Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997: 131). This means

adopting an integrated and holistic approach to achieve balanced and sustainable

development in rural areas.

Community involvement and partnerships are often viewed as a way of achieving

sustainable tourism. For instance, the Countryside Commission (1995) introduced a

local action plan for sustainable rural tourism via 21 case study projects involving

local communities. It suggested improving communication, participating in decision-

making and encouraging direct participation to promote sustainable tourism (ibid.,

1995: 31-32). The World Trade Organisation (WTO) views the participation of

relevant stakeholders as a social dimension of sustainable tourism (WTO, 2004;

Panyik et al., 2011: 1353). This point is supported by Woodley (1993), who

of 98

demonstrates that a community-based approach to tourism development is a

precondition to sustainability (Woodley, 1993; Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997: 125).

Therefore, these movements towards social change may be important factors in

planning sustainable rural tourism. Based on the importance of social context,

Taboada (2009) suggests that 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). Furthermore, the emerging focus on sustainable

development and communities has built a body of knowledge about place design,

master planning, design codes and design reviews (RIBA, 2011a: 15).

Community involvement was found to be related to residents’ attitudes towards

tourism, for which favourable attitudes are a prerequisite for additional development.

Many rural communities have very strong identities generated by an identity of place

(Osborne et al., 2002: 17). Communities are viewed as a tourism product because

they are the final destination for most travellers (Blank, 1989; Simmons, 1994;

Scheyvens, 1999; Panyik et al., 2011: 1353). However, there remains the challenge

of balancing appropriately the various priorities of stakeholders (Aronsson, 2000;

Pigram, 2000; Cawley et al., 2007: 319). This might depend on the complex and

dynamic relationships between visitors, host communities and rural resources.

Furthermore, local people are suspicious of change and nervous about the types of

new housing or other development that might be built (RIBA, 2011a: 8). Therefore, a

clear objective for tourism development and a vision for local communities might be

crucial to ensuring community involvement.

of 98

2.2 Sustainable Hotel Development

Hotel development emphasises the quality of accommodation and a unique identity

to attract visitors. According to Mintel (2003), high standards of accommodation and

facilities are the most important factors for tourists (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999;

Albacete-Saez, 2007; Pattullo & Minelli, 2006: 32). To differentiate themselves

successfully from other destinations with similar attractions, hotels should integrate

unique values of local culture in their design, and should weigh these against the

costs and benefits of standardisation (Riewoldt, 2006; Lee, 2011: 708). Riewoldt

(2006) argues that “hotel design that capitalises on the unique aspects of a

destination will maintain appeal for ‘new’ tourists” (Riewoldt, 2006; Lee, 2011: 709).

For example, visitors to rural areas can enjoy alternative types of accommodation:

camping barns as simple low-cost accommodation, bunkhouse barns or converted

country houses (Wight, 1997: 217).

Hotels play an important role in tourism as a key component of the industry (ibid.:

210). They function to provide a total living environment with multi-complex functions

and activities, rather than simply being monuments or rental spaces (Rutes et al.,

1985; Ransley, 2004: 57). However, within tourism, hotel development is often

criticised for building new units which are at odds with the principles of sustainable

development: they utilise architectural styles which are foreign to the area, create

resorts with large-scale private grounds, and restrict access to local residents while

using valuable land (Swarbrooke, 1999: 299-300).

However, since the introduction of Agenda 21, the hospitality industry has done a lot

to improve its performance towards sustainable development (UNEP, 2002: 41). For

example, from an economic perspective, the hotel industry contributes to job creation

of 98

and considerable growth of the local economy. This includes a “multiplier effect” that

contributes to the community’s economy via hotel guests spending in the local area

(UNEP, 2002: 35).

Although principles for sustainable hospitality exist, it is difficult to find examples of

sustainable hotel development in hospitality research. One possibility for hotel design

for sustainability might be a form of an eco-friendly or green hotel, but it is more likely

to focus on energy efficiency and environmentally friendly buildings, rather than a

holistic approach with sustainable dimensions. According to Davis (2004: 229), many

architects consider eco-design to equate to eco-friendly in hotel development. Only 1

per cent of “100 iconic” designers utilise sustainable design thinking (referring to

environmental, social and economic factors), and 5 per cent occasionally use eco-

design thinking (Fuad-Luke, 2007: 25). “Sustainable design has not yet been taken

up by the majority of mainstream product designers in the UK” (Richardson et al.,

2005: 35). Geok and Buche (2008: 8) highlight the importance of social and

community development as a key contributor to sustainability in their case study of

the Hertance Kandalama resort. Therefore, in hotel development, a sustainable

design approach that goes beyond simple eco-design may be required.

2.3 Co-design and Planning

Since the 1970s, involving communities or stakeholders1 has been considered in

design research and in urban and regional planning (Cross, 1972: 12). According to

Sanders and Stappers (2008: 6), co-design indicates creative designers and people

not trained in design working together in the design development process. The co-

design concept is used in various sectors of the design industry and in other

1 Stakeholders refers to those who are directly influenced by actions in problem-solving, including all individuals, groups or organizations (Gray, 1989: 5).!

of 98

Table 1 Different Interpretations of Co-creation

Source: LSE (2009: 7)

disciplines, e.g. environmental psychology, planning and regeneration, and housing

and policy-making (Jenkins et al., 2010: 60). The term includes collaborative design,

cooperative design, co-design and social design (Margolin & Margolin, 2002).

However, its definition differs from context to context and according to the

disciplinary outlook (LSE, 2009: 7) (see Table 1).

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.

!"#$%&'()*+,%-#.* /((-0"&'-(*!"(")%1%(&* +,%*/(&%#(%*2-113('&.*

4(.*5-#1*-5*637&-1%#*'(0-80%1%(&*&-*9%#6%'0%:*0"83%*

+,%*&.9%*-5*6-;6#%"&'-(*<%&=%%(*6-19"('%7*"(:*6-(731%#7*&,"&*1".*-663#*'(*%"#8.*9#-:36&*:%0%8-91%(&*7&")%7**

2-(731%#*%19-=%#1%(&*&,#-3),*6-;'((-0"&'-(*"(:*&,%*:%1-6#"&'6*9-&%(&'"8*-5*1"77*6-88"<-#"&'-(*&--87*

of 98

2.3.1 Advantages of and Barriers to Co-design

According to the Design Council (2012), co-design is viewed as a new way for

businesses to innovate and create competitive advantages, thus creating more

authentic and holistic results. Including diverse perspectives from multiple

stakeholders in design decisions brings practical results in design projects and is

viewed as a fresh source of design inspiration (Bell, 2004: 30). According to Wates

and Knevitt (1987: 115), in architecture, building environments are becoming more

complex and existing hierarchies cannot deal effectively with this complexity. Thus,

user participation is suggested as a solution. Furthermore, other researchers argue

that “public participation reduces the vandalism and enriches the life of the

community” (King et al.,1989; Sanches and Frankel, 2010: 3). Therefore, co-design

has various advantages for businesses today (Binder et al., 2000; Steen et al., 2011:

53; LSE, 2009: 4).

On the other hand, it is sometimes unclear how co-design contributes to design

projects. According to Sanders and Stappers (2008: 9), there are four basic

challenges when adopting co-design: (1) the assumption that all people are creative;

(2) the possibility that the participants’ thinking opposes consumerism; (3)

participatory design is likely to be relevant to academic endeavour rather than to the

competitive market; and (4) markets become complex due to human experience.

According to other case studies and theoretical studies, more practical barriers to co-

design are revealed. Barriers can be categorised by organisational levels into

company level barriers and actor level barriers (Table 2). Most barriers are revealed

at the company level, “time and cost”. Only two barriers exist at the actor level:

“unfamiliar process and trust”. Moreover, trust can be difficult to regain after it is lost.

of 98

Table 2 Barriers to Co-design

Trust, for instance, is easily fractured by one false step, and hard to mend - like a

pane of glass (Handy, 1993:141). Thus, it must be earned and should be fostered in

a mutual learning relationship (RIBA, 2011b: 6).

2.3.2 Considerations in Co-design

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

)(**+"*,% -./0+",%

12.&*%$"#"$% )3% 45'(6+$+(*%7*&2",,% !""%89::;<%

=(6($%>%?".@%83AAB<%

)9% C*/,.% DE)1%89:33<%

=(6($%>%?".@%83AAB<%

F&67(5G%$"#"$% )H% -I&*.J."*6%.I+5K+5L% M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

)N% D+,KJ(#"*,+&5% M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

)B% O*",,/*"%'*&6%,.(K"I&$0"*,% M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

)P% C+6"%(50%2&,.% C(Q&(0(%".%($R89::A<%

=(6($%>%?".@%83AAB<%

M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

="5K+5,%89:39<%

!""%".%($R%89::;<%

!-S%89::A<%

)T% F&5,/6"*%*"$+(Q+$+.G% M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

);% F&52"*5,%(Q&/.%+5."$$"2./($%

7*&7"*.G%

!""%89::;<%

M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

)A% 1%$(2K%&'%Q"$+"'%+5%U&*0+5(*GV%

7"&7$"W,%(Q+$+.G%.&%Q"%2*"(.+#"%

-(50"*,%>%-.(77"*,%

89::;<%

M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

)3:% F&5'+0"5.+($%0(.(% M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

)33% F$"(*%0+*"2.+&5% M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

)39% X/($+.G%&'%+5'&*6(.+&5%.&%

,.(K"I&$0"*,%

M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

!-S%89::A<%

)3H% 1%*"$/2.(52"%.&%2I(5L"%(50%,I(*"%

+5'&*6(.+&5%

=(6($%>%?".@%83AAB<%

M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<%

)3N% Y",+L5"*,W%"L&+,.+2%2&52"*5,%(50%

2I(5L+5L%*&$"%&'%0",+L5"*%

C(Q&(0(%".%($R89::A<%

!""%89::;<%

="5K+5,%89:39<%

)3B% !(2K%&'%,K+$$%'&*%6(5(L"6"5.% !-S%89::A<%

of 98

According to Jenkins (2010: 17), the issue of power is most important in the process,

before defining any participatory engagement. In architectural planning, there are

three broad categories of participation, including professional, client and user groups

or the wider public: (1) “providing information” as a one-way flow from the

professional to the user group or wider public, (2) “consultation” as a two-way flow

between professionals, user groups or the wider public, and (3) “shared decision-

making forms” between professionals, user groups or the wider public (ibid.: 13).

Moreover, Arnstein (1969: 217) classifies systems for participation by using “a ladder

of participation”. Most public involvement programmes fall in the consultation

category (Lacofano et al., 1988; Sanches & Frankel, 2010). However, it is important

to distinguish between co-design and consultation in user participation. According to

Siu (2003: 72), consultation utilises users’ general knowledge in the design process.

On the other hand, co-design refers to working together with users to create ideas in

more shared decision-making ways. Thus, consultation is less risky than co-design,

so consultation may have been largely implemented in design projects. However, it is

easy to make the case for mixed use, although the interpretation of these categories

is different. According to The Prince’s Regeneration Trust (n.d.), effective

consultation is viewed as a powerful tool to understand community groups, educate

them about projects, and work with them to address their concerns. Therefore, it

cannot be denied that the border between consultation and co-design in design

practices has been blurred, and it may be important to recognize this as a continuum

rather than being mutually exclusive. Furthermore, “wider participation” refers to user

or wider public participation and belongs to consultations and shared decision-

making (Jenkins, 2010: 13). Therefore, participation is not always an empowering

form of decision-making, although shared decision-making is ideal and empowering.

Users can become part of a design team, as “experts of their experiences” (Sleeswijk

Visser et al., 2005; Sanders & Stappers, 2008; 12). Knowledge of design is not

exclusive to designers (Cross, 2006; Press, 2011: 520). This means it is possible for

of 98

Table 3 Four Levels of Creativity

Source: Adapted from Sanders and Stappers (2008)

all to participate as experts. Yet, even though this is accepted in the context of co-

design, there are still mitigating factors in terms of appropriate participant profiles.

Sanders and Stappers (2008) introduced four levels of creativity in living (Table 3):

(1) doing, (2) adapting, (3) making, and (4) creating. They argue that becoming a co-

designer relies on the expertise, passion and creativity of users (Sanders, 2006;

Sanders & Stappers, 2008; 12).

Some suggest that creative stakeholders are more suitable. However, others argue

that specific co-design contexts and purposes are the only reliable forms of

involvement (LSE, 2009: 16). Therefore, the design context and purpose may be the

criteria for selecting stakeholders.

Even though stakeholders are involved in the participatory process, if they do not

understand its purpose, this may be an unrealistic aspiration. In the early stages of

the process, understanding the overall objectives of design participation is viewed as

key (Jenkins, 2010: 17). Therefore, the following question needs to be asked: What

is the agenda for participation? This question is important, since it sees design as a

problem-solving activity and creates customised value for a design project (Cooper &

Press, 1995: 16).

!"#"$% &'("% )*+,#-+".%/'% 012(*3"%

4% 52"-+,67% 863(,2-+,*6% 9:(2"33%;'%<2"-+,#,+'%

=% )->,67% ?33"2+,67%;'%-/,$,+'%*2%3>,$$% )->"%@,+A%;'%*@6%A-6.3%

B% ?.-(+,67% ?((2*(2,-+,*6% )->"%+A,673%;'%*@6%

C% D*,67% 02*.1<+,#,+'% E"++,67%3*;"+A,67%.*6"%

of 98

Figure 1 Co-designing Process

Source: Adapted from Sanders and Stappers (2008)

Although collaborative approaches should have clear aims, Taboada (2009: 46)

emphasises that there should be no pre-defined outcomes, rather they should come

from a shared understanding and emerge from a self-organised activity that may

occur within a system. On the other hand, Hamid and Choi (2011: 218) argue that

setting a clear purpose should save time during workshops organised for co-design

projects. Furthermore, there are two types of participation: (1) purpose driven co-

design with specific aims, and (2) opening driven co-design to produce new ideas

(LSE: 2009). Therefore, the purpose of co-design depends on the context of the

project.

Determining the timing for participation in planning is a key issue. People’s

involvement in the planning process often takes place after completing the planning

stage (Jenkins et al., 2012: 71). However, earlier involvement is recommended so as

to enhance ownership and avoid objections. A fuzzy front end in the early stages of

co-design is advocated to understand the users and contexts in a project in terms of

of 98

user participation (Sanders & Stappers, 2008: 6) (see Figure 1). RIBA (2011a, 10)

supports this: “Start the conversation before you come up with solutions and let the

community own the ideas”. However, this is still arguable because participation in the

earlier stages cannot guarantee the quality of participation and outcomes. Therefore,

it is necessary to explore standard criteria for participants’ intervention into co-design

stages. According to Jenkins et al. (2012: 60), participatory processes are often seen

as enabling building users to identify problems and needs. Since co-design depends

on the context and purpose of a project, it is hard to define it as a single process. To

explore the ideal stages and types of co-design processes, the researcher conducted

case studies based on existing resources in architectural projects (Table 4). This

table reflects the use of co-design processes in architectural projects in relation to

rural tourism, since this relates to most specific projects.

Table 4 Co-design Processes from Case Studies

Note: Coloured cells represent the engagement of stakeholders

!"#$%&'( )#*"&%( +%,-./(0/1*,'"2(

!*"3#,%( 45#(6"%()'67%5#81%",9(

)'6.%(

46'%":688(462(

;6<#616((=>??@A(

0/:#"B6'-#/(1%,-./(

+%,'-/6'-#/(<"6/1-/.(

C#&68(&#BB*/-'-%,((=DE?(3%#38%A(

F6"7%'("%,%6"&5(

!86&%(-1%/'-'2("%,%6"&5(

G"6/1(H#"7,5#3(

( (

+%,-./(2#*"(#H/(,36&%(

C%%(=>??IA(

J"&5-'%&'*"%(1%,-./(

+%K%8#3-/.(5#*,%(3"#$%&'(

L%,-1%/',( !"%:%"%/&%(,'6.%(

!86//-/.(,'6.%(

!"#&%,,-/.(,'6.%(

( (

;#*"-,B(386//-/.((

M6B68((N(O%'P(=D@@EA(

;#*"-,B( Q#BB*/-'R(<6,%1('#*"-,B(386//-/.(

R( !"#<8%BR,%''-/.(

+-"%&'-#/R,%''-/.(

0B38%B%/'6'-#/(

( (

S#3%(T688%2(

G"6BH%88(N(C6/%(=>???A(

;#*"-,B( T-,-'#"(B6/6.%B%/'(386/(

C#&68(&#BB*/-'-%,(N(#".6/-,6'-#/,(N(<*,-/%,,%,(N(8#&68(.#K%"/B%/'(

Q#BB*/-'2(B633-/.((

4#"7,5#3( )'%%"-/.(."#*3(H#"7,5#3(

( (

Q6'5%"56B(<6""6&7,(K-886.%(

Q#BB*/-'2(386//-/.(=>?DDA(

T-886.%(386//-/.((

J"&5-'%&'*"%(386//-/.((

C#&68(&#BB*/-'-%,(

Q#BB*/-'2((386//-/.(H%%7(

UK%/'("%3#"'( Q#/'-/*%1(&#BB*/-'2(6/1((,'67%5#81%"(&#/,*8'6'-#/(

( (

V33%"(Q681%"(T688%2(

Q#BB*/-'2(386//-/.(=>?DDA(

T-886.%(386//-/.(

+%K%8#3-/.(6(K-,-#/(

C#&68(&#BB*/-'-%,(N(#".6/-,6'-#/,(N(<*,-/%,,%,(

Q#BB*/-&6'-#/(3"#."6BB%(

C#&68(&#BB*/-'2(386//-/.(%K%/'(

J/682,-,(<2((&#/,*8'6'-#/('%6B(

L%3#"'(<6&7('#(3*<8-&(

G"-/.(-'(688('#.%'5%"(386//-/.(H%%7(

of 98

The key findings of the case studies are:

• Ideas in most projects are generated during meetings or workshops with

stakeholders, and engagement in the majority of the projects occurs at the

beginning of the entire process.

• There is no fixed process in the seven cases presented above in relation to

each stage of co-design. Therefore, a project requires customised processes

reflecting local or social identities.

• Most projects adopt simple stages.

• There is an open management process without fixed structure or tools

(Waterfall Way).

of 98

Chapter 3 Initial Findings Summary

3.1 Key Factors

Secondary research highlights three categories: rural tourism, hotel development, co-

design and planning. First, research reveals that the UK rural community encourages

local partnerships and community-involved planning to manage and develop

sustainable tourism. Thus, rural tourism development is closely related to social

aspects such as a communal identity. Moreover, stakeholders’ priorities are major

concerns in tourism planning. Second, from the hotel development perspective,

hotels’ unique characteristics need to be compared with those of other competitors.

However, there is still tension between authentic housing and modern facilities.

Furthermore, in hotel development, social and community aspects are viewed as

important components in building hotel identity. A hotel is likely to combine local

culture with a strong local community identity to differentiate itself from others. At the

starting point of a project, excellent management skills might be required as the local

identity is stronger than the hotel’s. Finally, various barriers and advantages are

explored, and aspects of co-design such as interpretation, empowerment for

decision-making, selecting stakeholders, and the processes and stages of

participation in co-design rely on this context. Interestingly, Chapter 2 presented

various characteristics of co-design, which are still not clear with regard to common

aspects of co-design or more specific cases. However, it is less arguable that it is

difficult to find case studies on collaborative hotel development pertaining to the

planning stages of design, although there are some case studies on collaborative

tourism planning. Therefore, it might be important to deal with these case studies in

co-design as hotel development can have a huge impact on rural society and its

of 98

physical environment by attracting visitors and building relationships between visitors

and the community.

3.2 Discussion

According to the three study questions outlined in Chapter 1, it is necessary to reflect

on these in relation to the findings of the literature review. However, it is difficult to

answer these questions due to the lack of existing studies on collaborative hotel

development. Another reason is that the notion of co-design, as discussed in the

literature review, relies on the design contexts and purposes of co-design, rather

than providing standard guidelines for practical purposes. According to the NSW

Heritage Office (2005: 5), the term ‘context of a historical building’ is defined as: “The

specific character, quality and physical, historical and social characteristics of a

building’s setting.” According to RIBA (2011a: 9), to understand the context of a

place, an architect studies its history, topography and identity (visual, social,

environmental and economic).

On the other hand, co-design processes can be changed, based on the

characteristics of local stakeholders, as this involves working together with multi-

stakeholders, and local people are viewed as a tourism destination. Thus,

standardised or exemplar approaches are not available for hotel development. A

design approach to hotel development in a rural area might face substantial

challenges and might require an alternative co-design approach to handle the

various tendencies of stakeholders. From these points of view, using co-design in

hotel development is still complex, although the method is known as a useful way to

deal with complex systems or problems.

of 98

A researcher might require more adaptable and flexible processes and criteria to

overcome changeable situations such as different localities and residents’

characteristics in collaborative hotel development. In this situation, the definition of

co-design for hotel development can change. Hence, field research requires an in-

depth understanding of the context of Chipping in relation to tourism and hotel

development. Moreover, it might be fundamental that the researcher first listens to

local residents to understand local points of view. RIBA (2011a: 9) highlights the fact

that local people have strong views, vital perspectives and much to contribute, and

this is the basic starting point when planning for localism. Therefore, these issues

might constitute the basic starting point for collaborative hotel development in

Chipping.

of 98

Chapter 4 Field Research

4.1 Chipping: Geographic and Tourism Features

Chipping is an attractive village dating back more than a thousand years. It is

situated above the valley of the River Loud in the heart of Lancashire's scenic Ribble

Valley, on the edge of the Trough of Bowland (see Figure 2). Chipping is within the

Forest of Bowland Area of Natural Beauty (AONB) and is a popular tourist

destination. Chipping derives its name from the Old English “ceping”, which means a

market. Chipping market developed near the bridge over Chipping Brook at the

Figure 2 Location Map of Chipping, Lancashire, UK

WELCOME TOCHIPPINGLocal Attractions,Activities and Accomodation

enuLreviR

biRreviRb el

reviR eryW

reviR

eryWkcorBreviR

River Kee

r

River Hindburn

Rive r Wenning

River Greta

Rive r Wenning

River Ribble

RiverHodder

River Conder

River Con der

River

Con

der

TossideB eck

Toss

ide

Beck

RiverW

yre

River

Calde

r

River Hodder

River Calder

Sabden

Broo

k

River Ke er

River Ribble

RiverRoeburn

lana

C

lana

Cret

sacn

aL

Leed

s&

Liver

p ool

Cana

l

LancasterCanal

4526B

4526B

9746

B

9746B

8746B

8746B

0846B

0846B

4725B

3725B

0925B

3836

B

8746

B

2725

B

0725B

9045B

8625

B

2145B

0346

B

9426B

6426B

3426B

3426B3426B

6625B

9625B

9625B

4215

B

5625B

2625

B

0935

B

0145B

145B

1

9625B

1426

B

2426B

5426

B

B6535

4346

B

B6480

B6480

B5321

B5275

B6252

B6251

B5377

B5

439

B6247

B6248

B6244

B51

9 2

B5261

B526 7

B6253

B5269

B5260

6A

5015A

5015A

885A

885

A

785A

176

A

086

A

95A

95A

666A95A

95A

95A

286A

286A

56A

56A286A

8606A

8606A

65A

286A

6A

685A

685A

585A

585

A

885A

685A

485A

485A

385

A

3705A

0325A 876A

286A

176A

176A

A589

A683

A683 A687

A65

A65

A683

A60

68

A5099

6A

6A

6A

6A

386A

6M

35

34

33

SS

32

31a

1

3

4

12

13

35a

Lancaster(Forton)

Horton-in-RibblesdaleStation

ClaphamStation

Wennington

Bare Lane

Settle

GiggleswickStation

Lancaster

Heysham

Long Preston

Hellifield

Clitheroe

Colne

Nelson

Whalley Station

Poulton-le-FyldeStation

Layton

Blackpool Pleasure Beach Station

Langho Station

Carnforth

Totridge

bden

B

g

Con

Ri

3426B3426B

B6

995A

ClapCCStationStationStation

WWWennington

© Crown copyright. Lancashire County Council. Licence No. 100023320 2007

Chipping

Lancaster

ClitheroeForest of Bowland AONB

FOREST OFBOWLANDArea of Outstanding Natural Beauty

The haunting tale of Lizzie DeanLizzie Dean was a young serving girl who worked at theSun Inn. One day she heard the bells ringing from thechurch across the street. Looking out of the window shesaw her fiancé arriving to be married to another. Lizziewas heartbroken and hanged herself. Her suicide notestated that she wished to be buried beneath the churchpath, so that every time her fiancé went to church hewould have to walk over her grave. It is because her finalwishes were not carried out that the locals claim that herspirit still haunts the Sun Inn to this day!

mid 19th century there were 7 water-powered mills onChipping Brook some above and some below the village.There were two cotton spinning mills, and worksproducing spindles and flies and rollers for spinningmachines, an iron and brass foundry, a corn mill, a nailworks and a chair works.Two former mills were used forcheesemaking in the 20th century. One waterwheel canstill be seen in the village and Chipping is still well knownfor its chairs.

Reproduced by kind permission of Chipping LocalHistory Society

Farming in Bowland and stewardshipThe Forest of Bowland's blanket bogs, traditional haymeadows and wet grasslands are nationally importanthabitats. Many of the farms in the Forest of Bowland aremanaged under stewardship schemes. Natural England runsthese schemes to pay farmers to manage their land in a waythat reflects both the local and national priorities for wildlife,landscape, access and the historic environment. Farmingpractices include cultivation of the land without fertiliser andwith fewer livestock; or management of the grassland, rushand wet features to encourage wading birds, such as lapwing,curlew and redshank.

By Road:

The History of ChippingThe name ‘Chipping’ is derived from the Old Englishceping, which means ‘a market’.The market developednear the bridge over Chipping Brook at the entrance tothe vast Royal Forest of Bowland east of the village.This‘Forest’ was an area of ancient cattle farms, or ‘vaccaries’,owned by the Crown after the Norman Conquest andmanaged by state officials.Timber and the royal deer wereprotected by ‘Forest Law’. In Leagram, adjacent toChipping, a mediaeval deer park was created.The areapassed into private ownership from the mid-16th centuryonwards.To the west of Chipping, outside Forest control,the land was divided into private manors, more populatedand more diverse.

Bowland’s wild open spacesOver one third of the AONB is moorland, making up thewild open spaces that are so characteristic of the Forestof Bowland.This is a truly unique quality of the area.Thecentral upland of the AONB is typical millstone gritcountry: hard rocks lie beneath the gentle fells - therounded shapes are the result of repeated glaciationduring the Ice Age.The fells are covered with peat,blanket bog, acid grassland and heather moor, andoccasionally broken through by rocky outcrops.Thehighest point is at Wards Stone (560m), with Pendle Hillreaching 557m, almost a mountain! These fells were oncecloaked in trees, but a combination of changes in climate

and woodland clearances by Bronze Age farmers has leftthem largely treeless today.The resulting open views andfells give the impression that this is a wilderness, anuntouched natural landscape, but it is in fact the result ofhuman influences.There has been long termmanagement of the land for grazing sheep and cattle, andfor game shooting (primarily red grouse).The fells arecriss-crossed with dry stone walls and, on the lowerslopes, you will see the isolated field barns, whichtraditionally housed cattle and hay in the winter.

Blanket bog - a BowlandspecialityBlanket bog is confined to cool, wet climates, and the UK isone of the best places in the world to find this type ofhabitat.The formation of peat is a response to the veryslow rate at which plant material (mostly Sphagnummosses) decomposes under conditions of water logging.However, it can form on quite steep slopes and effectivelycloak whole landscapes.The Forest of Bowland lays claim tosome of the best blanket bog in England and this supports arange of scarce and unusual plant and animal species.Perhaps one of the rarest is bog rosemary, which can befound in abundance in some areas of the Bowland fells.

The Chipping market was thus at a point of exchangebetween two different economies and a major outlet forthe Bowland cattle farms.There were two fairs (markets)each year, on the first Tuesday after Easter and on St Bartholomew’s day, August 24th. Cattle would be soldin the street. Farmers would take the opportunity ofvisiting the village shops, meeting tradesmen such asbutchers and leather workers, and socialising in thealehouses.The last markets in Chipping were sheep sales,at the back of the Talbot Inn, in the 1950s.

How to find usPublic Transport:

St Batholomews The church of St Bartholomews has a number of headscarved on a pillar in the north aisle.They appear to bepulling faces and are thought to have been carved in the14th century. Also inside the church can be found a 12thcentury piscina in the chancel and a plague stone. A localtradition has it that when a wedding has taken place inthe church local children tie the church gates shut.Thewedding couple must then throw money to the childrenin order to get them re-opened.

History continuedBy-trades were always an important source of extraincome in the farming households – for example,cheesemaking, wood and leather working and especiallytextiles. Spinning and handloom weaving of wool and flaxbecame increasingly important in the late 17th and 18thcenturies. Some wool was available from local fell sheep,but dealers brought in supplies and sold on the finishedthread or cloth. One of these cloth merchants, JohnBrabin, with his shop in the centre of the village, becamethe local benefactor founding a school and charity by hiswill of 1683. Chipping flourished industrially when thewaterpower of the district was fully developed. By the

The Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding NaturalBeauty (AONB) is a nationally protected landscape andinternationally important for its heather moorland, blanketbog and rare birds. It is the first protected area in Englandto be awarded the European Charter for SustainableTourism in Protected Areas. The Charter approachensures that organisations, local people and businesses areworking together to protect the area, whilst at the sametime increasing opportunities for visitors to discover andenjoy its special qualities. Sustainable tourism aims to makea low impact on the environment and local culture, whileencouraging better income, employment and conservationof the very landscape upon which our tourism is based. Formore information regarding the Forest of Bowland AONB,visit the website at www.forestofbowland.com or ring01772 534709 for an information leaflet. The businessesfeatured here are part of the local economy whichsupports this special landscape -please support them with yourcustom and enjoy your stay!

Birds and wildlifeThe RSPB in BowlandBowland is particularly special for a number of uplandbird species.The RSPB works closely with organisationslike Natural England and United Utilities to help protectthe rare hen harrier, merlins and ring ouzels, and alsoadvises landowners and farmers to help them protectthe nationally important populations of wading birds suchas lapwings, snipe, curlews and redshanks that nest onthe in-bye grazing pasture each spring.The RSPB is the UK charity working to secure a healthyenvironment for birds and other wildlife, helping to

create a better world for us all.The RSPB’s work rangesfrom campaigning to halt the effects of climate change toinvestigating the decline in familiar garden birds such ashouse sparrows and song thrushes and organising ‘the BigGarden Birdwatch’.You may even have been one of the460,000 people that took part in 2006!For further information on the RSPB, its work inBowland or how to offer your support by becoming amember go to www.rspb.org.uk or call on 01484861148.

Land management continuedThe most recent phase of work has involved the creationof more wader scrapes and shallow edged ditches, bankingup parts of the footpath running across the site andinstallation of crossing points for farm machinery andstock. All the work has been undertaken by localcontractors and farmers. In 2003, prior to thismanagement work, there was a dense rush cover overmuch of the site. Cutting and baling the rush leaving justscattered tussocks opened up the grass sward making thefields far more attractive to wading birds and grazing stock.Smaller stands of rush were left in boggier areas as theseprovide good habitat for Snipe.

Further management work included rewetting of the siteto produce splashy conditions and a short, tussockysward ideal for breeding wading birds. Establishment ofsuch conditions has for example seen the lapwingpopulation rise from one pair in 2003 to 10 or 11 pairsin 2006. Relatively small-scale works such as the creationof shallow wader scrapes and reprofiling of steep sidedditches provide shallow muddy edges for wading birdchicks to feed. Grazing by native Hereford cattle ensuresthat rush is kept under control.

Waders In spring, Bowland’s farmland and moorland attracts over6,000 pairs of wading birds They mainly breed onenclosed farmland next to the moor and need wet, boggyareas, which teem with the insects and bugs they eat.TheForest of Bowland holds an estimated 6 to 8 percent ofthe UK’s breeding curlew population, which can be foundfrom the highest hill tops to the valleys below, remindingus of its presence with its evocative call.The RSPB,through its partnerships has been working successfullywith farmers and landowners for over three years tosecure sympathetic management of land for the benefit ofthese birds.

North Lancashire Bridleway The North Lancashire Bridleway is designed for use byhorse riders, cyclists and walkers. It runs through some ofthe most breathtaking scenery in the country, taking in theverdant, fertile lands of the Lune valley and then traversingthe wild Bowland fells before dropping down intoChipping.The bridleway provides a sustainable form ofrecreation linked with business opportunities for localenterprises and landowners, in the form of bed andbreakfast establishments, livery provision and local foodproducts.Work is currently underway to complete theloop, and provide links to the Pennine Bridleway and tolocal cycle and bridleway networks within Lancashire.

Chipping Moss - land management toencourage wading birds Conservation work began on Chipping Moss in 2003.Management of the grassland, rush and wet features on thesite has allowed the wading bird populations to flourish, withother species such as skylark and reed bunting benefiting too.Improvement of the habitat has helped brown hares toincrease on the site and wetland plants such as ragged robinand marsh marigold. Digging of ponds and ditch works hasgreatly improved conditions for great crested newts, manyspecies of dragonfly and damselfly and aquatic vegetationcommunities.

Lancashire Countryside Service developed the NorthLancashire Bridleway in partnership with Lancashire RuralFutures, the Forest of Bowland AONB, farmers,landowners and representatives of the horse ridingcommunity.The first phase of the North LancashireBridleway was opened in 2004, and runs for 45km fromDenny Beck near Lancaster to Chipping.

Chipping is served by the Number 4 bus from Longridgeand Preston. (You can also reach Longridge by usingbuses from Blackburn and Clitheroe).The B12 linksChipping to Clitheroe and Garstang on a Thursday only.For more details call Traveline on 0870 6082 608.

From the south, Chipping can be reached by leaving theM6 at junction 31A near Preston and then heading norththrough Longridge - approximately 12 miles. From thenorth, leave the M6 at junction 32 and again head forLongridge via Broughton.

This project is funded by the Forest of Bowland Area of Natural Outstanding Beauty(AONB) and received funding from the following organisations

Female hen harrier © Richard Saunders

Front cover image ©Natural England/Charlie Hedley

Image ©Margaret O’Kane, Lancashire Rural Futures

Hotel Development Site

of 98

entrance to the vast Royal Forest of Bowland to the east of the village. Chipping

flourished industrially, having seven water-powered mills on Chipping Brook when

water power in the district was fully developed.

The village is in the centre of a conservation area with stone-built cottages and

Arkwright Mill (Grade II). Chipping has shops, schools, churches and several

restaurants and cafés. Several attractive inns can also be found in the village centre.

Figure 3 Newspaper article announcing the closure of HJ Berry

of 98

Moreover, there are at least 25 active local clubs and groups in the village catering to

many leisure interests. This picturesque Lancashire village has won a number of

best-kept village competitions over the years, e.g. the Bloom Competitions. The area

is also frequented by cyclists from the North West and is a favourite resting point with

its cafés. Visitors can choose from a wide range of accommodation, from camping

barns to hotels. However, following the UK rural tourism trend, B&Bs and farm-based

types of accommodation with self-catering facilities dominate Chipping. The village

also has three major annual shows: an agricultural show, a horticultural show and a

steam fair. In this sense, tourism is viewed as an integral source of employment by

local businesses.

The Chipping Village Plan 2011, reflecting local community’s needs, was launched to

develop Chipping across all areas from housing to the police service. The plan has

two main priorities: to boost tourism because of its vital role for local businesses, and

to regenerate the former HJ Berry Ltd site, a furniture factory that closed in 2010,

laying off 85 people (see Figure 3). In early 2011, a hotel development company

canvassed the idea of developing the site and conducted a public consultation with

the community. Imagination Lancaster at the University of Lancaster initiated work on

a concept plan and feasibility study in 2012.

4.2 Conceptual Study for Collaborative Hotel Development

According to the project plan, research was to be completed between April 2012 and

July 2012 (Table 5). To create scenarios for hotel development, the first phase of

research involved desktop research based on secondary sources. In the second, key

informants from a hotel development company and design agencies conducted

conversations and workshops in order to understand each other’s viewpoints. Next, a

of 98

Table 5 Research Timetable

Note: ( ) number of participants

researcher, acting as a designer, visualised various scenarios based on

communication with local stakeholders and findings from the first and second phases

of the research. Lastly, the researcher invited local community members and

stakeholders to a workshop to share ideas and opinions on the initial designs. The

overall research was organised into four main phases, as shown in Figure 4, below,

adapted from Dott’s action research methodology in SEA Communications (2010:

12), apart from phase 3:

• Phase 1 Diagnose: setting up the project and diagnosing issues including

existing research and activities around Chipping;

• Phase 2 Co-discover: focusing on and examining local issues with the design

team and other stakeholders;

• Phase 3 Design development: building on tangible aspects with ideas;

• Phase 4 Co-design: communicating the initial ideas to local residents in a

workshop setting.

!"#$%&'%($)$*(+,% -.*+$% -*(/0+0#*1/)% 2*/$%30$.4%5$$/016% 7,0##016% 2$8$.&#$(%9:;%

<+*4$50*%9=;%>$)$*(+,%)/?4$1/%9@;%%

=:%<#(0.%=AB=%

30$.4%5$$/016% 7,0##016% 2$8$.&#$(%9B;C%<(+,0/$+/%9B;C%D*14)+*#$%*(+,0/$+/%9B;%<+*4$50*%9=;%>$)$*(+,%)/?4$1/%9@;%

E%F?1$%=AB=%

G&(H),&#% D*1+*)/$(%I108$()0/"%

2$8$.&#$(%9B;%<(+,0/$+/%9B;%%D*14)+*#$%*(+,0/$+/%9B;%<+*4$50*%9=;%>$)$*(+,%)/?4$1/%9BA;%%

=A%F?1$%=AB=%

G&(H),&#% D*1+*)/$(%I108$()0/"%

2$8$.&#$(%9=;%<(+,0/$+/%9B;%%D*14)+*#$%*(+,0/$+/%9B;%<+*4$50*%9=;%>$)$*(+,%)/?4$1/%9J;%D&+*.%($)04$1/)%9BA;%

BK%F?."%=AB=%

of 98

Figure 4 Design Process for Collaborative Hotel Development in Chipping

Phase 1: Diagnose

The main objective of this phase sought an accurate understanding of Chipping

through community- and company-led schemes. The research began by analysing

the broader context of Chipping. Then, a more detailed analysis was carried out.

General facts about Chipping were collected through Chipping Village 2011.

Although it did not provide detailed information, it was possible to understand

broader government plans for Chipping. The Ribble Valley Borough Council (2011: 2)

report highlighted that “overall, the Chipping Village Plan has taken forward the

neighbourhood planning and localism concept (as far as this is understood) and

produced a community-led plan that articulates as far as possible a collective view”.

In the company-led scheme, collaboration with the hotel development company during

field meetings offered different viewpoints. These were more aspirational, progressive

and detailed. Their basic concepts were in line with the Chipping Village Plan 2011.

However, a research approach that takes into account specific local conditions, needs

of 98

and desires through the design processes involved but without local input can face

several challenges in understanding the Chipping context. These challenges stem from

the regulations imposed on commercial design practices, relying on indirect

methodologies which communicate with the hotel development company to understand

the local context.

Phase 2: Co-discover

The main objective of this phase was to develop concepts and ideas based on Phase

1. After reaching a contextual understanding of Chipping based on the community-

and company-led schemes, the researcher worked with the hotel development

company to gain an in-depth understanding of Chipping and to generate ideas. A

field meeting and an ideas-sharing workshop in June 2012 allowed the researcher to

generate initial ideas (see Figure 5). The researcher combined the community-led

and the company-led plans. These were integrated with general tourism trends in the

UK and a sustainable rural tourism framework to identify visitors, programmes,

physical aspects and local stakeholders for tourism. This research can be viewed as

an opportunity with in academia and conceptual design, as compared with corporate

Figure 5 Field meeting at Chipping

of 98

culture, which tends to focus on day-to-day priorities (Walker, 2011: 129).

Furthermore, this research is practical and closely related to village life as a whole.

The direction of the project was decided upon based on several propositions.

Phase 3: Design Development

After generating ideas in Phase 2, the researcher started work to visualise them.

They needed to be visualised to persuade and inform local residents about hotel

development in their area (see Figure 6). The visualisation of ideas can remove

people’s initial doubts about change, as mentioned in Chapter 2. However, as

discussed in Chapter 2, Taboada (2009: 46) argues that pre-defined outcomes have

to be avoided in co-design. Therefore, visualisation methods in this research needed

to be changed for this project since the demand was for flexibility in design options.

In sum, the ideas for the Chipping project had to allow some room for changes.

Phase 4: Co-design: Initial Workshop

Figure 6 Visualisation of Scenarios

of 98

Figure 7 Workshop at Lancaster University

This phase aimed to collect feedback on hotel development and on Chipping as a

site for this. A small workshop conducted with the local community provided an

opportunity to examine local people’s attitudes ideas about previously generated and

participation in hotel development. The researcher received predominantly positive

responses (Figure 7). The workshop findings are discussed in Chapter 7.

4.3 Co-design in Practice

Since this project is about focused co-design, the researcher needed to conduct

internal interviews with major participants. The main objective was to examine how

co-design could be a valid process for the project. Moreover, it was necessary to

observe this point from different perspectives related to hotel planning and co-design

of 98

Table 6 Internal and External Participants of Co-design

in order to maintain objectivity. Therefore, while internal interviews were conducted,

selected external participants were interviewed (Table 6).

Internal interviews allowed the researcher to examine practical notions of co-design.

First, interview questions focused on understanding co-design, then they moved to

challenges to co-design. P1 and P2 had in-depth knowledge of co-design and both

had positive opinions. Interviews with external participants (P3-P6) were conducted

to investigate co-design from subjective and diverse perspectives. The interview

results are presented in Chapter 5 in more detail. Chapter 7 discusses the workshop

results.

!"#$%"&'()*)%"+,'-).)/' !%"0#+#1%20*'' 345'6)*+"#10#42'' 720)".#)8'

9)0,46'720)"2%/'!%"0#+#1%20*'

!:' !"4;)+0'$%2%<)"'

9%2%<#2<'6).)/41$)20' =$%#/'")*142*)'

!>' -%26*+%1)'%"+,#0)+0'

?"+,#0)+0@"%/'*)".#+)*'#2+/@6#2<'9%*0)"A1/%22#2<'1")*)20%0#42'#2B4"$%0#42'

=$%#/'")*142*)'

=C0)"2%/'!%"0#+#1%20*'

!D' E)".#+)'6)*#<2'6#")+04"'

9%2%<#2<'+4A6)*#<2'#2'6)*#<2'+42*@/0%2+&' !)"*42%/'720)".#)8'

!F' ?"+,#0)+0' !%"02)"'#2'%"+,#0)+0@")'+42*@/0%2+&' !)"*42%/'720)".#)8'

!G' H40)/'1/%22#2<'$%2%<)"'

!/%22#2<'*0"%0)<&'#2',40)/'#26@*0"&' =$%#/'")*142*)'

!I' J4@2+#//4"' !/%22#2<'+4$$#00))'' =$%#/'")*142*)'

of 98

Chapter 5 Research Findings

5.1 Field Research Key Findings

Key participants in the project included the development company, architect and

landscape architect. Field research findings focused on information obtained from

these participants. In addition, information obtained from the hotel development

company about Chipping revealed more about the village than the information

available from the Chipping Village Plan 2011.

5.1.1 Development Company’s Perspective

It was important to explore the priorities of the development company to identify the

desires and aspirations that could affect the project. For this, the researcher

conducted field meetings and a workshop. The hotel development project was

viewed as a Chipping development project by the development company. It focused

on sustainability. The development company, the architect and the landscape

architect based their vision on the Chipping Village Plan 2011. Important points were

as follows:

• New employment opportunities;

• New tourism / leisure facilities;

• Enhanced accessibility through the site and to adjacent countryside;

• Support for existing services / facilities;

• New tourism for improving the local economy;

• Preservation of the existing village character;

of 98

• Additional car parking;

• New allotments;

• Improved access to broadband and other infrastructures;

• Support for implementation of village-wide renewable energy measures.

From their perspective, hotel development in Chipping could be viewed as

satisfactory for visitors and residents. One interesting finding was that the hotel

development site had been isolated from Chipping for a long time and required

reconstruction of its connection to Chipping.

The hotel development area is approximately one third of the village settlement. This

means that hotel development in Chipping is very important for the village. Therefore,

it is important to understand local residents’ profiles and their perceptions of the

development. According to the development company, the village residents have

focused predominantly on employment issues. Hence, their perspectives are

relatively narrow. A key informant in a field meeting stated: “Local people only

remember the factory and they want the factory back with employment.”

Local people’s attitudes towards the changes planned for Chipping as a result of the

hotel development project were passive and past-oriented. Therefore, the company

had to take into account employment issues to involve local residents in the project.

5.1.2 Current Perspective of Collaboration

At this point, it is necessary to acknowledge the current perspective of collaboration

with the local people from a steering group (hotel development company, architect

and landscape architect). Therefore, the feasibility of co-design in a hotel

of 98

development was examined by interviews with internal participants (P1, P2), dealing

with knowledge of, and opinions related to, co-design methods of hotel development.

The results of these interviews indicated that all participants regarded co-design as a

positive method for the project. One key informant (P2) stated: “I feel community

involvement with the evolution of Chipping is very important. The community needs

to understand that change is needed, but this can be positive for the village and

themselves.”

According to an internal participant (P1), the motivation for involving stakeholders

was important: “We can be satisfied that our scheme has had as full an input as

possible from both our existing team, but that we have taken on board thoughts and

ideas from external, possibly unusual ideas.” However, this did not mean that local

residents would directly design the hotel rooms and space, but rather that they would

help in offering a wide variety of views and opportunities and engage with the design

process. “A greater understanding of how communities work and can aid the design

process, whether it be through providing knowledge and ideas about their

environment or identifying where the local community can initiate immediate change”

(P2).

On the other hand, various challenges to co-design were revealed in the interviews

(Table 7). Although all internal interviewees had positive attitudes, the major

challenges related to the time and cost of collaboration with local residents.

Overall, key participants in the hotel development project viewed co-design as

beneficial. However, from the company’s perspective, there were still barriers to the

efficient use of co-design. Even though challenges to co-design were directly

revealed at company level, and the project manager for the hotel development (P1)

regarded the current process as co-design, local residents were still suspicious of

of 98

Table 7 Challenges to Co-design in Internal Interviews

change, according to the interpretation of the hotel development company.

Therefore, the local community needs to understand the process of regeneration of

the hotel development site and how it fits with the existing village. From this, the

designer can gain an in-depth understanding of the place, and the community can

understand the design process.

5.2 Research Findings: Discussion

The findings discussed in this subsection focus on practical constraints on co-design

and local residents’ vision of the hotel development, as opposed to the vision of the

hotel development company. The aim of the discussion is to find an appropriate co-

design model for Chipping. Based on field research findings and the literature review

presented above, the researcher identified constraints on collaborative planning in

the hotel development.

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

"0! 1.)23)).4')!/.+#!5&642,$+.2!7,42&))! 89!

"9! :22&7+.'(!+.6&+$;%&)!$'5!;35(&+)!<4,!/4,=!;>!2%.&'+)?!5&).('&,)?!24')3%+$'+)!$'5!

24663'.+>!

80?!89!

"@! "%&$,!(4$%!)&++.'(!'4+!+4!%4)&!$!5.,&2+.4'! 80?!89!

"A! B')3,.'(!24'<.5&'+.$%.+>! 80!

"C! D$'$(.'(!)+$=&#4%5&,)E!&F7&2+$+.4')!.'!+#&!7,42&))! 80?!89!

"G! B')3,.'(!H3$%.+>!.'<4,6$+.4'!(.-&'! 80!

"I! B')3,.'(!5.-&,)&!.'<4,6$+.4'!$'5!7&,)7&2+.-&)!24%%&2+&5! 80!

"J! B')3,.'(!,.(#+!7$,+.2.7$'+)! 89!

of 98

Hamid and Choi (2011) present ideas which can lead to efficient collaboration. First,

a better understanding of a project’s context, such as markets, trends and

competitors, can save time (Hamid & Choi, 2011: 218). This suggestion matches the

opinion revealed in an internal interview with P1, who stated that “ensuring quality

information [was] given” was important. Additionally, Hamid and Choi (2011: 217)

argue that to overcome pressure from stakeholders, it is vital to assure them that co-

design with participation can add value to the ideas generation stage, including ‘time

and cost’. External participant P6 argues that co-design in the early stages makes

planning easier for the planning committee and local people, and developers feel

happy about the proposed development. This can save time and money that might

be spent altering planning proposals and obtaining planning permission. An internal

interviewee, P2, emphasised the need for professionalism within the local community:

to act and accept the fact that the developer has budgets and timetables. This is one

of the ways to overcome the barriers of time and cost.

From the field research, a passive attitude to employment issues was revealed as

the major problem among local residents (see Section 5.1.1). However, this can be

seen as a problem that extends beyond the local residents’ capacity. It can be seen

as a constraint at the company and actor levels. Even though the development

company showed its vision of new employment opportunities to local residents, they

did not understand the vision for the hotel development.

This can result from a lack of understanding of the reality by the local community at

the actor level, which can result in bias at the company level (B9). However, if this is

a real problem, it will deny the application of the basic definition of co-design to

untrained people (Sanders & Stappers, 2008: 6). It can come from a lack of

management in a co-design project. Sleeswijk Visser et al. (2005) argue that

residents must be given appropriate tools to express themselves in order to become

of 98

part of the design team as “experts of their experience” (Sanders & Stappers, 2008:

12). On the other hand, if local residents’ problems stem from a lack of knowledge

about the benefits they would receive from the hotel development through co-design,

it may be necessary to introduce an educational programme to inform them of the its

benefits (Tosun, 2000; Ladkin & Bertramini, 2002: 88). At this point, Manzini (2009:

54) introduces the concept of enabling solutions, which is a new way of considering

individuals and communities: to look at them for the opportunities they offer, rather

than their problems, and their capabilities rather than their needs. Additionally, he

highlights, “ the less the user is motivated, the more the system must be not only

friendly, but also attractive” (Manzini, 2009: 54).

On the other hand, at the company level, the researcher can assume that the hotel

development company did not deliver its vision appropriately to the local community,

due to the lack of explanation about new employment opportunities in their vision of

the development (B12). Manzini (2007: 78) argues that collaborating to build possible

scenarios for a sustainable society is the first and most important step in shifting the

designer’s role from one of problem generator to that of solution promoter.

Based on the findings, the opinion of the company on co-design for the hotel

development project was, on the whole, positive and revealed an accurate and

profound understanding of Chipping and its current status. However, there are still

barriers at the company level that must be dealt with to stimulate local people to

engage with the project without any misunderstandings. The project may require a

clear vision, using efficient visualisation to explain the benefits of the hotel

development to Chipping. Moreover, the research has until now not contacted local

people to elicit their needs and desires. Although the company understands co-

design very well and has a positive attitude, it is true that it did not carry out the

development successfully in Chipping. Therefore, it is important to select efficient

of 98

communication tools and flexible methods for collecting initial ideas and scenarios in

order to reduce any conflict between company and residents.

5.3 Development of Design Aims and Criteria

5.3.1 Design Aims

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.

More detailed objectives are to realise the development in Chipping, to facilitate local

residents’ access to the hotel development, and to formulate proactive engagement.

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. This means that design processes must be inviting to local residents to

help fill gaps in different attitudes towards the hotel development. The design could

provide local residents with the opportunity to have an overview of the project by

providing sketches of the site. This could encourage more active feedback and

opinions from the various bodies involved. Then, the design proposals would not be

a blueprint for the future but would rather provide an indication of the direction that

the plan might take for more sustainable development, being more accessible to

local communities, and relieving Chipping’s economic downturn.

5.3.2 Criteria

Hotel development criteria for Chipping were developed based on relevant

background research into the hotel industry and collaboration with the development

of 98

Figure 8 Criteria for Design Development

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

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

rural tourism? (Source: Field meetings)

Appr

opria

tene

ss

Easy & AttractiveInformation

Co-existence Ex

tend

ibili

tyDistinctiveness

SustainabilityCriteria

of 98

2) Easy and attractive information: Will most people be able to engage in the hotel

development after sharing design ideas? (Source: Literature review)

3) Co-existence: Is there an appropriate balance between conservation and

development, and of perspectives of local residents and the hotel development

company, for mutual benefit? (Source: Literature review)

4) Extendibility: Does it suggest a visual interpretation to incorporate the insights of

local residents in the development? (Source: Literature review, Field meetings

and interviews)

5) Distinctiveness: Is it well distinguished from other competitors and does it avoid

competition in Chipping? New ideas from collaborative businesses will create

new visions. (Source: Literature review & Field meetings)

6) Sustainability: Does it consider social aspects for sustainability with eco-design?

(Source: Literature review & Field meetings)

Regarding the co-design process, these criteria are not fixed; they stand as

flexible criteria that will change according to the specific nature of the project

through consensus within local residents. In other words, it aims to gain

stakeholders’ opinions for further development, and therefore the criteria for the

co-design process should be iterative.

of 98

Chapter 6 Design Developments

6.1 Design Process

The design development aims to create possible scenarios to communicate with

local residents to gain feedback that can contribute to further development. The

scenarios help to design a set of possible future Chipping models and hotel

development models based on different primary assumptions developed from the

background research. According to Roxburgh (2009: 3), scenarios are viewed as

“predetermined outcomes”, in particular unexpected and uncertain conditions to

explore new undiscovered insights. Future scenarios can create interest in continued

involvement in the planning process (Evans et al., 2008: 99). The design

Figure 9 Existing Environment in Chipping

of 98

development stage for collaborative hotel design comprises three main steps. This

process reflects on the observations made in the context of Chipping, which is found

at the co-discovery stage, representing possible ideas from undiscovered insights

and themes, then returning to tangible solutions with visualisations (see Chapter 4).

• Review Chipping

• Creating ideas

• Visualisation

1) Review Chipping

During the review phase, the designer collated existing resources on the hotel

development in Chipping, including stories and inspiration from local residents and

Figure 10 Existing Tourism Resources Analysis

of 98

Figure 11 SWOT Analysis

the hotel development company (see Figure 9). Existing resources were generated

from the diagnosis and co-discovery stages in the main research process. A diagram

analysing existing tourism resources was considered to remind us once again of

current tourism resources (see Figure 10). SWOT analysis was used to analyse the

data collected for internal and external factors (Cooper & Press, 1995: 209) (Figure

11).

2) Creating Ideas

The creating ideas phase translated the “review Chipping” stage into frameworks,

opportunities, solutions and prototypes. At this stage, the designer could shift from

the facts and contextual observations the designer had collected to a more abstract

way of thinking about the conceptual mapping of programmes, for both local

of 98

Figure 12 Division of the Hotel Development Site

stakeholders and visitor segments. Furthermore, the development site was divided

into three main zones according to aspects of the site (Figure 12):

• Zone 1: The mill site was designed for a heritage experience, considering its

heritage value and relevance to targeted visitors;

• Zone 2: As a former modern furniture factory site, it was developed for a more

active atmosphere offering new facilities;

• Zone 3: So-called Chipping Brook site, which had recently been developed, was

designed for a natural experience for visitors and local residents, while

considering the flood risk and “Root Protection Area”.

In the hotel development project, conceptual mappings were used as a vehicle to

represent ideas and create relations between them. A conceptual map was based on

findings from the primary and secondary research (see Figure 13).

Heritage Experience Zone 1

Hub:Friendly Business& Health care

Zone 2

Natural ExperienceZone 3

Chipping Brook

Mill Building

Mill Pond

Former Factory site

Former Factory site

of 98

Figure 13 Mapping Exercise of Programmes in Zones 1, 2 and 3

3) Visualisation

The visualization phase represents the first stage in developing ideas stemming from

the conceptual map, with rapid sketches and planning prototypes. According to

Tzonis (2004: 69), one architectural sketch is “worth 10,000 words” and can be used

for communication to aid design collaboration. This can help the designer offer new

initial ideas to local residents. Visualising materials for the workshop also helped

engage participants and stimulate their thoughts and ideas (Hamis & Choi, 2011:

220). In particular, the visualisation possibilities were provided via four possible

scenarios of the future (see Figure 14). It is important to emphasise that these

images of the future are not final. They should be viewed as inspirational material.

of 98

Figure 14 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

vested interests and leave disagreements out of the discussion.

6.2 Results: Features and Benefits of Collaborative Hotel

Development

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

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

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

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

Development

Conservation

Natural Manmade

Natural Camp Eco-House

Outdoor Living RoomNatural Ground

Enjoy Accommodation

Enjoy Nature

Balance

of 98

Figure 15 HCBP Diagram

Chipping due to the recent loss of the furniture factory with 85 people now

unemployed, and ensures trust and motivation to participate in co-design. HCBP

indicates productive activities based on the rural partnership described in Chapter 2.

Furthermore, this might go beyond the traditional boundaries in the hotel business,

so that the hotel and local stakeholders can share ideas to develop Chipping and

attract visitors, thus offering several benefits: competitive advantage, building trust in

communities, improving stakeholder relations and increasing the attractiveness to

prospective employees. A partnership can act as a vehicle for mobilising resources,

and skills, leading to efficiency and productivity gains (De Lacy et al., 2002; Pfueller

et al., 2011: 736). Through heightened awareness of local and appropriate

programmes, creative decisions become more profound in the context of the project

for both residents and visitors. The project presented three zones with various ideas

EXTENDED VISION: SUSTAINABLE HOTEL DEVELOPMENTCONVENTIONAL HOTEL DEVELOPMENT COLLABORATIVE LAYER

Hotel Community Business Partnership Programme

HOTEL

Vision

Vision

Vision

Vision

Vision

Vision

Local Stakeholders

Local Stakeholders

Local Stakeholders

Local Stakeholders

Local Stakeholders

Local Stakeholders

of 98

Figure 16 Stakeholder Map

that related to the different types of stakeholders identified in Chipping (see Figure

16).

1) Heritage Experience (Zone 1): “High Standard of Living with Heritage” is the

guiding principle for Zone 1. It signifies an opportunity for visitors to relax and

spend time in the Heritage Mill building. Experiencing the life of furniture

craftsmen producing handmade furniture and offering private picnics in the Mill

Pond area and front garden were selected as executive programmes for the

private experience in the scenarios for Zone1 (see Figure 17).

2) Friendly Business & Healthcare (Zone 2): The former factory site has been

converted to become the core of the hotel development project. As the site

requires many buildings to provide tourist accommodation, there is a good

possibility of partnerships occurring in the zone, such as “my furniture show” and

of 98

Figure 17 Conceptual Map for Zone 1

Figure 18 Conceptual Maps for Zone 2

Zone-1. Heritage Experience Chipping Mill Building

High standard life with heritage

Natural Experience Education, Satisfaction, AppreciationCommunity Business Partnership

Accommodation_1

secret garden with flower

quality experience

flower garden

boutique hotel

natural relax

private spa

handmade life

local crafsmanship

my furniture experience

high quality service

concierge service

natural pond footpath

secret gardenwith pond

picnic lunch

pond

short break taker

55~64 age overseas tourist

visitor types

special interestinternational quality standard

eco-building energy saving

water wheel

highend restaurant

local food

education travel

open day to public

hydro power

local crafts

Zone-2. Hub: Friendly Business & Healthcare Business Camp Healing Camp

Another Village: Chipping-in-ChippingCreating 21st Village


Spa

Reception

Accommodation_3Gym

Cafe & Restaurant

Conference Hall

Accommodation_2

Show Case day traveler

+65 age

visitor type

short & extendedbreak takers

self catering

VFR

local cultural & business activity

my furniture show

my enterprise show

local crafts

bike storage & self repair booth

allotment

gardening

my allotmont

old stone building(barn)

friendlyChipping life brochure

Chipping knowledge

21st stone building

differentiation & similarity

business visitor

visitor type

eat in & out

local food booth

organic prouduct

catering service

New Houses

Car park

Market Camp

of 98

Figure 19 Conceptual Map for Zone 3

a “local food booth” (see Figure 18). At this point, the site presents “another village”

which is physically separate from the historical Chipping area. However, Chipping’s

identity can be shared, with visitors coming to a businesses camp, with opportunities

for recuperation, and a market camp as a revival of the ancient market (see Chapter

4).

3) Natural Experiences (Zone 3): Natural experiences must be considered in the

design development (Figure 19). Zone 3, as a natural wooded area, can invite

local residents and tourists into the hotel. Visitors can be viewed as eco-tourists

who love to experience nature. Therefore, the design for Zone 3 focuses on

reducing the impact on nature during the hotel development. Accommodation

types (alternative accommodation such as a temporary hotel and natural

architecture) are incorporated to reduce damage and preserve nature (see Figure

14).

visitor types

Accommodation_4

Accommodation_5

natural experience

Eco-playground

green event - conservation activity

visitor types

planting scheme

extended break takers

special interest

short break takers

pup up hotelglamping

spring to summer life

adventureseasonal accommodation

private camping

natural house

35 ~ 54 age with children

VFR

tree archtecture !my garden"event in Chippinghydro power

conservation nature

for visitor & residents

public access extend local journey

bridge type

walk path

special interest

local character

!my house" event in Chipping

alternative accommodation

35 ~ 54 age with children

eco-bridgeeco-toilet

education experience

Zone-3. Natural Experience Peaceful Camp Outdoor Camp

Authentic HouseNature-based Tourism


of 98

Hotel Community Business Partnership Programme (HCBP) offers numerous

features and benefits:

1) Tourism

The HCBP was ergonomically designed to attract visitors when using the hotel.

Various programmes allow visitors to rest and experience Chipping during their

travels and provide educational experiences about the natural environment for their

children. The hotel can accommodate different types of visitors, offering various

facilities within HCBP, so that the hotel can overcome the negative impacts of

seasonality faced in many rural tourism areas (see Chapter 2).

Furthermore, the hotel can enhance the linkage between Chipping and the site of the

hotel development, which had not previously been considered part of Chipping

according to field meetings, using physical and psychological elements, such as

amenities that local residents can enjoy and the opportunities on offer to be close to

nature. This can create a strong local identity for both hotel and Chipping through

distinctiveness, compared with other villages in the Forest of Bowland.

2) Sustainability

The hotel was designed to use local resources, including local eco-friendly materials.

Moreover, the HCBP is about a sustainable society with proactive local communities.

Focusing on local activities and practices can rein in our tendency to be destructive

norms to achieve sustainability (Walker, 2011: 62). By offering its facilities to

residents, the hotel can contribute to the physical quality of life in Chipping and

residents’ well-being. Local communities can be inspired to participate in ownership

of the hotel development through the HCBP. Therefore, these outcomes, through

participation and partnership, can reduce the lack of interaction between visitors and

of 98

hosts as one of tourism’s problems (see Chapter 2).

3) Employment and Local Business

The core concept of the HCBP is based on encouraging local employment and

businesses. The hotel, with HCBP help, can expand its traditional boundaries in the

hotel business and expect stable business with local partnerships (see Figure 15).

Moreover, this might facilitate adaptability in constantly fluctuating tourism market

trends and demands from visitors. According to Lee (2011: 31-32), partnerships offer

benefits to businesses, including increasing the attractiveness to prospective

employees and contributing to the resolution of social problems. Therefore, the

HCBP might ensure sustainable employment through social equity.

4) Balance in Development

After engaging with local residents through the HCBP, the four visualised scenarios

provide possible options for the participants to apply and stimulate their viewpoints.

This allows the researcher to collect opinions and demands from local residents

without any discrimination or misunderstandings. This can enable local residents to

give their opinions more freely about unfamiliar aspects of hotel development.

Therefore, HCBP can help to achieve a balance between conservation and

development with proactive participation (see Figure 20).

6.3 Reflection

In developing these concepts the project has aimed to show the possibilities of hotel

development in a local context and to realize a hotel development in Chipping, with

input from local residents and encouraging their participation. This is because the

environment in which they live will inevitably change. There are many programmes

of 98

Figure 20 Balanced Scenario for zone 3

which are introduced in conceptual mapping based on aspects of rural tourism. In the

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

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

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

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 following chapter will discuss this particular issue.

of 98

Chapter 7 Discussion of Finalised Proposal

7.1 Stakeholders’ Response to Initial Ideas in the Workshop

The workshop was held on 17 July 2012 at Lancaster University. It was attended by

ten local residents, the hotel development company’s representatives and design

agencies. The atmosphere at the stakeholders’ meeting was friendly and the

researcher had the impression that most of the participants felt comfortable in

bringing their opinions to the workshop. However, some participants hesitated to

speak and preferred to listen. This could have been due to feelings of resentment

towards the future scenarios in the Chipping hotel development. However, the

flexible scenarios described in the sketches helped overcome participants’ doubts.

During the workshop, local respondents were asked whether they thought their

participation in the hotel development would be important for the village’s

development in the future. They were also asked about their opinions of the

visualised scenarios. To understand stakeholders’ responses better, the results of

this workshop are shown in Table 8. Table 8 demonstrates positive and negative

feedback based on six design criteria (see Figure 8).

Several interesting aspects of the workshop are revealed. Most participants

considered understanding Chipping to be an important factor. They thought that

researching Chipping’s culture and analysing the hotel development site were

important. The HCBP concept and community participation in the hotel development

were most welcome among regional stakeholders. However, three participants were

not sure about the need for community participation and the HCBP concept in

of 98

Table 8 Evaluation of Respondents’ Feedback

!"#$%"#&' (%%)*&+,-' ./0%' 1/-#$#2%' 3%4&$#2%'

566"/6"#&$%0%--' ' 70)%"-$&0)'!8#66#04'&0)'$8%'-#$%'/9'8/$%:')%2%:/6;%0$'

5::' ' '

' <+%0&"#/-'"%:&$%)'$/'$8%'!8#66#04'2#::&4%' 5::' ' '

=&->'?'5$$"&+$#2%'#09/";&$#/0'

' @&"#/A-'&$$"&+$#/0'9/"'"%-#)%0$-'&0)'2#-#$/"-'' 5::' ' '

' 3%%)';/"%')%$&#:%)'&0)'$&04#*:%'#09/";&$#/0'#0'./0%B'&0)'./0%'C'

CD'E' ' '

' !8#66#04'"%-#)%0$-'F&0$'-/;%'+/00%+$#/0'*%$F%%0'8/$%:')%2%:/6;%0$'&0)'!8#66#04'GHF8&$I-'8&66%0#04'#0'/A"'2#::&4%J'

5::' ' '

!/K%L#-$%0+%' ' M">'*"#)4%'&4&#0-$'F%$'&0)'9://)'6"/*:%;' E' ' '

' M/0I$'4#2%';&0>'6"/4"&;;%D'&0)'4#2%'/66/"$A0#$#%-'0%L$'4%0%"&$#/0'

C' ' '

' N&$+8#04'#--A%'/9'+&;6#04'&0)'8/$%:'&++/;;/)&$#/0-'/0'$8%'4"%%0'&"%&''

E' ' '

' O:%0)#04'F#$8'0&$A"%' E' ' '

' P!O1'+&0'8%:6':/+&:'*A-#0%--%-Q' 5::' ' '

=L$%0)#*#:#$>' ' R%4&")#04'$/A"#-;'&-'&'-#;6:%'%0$%"$%0$'*%9/"%'

5::' ' '

' 1&"$#+#6&0$-'&"%'6&--#/0&$%'&*/A$'!8#66#04S'' 5::' ' '

' 3%%)':/+&:'-$&,%8/:)%"-'#0'$8%'*%4#00#04'/9'$8%'6"/+%--D'0/$'&9$%"'4%0%"&$#04'#)%&-'

5::' ' '

' 3%%)'8/:#-$#+'6"/+%--%-' 5::' ' '

M#-$#0+$#2%0%--' ' 5:$%"0&$#2%'&++/;;/)&$#/0'&-'A6;&",%$'+&0'*%'A-%)'&-';&",%$#04'$/'-$/6'2#-#$/"-'#0'!8#66#04'

E' ' '

' 3%%)-';&",%$#04'$/'-$/6'&$'!8#66#04' 5::' ' '

' N/"%')#-+A--#/0'/9'8/$%:')%2%:/6;%0$'#0'$8%'2#::&4%I-'+/0$%L$'&-'&'F8/:%Q'

5::' ' '

<A-$&#0&*#:#$>' ' T6%0'4"%%0'&"%&-'$/'"%-#)%0$-'9/"'6#+0#+-'&0)'F&:,-'&"/A0)'G'#$'+&0'*%'$8%'/0:>'-6&+%'9/"'>/A04'+8#:)"%0''

E' ' '

' 764"&)%';/"%'/A$)//"':#2#04' E' ' '

' =02#"/0;%0$&::>'9"#%0):>'&-';A+8'&-'6/--#*:%' E' ' '

' !/0+%"0-'&*/A$'$/A"#-;D'*%#04'/2%"+"/F)%)'' 5::' ' '

' !/A0$%";%&-A"%'/9'F%$'&"%&'&0)'&'9://)''6"/*:%;'

E' ' '

' N/"%'+/0+%"0-'&*/A$'F8&$'6%/6:%'&"%'8&66>'F#$8'

5::' '

!

of 98

general. One resident asked, “Why do stakeholders need the hotel?” Moreover, there

was some scepticism about rural tourism as a good solution to local employment

problems.

Two participants said the Mill building in Zone 1 was Chipping’s heritage and should

belong to the local community, rather than being converted into a hotel. On the other

hand, some residents welcomed regeneration of the building. The programmes

offered for Zone 2 were evaluated negatively by one participant because he was

concerned about opportunities for the next generation to set up in business in

Chipping. On the other hand, all participants agreed with demolishing the existing

buildings, excluding the old barn, due to a mismatch between the style of buildings

and the surroundings.

Local stakeholders welcomed the opening of a green area in Chipping Brook for

residents and visitors in Zone 3. This was not previously accessible by the public,

due to its private ownership. However, participants differed in their attitudes towards

Zone 3. Some agreed with a more developed scenario, such as eco-houses and

natural camps. Others rejected having camping sites. As seen in Figure 21, a natural

conservation scenario for Zone 3 was ranked highly by stakeholders. This shows that

many stakeholders wanted to maintain the status quo due to the suspicions of local

residents towards change (RIBA, 2011a; 8). A case study of landscape planning

conducted in Denmark produced similar results (Tress & Tress, 2003: 173).

Furthermore, analysis of the results of the workshop indicates that individual opinions

differed, so it is difficult to reconcile them.

The workshop with local residents revealed that they were passionate about

Chipping and were concerned about things that happen in their village. Furthermore,

the ideas generated by the designer stimulated local residents to participate in the

of 98

Figure 21 Schematic Workshop Responses about the Scenario for Zone 3

Note: P: participant

co-design process, whether it was good or bad for them. However, the participants

argued for the necessity of early engagement of the local community, as the initial

ideas did not reflect their ideas but were based on a researcher’s perspective of the

development. Many participants thought they must be involved in the development,

as this will affect them and their living environment. After expressing these points,

local residents could put forward their ideas for the hotel development project more

actively.

7.2 Action-oriented Issues via the Workshop

The workshop helped the researcher explore the desires, needs and visions of local

residents concerning the project. Based on this, the researcher could explore co-

Development

Conservation

Natural Manmade

Natural Camp Eco-House

Outdoor Living RoomNatural Ground

P1P2P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9P10

P1P1

P1

P2

P4

P9

P10P9

P10

P5

P5

P5

of 98

design of the development more deeply.

Differences between local residents’ and the hotel development company’s

perspectives were revealed in field research, including the workshop with local

residents. From the viewpoint of the hotel development company, they described

local people as a group presenting a lack of understanding of the current atmosphere

relating to employment and further passive attitudes towards involvement in

planning. However, the workshop revealed their passion for Chipping and their desire

to work together on the development, as it will directly affect their lives in Chipping

and they want to monitor any changes there. Moreover, the researcher could see

that most participants in the workshop felt that, without them, planning activities

would not respect their interests, although these partially agreed with the initial ideas

presented. Rather, the respondents required involvement at the very earliest stages

of the project, in a proactive attitude of participation.

This is in line with the opinions of participants at an early stage of the project, as

revealed in the literature review (Sanders & Stappers, 2008: 6). To discuss

participation in the hotel development further, the researcher interviewed additional

internal (P7-P9) (see Table 9) and external participants (P3-P6) (see Table 6).

According to the additional interviewees, who worked as researchers for the

Chipping project, it was commonly argued that the constraints on communication by

researchers with local residents prior to the workshop impaired more in-depth

understanding of the community, such as their desires and needs. Three external

interviewees (P3, P4, P6) also emphasised the participation of local stakeholders in

the early stages of the co-design process. They argued that hotel development

through co-design could bring benefits to both local residents and the development

company, including providing better facilities (P4), sharing cultural values and

reflecting local identity (P5). P6 argued, “if local people and developers are involved

of 98

Table 9 Internal Interview of Additional Participants in Co-design

right from the beginning, it makes it easier for the Planning Committee to know that

the people feel happy about the proposed development”. Nasser and Holyoak (2012:

17) highlight the importance of community participation in the planning process in

localism, as it saves time and money in the planning process as well as increasing

social, environmental and financial benefits. Murphy (1985) also argues that

community involvement in planning and development is crucial for the overall

sustainability of tourism (Jamal & Getz, 1995: 194). Hence, the researcher believes

that it is much easier to combine people’s ideas, visions and desires through the

involvement of stakeholders during the initial stages of a project.

At this point, the researcher compares the current processes of co-design with the

desired process from the perspective of local residents (see Figure 22). This is based

on Lee’s flow map (2008), which presents three modes of participation (to reflect

clearly the process of a design research project on a continuum of participation)

(Lee, 2008: 37). In the current process of the map, the hotel development showed

only linear movement in the “Expert World” and communication only occurred in a

top-down attitude, from the development company to local residents.

On the other hand, the desired processes in Steps 6 and 7 include a continuum of

design participation, but it is still linear movement compared with the iterative

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

(,)2*0*3,42/!! 5&6!7#/0)*32*&4!! 842#)$*#9!+#21&7!

842#)4,%!(,)2*0*3,42/!

:&42#;2<,%!842#)$*#9!

(=! .#/#,)01#)! >!7#/*?4!)#/#,)01!*4!21#!:1*33*4?!3)&@#02!

(#)/&4,%!842#)$*#9!

(A! .#/#,)01#)! >!7#/*?4!)#/#,)01!*4!21#!:1*33*4?!3)&@#02!!

(#)/&4,%!842#)$*#9!

(B! .#/#,)01#)! >!7#/*?4!)#/#,)01!*4!21#!:1*33*4?!3)&@#02!!

(#)/&4,%!842#)$*#9!

of 98

Figure 22 Hotel Development Flow Map

process among co-design characteristics (Broadbent, 2003; Faud-Luke, 2007: 38).

Therefore, the project might require a more customised iterative process to move

towards collaborative hotel development.

Evaluation of the respondents’ feedback (see Table 8) presented contrasting

perspectives from local residents. Although further design development is not the

purpose of this design research, this brought to the surface the issue of how we can

integrate feedback in the next step (i.e. whether to accept two opposing opinions

through consensus or select one perspective). It connects to the empowerment issue

of co-design in Chapter 2 and cannot be simply judged by certain designers or

researchers alone. Therefore, it requires greater consideration from all stakeholders.

According to RIBA (2011b: 6), when the stakeholders’ opinions do not reflect the

design development, it can remain a “window-dressing ritual” and relate to the notion

of 98

of trust. At this point P3, as an external interviewee, emphasised that it is important

to know who the decision-maker is for the process itself in co-design. The hotel

development might face the issue of how to develop further the criteria based on the

design criteria in Chapter 5, rather than directly reflecting on the hotel design.

Additionally, in reality, any decision involving just ten respondents from among the

total population of Chipping is limited in its ability to bring about better decisions.

Jasma and Visser (2011: 29) introduce the matter of developing criteria and reaching

agreement with stakeholders before starting the design process. Therefore, further

workshops in the co-design process are needed to deal with contrasting

perspectives.

Consequently, from the results of the workshop, the early involvement of local

residents, a customised iterative process and the development of criteria in the co-

design process are required. However, it is hard to overcome the gap between the

company’s, researcher’s and local residents’ perspectives through just one workshop

without involving them in the design process. Relevant communication methods for

local residents on these issues may be needed.

of 98

Chapter 8 Conclusion and Implications

8.1 Summary of the Design Research of the Chipping case

A key aspect of this research has been to link fundamental research in co-design

within academic boundaries with design practice. It has sought to delineate the key

characteristics of co-design as explored initially and apply them practically in a

collaborative hotel development through a design proposal and involvement of the

wider public. A case study of a recent development in Chipping was used to present

insights into collaboration in hotel design as well as to outline some opportunities and

challenges that exist for successful implementation of co-design in practice. The

research discusses the possibilities for collaborative development based on a

workshop with local residents. Eventually, the discussion was conducted via three

internal interviews with key participants in the project, four external interviews with

experts in collaborative hotel development, and three internal interviews with

researchers and ten local residents in a workshop.

The study aimed to develop an appropriate co-design approach for hotel

development in sustainable rural tourism. Especially, this research focuses on these

questions:

1) What are the opportunities for collaborative hotel development through co-design

in Chipping?

2) What issues arise when co-design principles are applied to hotel development?

3) In the context of Chipping, how can collaborative hotel development for

sustainable rural tourism be defined?

of 98

8.2 Conclusion for Co-design in Chipping

Opportunities for co-design: Chipping residents are not yet fully engaged in the co-

design process, as the project still divides the local public and professionals.

Although co-design has been mentioned less in the hotel industry than in others,

such as product design, there are opportunities and sufficient reasons to support co-

design in the case of Chipping, which can become a successful example of co-

design in hotel development for the following reasons: (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 in the design, and considered the current

research as an example of a successful case of incorporating co-design; (3) the UK

government encourages community involvement and partnerships in sustainable

rural tourism.

It proves that the three key participants are well motivated to work with the design

community in a collaborative hotel development seeking sustainable rural tourism.

Therefore, while co-design can be an effective process in actively solving problems

in rural tourism and hotel development, the Chipping project can be a positive

example of the application of co-design. However, there remain several constraints.

Constraints on collaborative hotel development: In Chipping, collaborative planning

has yet to be carried out via a fully relevant co-design process. Several constraints

(see Figure 23) were revealed by the workshop and field meetings and can be

broadly categorised as: (1) stakeholders, (2) process, and (3) attitudes towards co-

design. An interesting constraint revealed in the process is a lack of recognition of

the need for engagement of the public earlier within the co-design process. Even

though the hotel development company admitted that the effects of co-design in their

of 98

Figure 23 Constraints Map for Chipping

relationship with the local residents were positive, they still objected to the inclusion

of local stakeholders in the design process. They also held some stereotypical views

about local residents, seeing them as passive receivers with unrealistic opinions and

desires. Similarly, local stakeholders felt excluded from the hotel plans. These

distinctive constraints in Chipping were generated by specific local characteristics,

especially the closure of the furniture factory and consequent loss of jobs in

Chipping. Local residents look back to the furniture business as providing

employment. It differs from existing barriers, as explored in existing scholarship, as

the constraints are based on the characteristics of Chipping and its situation.

Therefore, the hotel development company and local stakeholders must perceive

themselves as interdependent in building the hotel and regenerating Chipping to

overcome these constraints on collaborative hotel development.

of 98

Defining collaborative hotel development in Chipping: As explained in

Chapter 2, due to various interpretations of co-creation, collaborative hotel

development can be interpreted differently (LSE, 2009). Through defining

collaborative hotel development in Chipping, the gap between hotel planning and the

theoretical background of co-design can be lessened. However, from the research,

the researcher found that co-design relies heavily on location context. Therefore, the

designer must recognize the “personality of the place”. Local characteristics are

integral to developing a collective understanding of the community’s needs, problems

and future opportunities (Lachapelle et al., 2012: 90). In this sense, co-design in

hotel development will require a customised process for each community involving

engaging the community in the process of designing, planning and implementing the

development. Therefore, “collaborative hotel development” in Chipping must bring

Figure 24 Iterative Plan with Design Community for Next Step in Chipping

of 98

together thinking and working from different perspectives, and involve resolving

considerable conflicts (Bucciarelli,1996; Adams et al., 2011; 588). This interpretation

is in line with “being situation driven”, among the characteristics of co-design, as

explained by Broadbent (2003) (see Chapter 2).

In the next step, collaborative hotel development needs agreement on the criteria for

development from many more local residents. To achieve this, effective

communication between the hotel development company, local stakeholders and

government authority in a well-organised workshop is an essential element in an

iterative co-design plan (see Figure 24). Furthermore, for successful collaboration,

Chipping needs to train designers to successfully manage a co-design process,

develop relevant tools and skills to understand stakeholders’ experience, and

overcome the constraints generated by specific local characteristics in order to

involve stakeholders in future development.

8.3 Further Implications of Co-design in Collaborative Hotel Development

Until recently, the dominant hotel planning model showed a linear process, starting

with clients and designers, followed by the knowledge of other experts, and then

distribution within the marketplace through business marketing in order to ensure a

sufficient and stable business. At this point, collaborative hotel development might be

an interesting case in co-design, revealing the need for an iterative process and

working with multi-stakeholders. Direct engagement of local people in the design

process can provide deeper insights into collaborative hotel development than simple

reliance on the analysis of co-design theories.

So what can other hotel developments gain from the experiences in Chipping

of 98

regarding the practical application of co-design?

1) The importance of workshops to observe stakeholders’ experience: desire and

opinions;

2) Preparation of expected constraints as challenges (i.e. different and conflicting

perspectives on development from local residents);

3) A way of understanding a certain context of place to create a reasonable design

proposal (i.e. using a community-based plan and contact with local people to reduce

misunderstandings);

4) Customising the co-design process according to differentiation of the

characteristics of the site.

However, there are sill conflicts and constraints when planning a hotel and promoting

sustainable rural tourism, even though co-design provides new opportunities for hotel

development. Therefore, co-design should not be shown as a panacea, but rather

evaluated critically in terms of its application to the hotel industry.

Initial suggestions for future research arise from this study. There is need for further

research to examine the nature of participation and define more clearly the various

aspects of co-design in the context of current rural tourism and the hotel industry.

Research should investigate other successful practices, beyond the range of that

investigated in this case study, to gain more objective insights into hotel planning.

Therefore, this approach raises certain research ideas:

(1) The study has highlighted the need for continued research into the constraints

Seungil Lee

of 98

revealed in the Chipping case study;

(2) Such research should identify methods for engagement of the wider public in the

context of a chosen site;

(3) The outcome for co-design in hotel development is still vague, so the productivity

of local community participation should be studied.

These research ideas will contribute to the possibilities of furthering co-design

practices in hotel development.

In conclusion, the key message of this research into sustainable rural tourism is that

theoretical knowledge and practical experience can not only be studied and

analysed, but successfully brought together. This research has shown that in reality

co-design is a complex process, especially when interaction or conflicts between

corporate players and local stakeholders are taken into account. It is vital to note that

this research into certain contexts is only one case of collaborative hotel

development and the link between co-design and hotel development. However, 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.

of 98

References

Adams, R., Daly, S., Mann, L. and Dall’Alba, G. (2011) Being a professional: Three

lenses into design thinking, acting, and being. Design Studies, 32, 588-607.

Albacete-Sáez, C., Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M. and Lloréns-Montes, J. (2007) Service

quality measurement in rural accommodation, Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1),

45-65.

Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American institute

of planners, 199, 244–255.

Bell, B. (2004) Good deeds, good design: community service through architecture.

New York: Preston Architectural press.

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

CoDesign, 4(1), 1-3.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2000) Tourism collaboration and partnerships e Politics,

practice and sustainability. Sydney: Channel View.

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

2-13.

Blank, U. (1989) The community tourism industry imperative: The necessity, the

opportunities, its potential. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

of 98

Braungart, M. and McDough, A. (1988) The Next Industrial Revolution. Atlantic

Monthly, 282(4), 82-92.

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

Cawley, M., Marsat, J. B. and Gillmor, D. (2007). Promoting integrated rural tourism:

comparative perspectives on institutional networking in France and Ireland. Tourism

Geographies, 9(4), 405-420.

Chipping and Bowland-with-Leagram Parish Council (2011) Chipping Village Plan

2011

Cooper, R. and Press, M. (1995) The design agenda: a guide to successful design

management. West Sussex: Wiley.

Countryside Commission (1995) Sustainable Rural Tourism: Opportunities for local

action, Cheltenham: Countryside Commission.

Cross, N. (1971) Here comes Everyman. In Cross, N (Eds.), Design Participation:

Proceedings of the Design Research Society’s Conference 1971, London, UK:

Academy editions.

Cross, N. (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer.

Crouch, G. and Ritchie, J. (1999) Tourism, Competitiveness, and Societal Prosperity.

Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 137-152.

of 98

Davis, S. (2000) Planning accommodation. In Ransley, J. and Ingram, H. (Eds.),

Developing Hospitality Properties and Facilities. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Design Council (2012) Design Council - co-design. Available at:

http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources-and-events/designers/design-glossary/co-

design/ [Accessed: 12 May 2012 ]

De Lacy, T., Battig, B., Moore, S. and Noakes, S. (2002) Public/private partnerships

for sustainable tourism: delivering a sustainability strategy for tourism destinations.

CRC for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Evans, K., de Jong, W. and Cronkleton, P. (2008) Future scenarios as a tool for

collaboration in forest communities. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating

Environment and Society, 1, 97–103.

Findeli, A. (2001) Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical,

methodological and ethical discussion. Design Issue, 17(1), 5-17.

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.

Geok, W. B. and Buche, I. (2008) Sustainable Tourism: Heritance Kandalama Resort

of Sri Lanka, Nanyang Technological University, publication no: ABCC-2008-009.

of 98

Godfrey, K. B. (1994) Sustainable Tourism – What is it Really? Address to the 18th

Meeting of Experts on Human Settlements Problems in Southern Europe, United

Nations Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Europe, Committee

on Human Settlements, Nicosia, Cyprus, 6-8 June.

Gray, B. (1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hamid, J. and Choi, Y. (2011) Co-creation between organisations and consumers.

Participatory Innovation Conference (PINC 2011), 215 – 222.

Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations. London: Penguin.

Iacofano, D. S., Moore, R. C. and Goltsman, S. M. (1988) Public involvement in

transit planning : a case study of Pierce Transit, Tacoma, Washington, USA. Design

Studies, 76-85.

Jamal, B. T. and Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism

Planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (1), 186-204.

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

Documento di Lavoro.

Jansma, J. E. and Visser, A. J. (2011) Agromere: Integrating urban agriculture in the

development of the city of Almere. UrbanAgriculture, 25, 28-31.

of 98

Jenkins, P. (2010) Concepts of social participation in architecture. In Jenkins, P. and

Forsyth, L. (Eds.), Architecture, Participation and Society. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jenkins, P., Pereira, M. and Townsend, L. (2010) Wider scoping of relevant

literature. In Jenkins, P. and Forsyth, L. (Eds.) Architecture, Participation and

Society. New York, NY: Routledge.

King, S., Ferrari, D., Conley, M. and Latimer, B. (1989) Co-design: A process of

design participation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Kristensson, P., Matthing, J. and Johansson, N. (2008) Key strategies for the

successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based

services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(4), 474-491.

Krippendorf, J. (1987) The Holiday Makers: Understanding the impact of Leisure and

Travel, English edition. Oxford: Heinemann.

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.

Ladkin, A. and Bertramini, A. M. (2002) Collaborative tourism planning: a case study

of Cusco, Peru. Current Issues in Tourism, 5 (2), 71-93.

Lane, B. (1990) Developing Sustainable Rural Tourism. Pare presented at Planning

and Tourism in Harmony. The Irish National Planning Conference. New market on

Fergus, Country Clare, Ireland.

of 98

Iacofano, D. S., Moore, R. C. and Goltsman, S. M. (1988) Public involvement in

transit planning : a case study of Pierce Transit, Tacoma, Washington, USA. Design

Studies, 76-85.

Lee, L. (2011) Business-community partnerships: understanding the nature of

partnership. Corporate Governance, 11(1), 29-40.

Lee, T. J. (2011) Role of hotel design in enhancing destination branding. Annals of

Tourism Research, 38(2), 708-711.

Lee, Y. (2008) Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for

designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31-50.

Lee, Y., Bichard, J. and Coleman, R. (2008) Designing with Users – How?

Investigating Users Involvement tactics for effective Inclusive Design Processes.

Proceedings of International DMI Education conference.

LSE (2009) Co-creation: New pathways to value an overview. Available at:

http://www.promisecorp.com/documents/COCREATION_REPORT.pdf [Assessed 11

April 2012]

Macdonald, J. (1993) Primary health care: Medicine in its place. London: Earthscan.

Machi, L. A. and McEvoy, B. T. (2009) The literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

of 98

Margolin, V. and Margolin, S. (2002) A “social model” of design: Issues of practice

and research. Design Issues, 18(4), 24-30.

Manzini, E. (2007) Emerging User Demands for Sustainable Solutions, EMUDE. In:

Michel, R. (Ed.), Design Research Now. Zurich: Birkhauser.

Manzini, E. (2007) The scenario of a multi-local society: creative communities active

networks and enabling solutions. In: Manzini, E., Walker, S. and Wylant, B. (Eds.),

Enabling Solutions for sustainable living: A workshop. Calgary: The University of

Calgary Press.

Manzini, E. (2009) Service design in the age of networks and sustainability. In:

Miettinen, S. and Koivisto, M. (Eds.), Designing Services with Innovative Methods.

Publication Series of the University of Art and Design, Helsinki B 93. Kuopio

Academy of Design, Taitemia Publication Series 33, Otava. Keuruu, 2009.

Murphy, P. E. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuren.

NSW Heritage Office (2005) Design in Context: Guidelines for Infill Development In

the Historic Environment. Available at:

www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/DesignInContext.pdf [Assessed 6 May 2012].

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.

of 98

Panyik, E., Costa, C. and Rátz, T. (2011) Implementing integrated rural tourism: An

event-based approach. 32 (6), 1352-1363.

Pattullo, P. and Minelli, O. (2006) Ethical Travel Guide: Your Passport to Exciting.

Gateshead: Bath press.

Pfueller, S.L., Lee, D. and Laing, J. (2011) Tourism Partnerships in Protected Areas:

Exploring Contributions to Sustainability. Environmental management, 2011(48),

734-749.

Pigram, J. (1993) Planning for Tourism in Rural Areas: Bridging the Policy

Implementation Gap. In Pearce, D. and Butler, R. (Eds.), Tourism Research:

Critiques and Challenges. London: Routledge.

Polanyi, M. (1967) The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge.

Press, M. (2011) Working the Crowed: Crowdsourcing as a Strategy for Co-design.

In Cooper, R., Junginger, S. and Lockwood, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Design

Mangement. Oxford: Berg.

Ransley, J. (2004) Design. In Ransley, J. and Ingram, H. (Eds.), Developing

Hospitality Properties and Facilities. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Riewoldt, O. (2006) New hotel design. London: Laurence King Publishing.

RIBA (2011a) Guide to Localism Opportunities for architects: Part one:

Neighbourhood planning, November.

of 98

RIBA (2011b) Guide to Localism Opportunities for architects: Part two: Getting

community engagement right, November.

Ribble Valley Borough Council (2011) Ribble Valley Borough Council Report to

Planning & Development Commitment. Available at:

http://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/coreConsultation/supportingDocs/Use_of_Plannng_O

bligations_background_paper_2008.pdf [Assessed: 20 April 2012]

Roxburgh, C. (2009) The use and abuse of scenarios. McKinsey&Company,

November 2009, 1-10.

Richardson, J., Irwin, T. and Sherwin, C. (2005) Design & Sustainability A Scoping

Report: for the Sustainable Design Forum. London: Design Council.

Rutes, W. A., Penner, R. H. and Adams, L. (2001) Hotel Design, Planning, and

Development. New York: W.W. Norton.

Sanches, M. G. and Frankel, L. (2010) Co-design in Public Spaces: an

Interdisciplinary Approach to Street Furniture Development, dsr2010.

Sanders, E.B.-N. (2006) Design serving people. In Salmi, E. and Anusionwu, L.

(Eds.), Cumulus Working Papers. Helsinki, Finland: Copenhagen, University of Art

and Design, 28–33.

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.

of 98

Sato, K. (2009) Perspectives on design research. In Poggenpohl, S. and Sato, K.

(Eds.), Design intergrations: research and collaboration. Bristol: Intellect.

Scheyvens, R. (1999) Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities.

Tourism Management, 20(2), 245-249.

SEA Communications (2010) Can Co-design Benefit Deprived Communities?: The

‘Designing Communities’ Story. Available at: http://www.sea-

communications.co.uk/files/PDF/Designing_Communities_Story.pdf [Assessed: 29

April 2012 ]

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

Thomson Business Press.

Shepherd, A. (1998) Sustainable rural development. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Simmons, D. G. (1994) Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism

Management, 15(2), 98-108.

Siu, K. W. (2003) Users’ Creative Responses and Designers ’ Roles. Design Issues,

19(2), 64-74.

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.

Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., van der Lugt, R., and Sanders, E.B.-N. (2005)

Contextmapping: experiences from practice. Co Design, 1 (2), 119–149.

of 98

Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable tourism management. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

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

Taboada, M. B., Dutra, L. X. and Haworth, R. (2010) Engaging complexity through

collaborative brand design. Design Research Society International Conference 2010.

The Prince’s Regeneration Trust (n.d.) Planning for Sustainability: a local authority

toolkit. Available at: http://www.hexhamtowncouncil.gov.uk/wp-

content/uploads/Princes-Regeneration-Trust-Planning-for-Sustainability.pdf

[Assessed: 11 May 2012]

Tosun, C. (2000) Limits to community participation in the tourism development

process in developing countries. Tourism Management 21, 613–33.

Tress, B. and Tress, G. (2003) Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape

planning-a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(3), 161-178.

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.

UNEP (2002) Industry as a partner for sustainable development: Tourism, UK: The

Beacon.

Visser, A. J., Jansma, J. E., Schoorlemmer, E. and SlingerlandIn, M. (2009) How to

of 98

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 peri-urban

areas. the Netherkands: Wageningen Academic.

Walford, N. (2001) Patterns of Development in Tourist Accommodation Enterprises

on Farms in England and Wales [J ]. Applied Geography, 21, 331 - 345.

Walker, S. (2007) Design Redux. In Chapmani, J. and Gant, N. (Eds.), Designers,

Visionaries + Other stories: A collection of sustainable design essays. Oxon:

Earthscan.

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.

Wates, N. and Knevitt, C. (1987) Community architecture: how people are creating

their own environment. London: Penguin Books.

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.

of 98

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]

Yin, R. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Zeisel, J. (2006) Inquiry by Design. New York: Norton & Co Ltd.

of 98

Appendices

Appendix 1 Interview Question

1) Question to Internal participants

1. Could you tell me what you understand the term “co-design” to mean? In your

opinion, what are the key principles of co-design?

2. Do you use co-design in projects?

• If yes, what are the key steps?

• What are the appropriate situations suited to co-design?

• If you don’t use it, why not?

3. Considering the interest of co-design, how are co-design methods perceived in

your organization?

4. What, to you, is the relationship between consultation and co-design in practice?

5. From your perspective, could you imagine the use of co-design in the Chipping

project for rural tourism?

6. What are the practical challenges you would face in terms of using co-design in

Chipping?

7. Whose responsibility is it to instigate co-design?

8. From your perspective, what value would co-design bring to the industry?

9. Is there anything else you would like to add?

of 98


2) Question to External participants

1. Which organization do you work for? and What is your job title?



3. What kinds of projects has your organization carried out?

4. Have you utilized principles of co-design in these projects? If yes, could you

describe how with the key steps? If not, why not?

5. What are the appropriate situations suited to co-design?

6. What are the practical challenges you have faced?

7. From your perspective, what value would co-design bring to the industry?

8. What, to you, is the relationship between consultation and co-design in practice?

• Do you think it is continuum? If yes, is it possible to get out of the co-design’

area temporally in the same project?

9. Do you use different strategies for different projects in terms of using co-design

methods?

• How is it different?

of 98

• Which criteria do you use to distinguish each other? Is there any standard?

10. Have you experienced failure case to use co-design methods? If yes, why?

11. Have you thought co-design method as a way of sustainable design? If yes,

which area is the most important?

12. Have you thought co-design method to hotel industry? If yes, do you think it is

possible?

13. What is the most important element in design approach to co-design?

of 98


3) Question to an External participant (Hotel Planning Manager)



2. Have you thought co-design method to hotel industry? If yes, do you think it is

possible?

3. From your perspective as a company level in hotel industry, what is your opinion

of the rationale of using co-design methods in hotel development?

4. What is your opinion of the reason of no choosing co-design methods in hotel

development?

5. Is there anything else you would like to add?

of 98


4) Question to Researchers



2. What are the practical challenges you would face in terms of practical research in

Chipping?

of 98

Appendix 2 Communication Material

1) Collaborative Hotel Development Brochure in Chipping

collaborative hotel development_paper

Documents

development of design

design research

implications of codesign

possible codesign

codesign approach

application of codesign

possibility of codesign

chipping hotel development