Collaborative Hotel Development

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourisma Case Study of Chipping, UK

Seungil Lee

MA in Design Management

Design Research Project (LICA 426)

10 Sep 2012

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism Seungil Lee Contents

1The Research Overview

2 Methods & Process

3 Results

4 Insights

5 Conclusion

Project SummaryTopicTheoretical BackgroundFocusObjective

Research ProgrammeResearch NetworkField Research in the UK

DiscussionsReflections

Findings

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism Seungil Lee

Project Summary

1.The Research Overview

The village is in the centre of a conservation area with stone

Arkwright Mill (Grade II).

Chipping has shops, schools, churches and several

restaurants and cafés. Several attractive inns can

Figure 3 Newspaper article announcing the closure of HJ Berry

Chipping, U

KFurniture factory

Chipping Village Plan 2011

Tourism

A development companyWith LICA

Doing research !

Generating Ideas together

Workshop with local residents

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism Seungil Lee 1.The Research Overview

Rural Tourism Sustainable

Tourism

Community-based approach Co-design What about

hotel?

UK

?

Topic

Tourism is a vital industry in the countryside

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

Encouraging direct participation to promote sustainable tourism

Using co-design in tourism as sustainable design

Rural tourism accounts for £14 billion in income and supports 380,000 jobs.

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

VisitBritain (2005)

Sustainable Tourism generates benefits for countryside visitors and local communities without damaging the environment.(Countryside Commission, 1995)

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

A community-based approach to tourism development is a precondition for sustainability.(Woodley, 1993; Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997)

The participation of relevant stakeholders is a social dimension of sustainable tourism. (WTO, 2004; Panyik et al., 2011)

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

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

Co-design is increasingly popular in many businesses and organizations. (Binder, Brandt, & Gregory; Steen, 2008)


Co-design

Theoretical Background

Sanders and Stappers (2008: 6) define co-design as creative designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process.Broadbent (2003) describes the following characteristics of co-design (Faud-Luke, 2007: 38):

• Being holistic, intuitive, descriptive, experiential and empirical, pragmatic and wisdom/values-based approach;

• Being an iterative, non-linear interactive process;

• Being “action-based” research;

• Involving top-down and bottom-up approaches;

• Simulating the real world;

• Being useful for complex systems or problems;

• Being situation driven, especially by common human situations;

• Satisfying pluralistic outcomes;

• Being internalised by the system.

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

(LSE, 2009: 7)


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

(Osborne et al., 2002: 1)

Tourism planning through collaboration with the community(e.g. Jamal & Getz, 1995)

Urban and regional planning(cf. Cross, 1972; Communityplanning, 2008; Nasser & Holyoak, 2012)

Collaborative destination design(cf. Wang & Fesenmaier, 2007; Taboada et al., 2009)

Tourism policymaking(cf. Bramwell & Sharman, 1999)

ExistingScholarship

of co-design in tourism

Topic


Rural Tourism Sustainable

Tourism

Community-based approach Co-design What about

hotel?

Focus

UK

?

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

(Wight, 1997: 210)

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

(Taboada et al., 2010: 72)


Focus

Customer-Firm:Continuous

Involvement/Dialogue Type

Firm-Customer:Sporadic

ProductionProcess

Consumption/Usage Process

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

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

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

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

8'%%)&%/9

Co-production

Firm-drivenInnovation

8&*&:)(/9Feedback and learning loopsCompletencies of employeesImproved loyaltySales of other hotel servicesHigher customer satisfactionEnhanced profitabilityUnique positive experiences

8'%%)&%/9Internal barriersCost and resourcesTrustOrganisational resistanceTop-down commitmentCultural barriersStructural and cultural barriersHigh labor turnoverExternal barriersConflict of interestRegulatory barriersContext related barriersLack of acceptance from customersTrust between customers and hotel

Co-creationCustomer-drivenCustomisation

COMMUNITYENVIRONMENTCOLLABORATIONINNOVATION

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY REPORT

www.ihg.com/crLast updated March 2012 /

Few indirect examples of co-design in hotel development

IHG Cooperate ResponsibilityReport (2011)

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

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

Chipping, UK

Hotel development company

Needs a direct example

Countryside in the UKCommunity-led Chipping Village Plan 2011

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

Case studies can provide knowledge about previously under-investigated research areas. (Eisenhardt, 1989; Gummesson, 2000; Kristensson et al., 2008: 479)


Focus

The former factory site

Chipping Brook

Case Study site_Chipping


Objectives

1.The Research Overview

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

To determine whether there are opportunities for collaborative hotel development through co-design.To investigate issues arising when co-design principles are applied to hotel development.To identify a collaborative hotel development for sustainable rural tourism in this context.

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism Seungil Lee 2. Methods & Process

Synthesis Visualization Response

Village Plan

Consultation

Community led

Company led

Phase 1Diagnose

Phase 2Co-discover

Phase 3Design Development

Phase 4Co-design

Research Period

Research Phase

Research activities

April 2012 May 2012 July 2012June 2012Research Programme for Chipping project

The overall design process is convergent, but it will contain periods of deliberate divergence.(Nigel Cross, 2000)

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

(Lawson, 1991)

The Dott methodology adopts a ‘bottom-up’ approach, encouraging both professionals and the public to share ideas and to have greater ownership of the solutions. (Design Council, 1996)


Research Network

Academic design practiceyielding discussions, papers and conceptual objects

Hotel development companyproject manager Architect Landscape architect

Ecology company Environmental engineeringcompany (Flood)

Planning consultants(Highways)

Landscaping Topographical survey

Service designer Architect Hotel Planning Manager

Councillor Other researchers

Local residents

x 10

External Interview (P3-P6) Additional Interview (P7-P9)

Internal Interview (P1-P2) Workshop

Commercial design practice

Fundamental Research

Applied Research

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

2. Methods & Process

Researcher

Field meeting & workshop

x 3

Arboriculturalconsultants


Field Research


Phase 1: Diagnose

Option 1: Aspiration

Land To West:9 Detached20 Semi-Detached32 Terrace1 Apartment Block

Land To North:5 Detached

Former HJ Berry & Sons Complex:10 Detached Eco Cabins12 Semi-Detached Cottages3 Terrace Cottages50 Car Parking Spaces

++++

+

++++

Community-led Village Plan

The Future :The Sustainable Vision

The joint efforts of Chipping village and 53N could present signi!cant opportunities and bene!ts for all. Some of these bene!ts could include:

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

++

+

++

++++

+

+

ECOLOGY / NATURE

CHIPPING VILLAGE

Existing Shops/ Pub / Hotel

Cricket Pitch& Pavillion

Car Parking

Allotments

Schools

Leisure &Tourism

Mill Pond

Kirk MillHeritage

RenewableEnergy

Cycle & WalkingRoutes

SuperfastBroadband

Supporting LocalFacilities

RiversideWalk

WasteEnergy

WaterWheel

TowardsCarbon Neutral

NewHousing

RegisteredProviders

NEW EMPLOYMENT

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

Company-led Plan Company aspirations

FOREST OFBOWLANDArea of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Forest of Bowland AONB

PO Box 9, Guild House

Cross Street, Preston, PR1 8RD

Tel: 01772 531473

Fax: 01772 533423

[email protected]

www.forestofbowland.com

The Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

is a nationally protected landscape and internationally important for

its heather moorland, blanket bog and rare birds. The AONB is

managed by a partnership of landowners, farmers, voluntary

organisations, wildlife groups, recreation groups, local councils and

government agencies, who work to protect, conserve and enhance

the natural and cultural heritage of this special area.

Lancashire County Council acts as the lead authority for the

Forest of Bowland AONB Joint Advisory Committee a partnership

comprising: Lancashire County Council, North Yorkshire County

Council, Craven District Council, Lancaster City Council, Pendle

Borough Council, Preston City Council, Ribble Valley Borough

Council,Wyre Borough Council, Lancashire Association of Parish

and Town Councils,Yorkshire Local Councils Association, NWDA,

DEFRA, Countryside Agency, United Utilities plc, Environment

Agency, English Nature, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

(RSPB), Forest of Bowland Landowning and Farmers Advisory Group

and the Ramblers Association.

Sense of Place Toolkit

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

'

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

''

'

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

>$&&8')8#-$'

?$@$=A$#':;<<'

AONB materials

Existing Tourism Resources SWOT

UnderstandingChipping contexts

AnalysingChipping contexts


Regulation

A focus on constraints implies sufficient identification and

understanding to make choices as solutions.

(Vandenbosch & Gallagher, 2004: 199)

121

Iconic model of the design processafter Mihajlo D. Mesarovic (1964)

In this model, Mesarovic employs a helix as the central struc-ture, suggesting both a repeated cycle of steps and progress through time.

Peter Rowe (1987) notes that Mesarovic’s model is similar in structure to Asimow’s. (See pages 92-95.) “Throughout this kind of account runs the assumption that it is possible to discriminate distinct phases of activity and, further more, that such distinctions have relevance to our understanding of design.” Rowe continues, “The very maintenance of distinct phases of activity, with a beginning and an end, and with

feedback loops among them, requires that objective per-formance criteria can be explicitly stated in a manner that fundamentally guides the procedure. Moreover, there is a strong implication that the eventual synthesis of information in the form of some designed object follows in a straightfor-ward fashion from analysis of the problem at hand together with likely performance criteria. Therefore, once a problem has been defi ned, its solution is made directly accessible in terms of that defi nition.” Rowe describes this view as “be-haviorist” and also links it to “operations research”.

Hotel Development companyProject manager

Project manager

Field Research Phase 2: Co-discover

121






Field meeting_1

Field meeting_2

Idea Workshop Internal Interview

Phase 1: Diagnose

Gaining In-depth understanding ofChipping context

Working with key informants

Examining the perspective of co-design

No involvement of local input

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

Co-design:a beneficial and a positive method

Current process isco-design. “I feel community

involvement with the evolution of Chipping is very important.”

P2

P1


121





Common groundFounder

P3

PAD Architects LLPDirector

THE SHILLAProject Manager

P5

Lancaster Councillor

Researchers

Field Research Phase 2: Co-discover


External Interview

Additional Interview

Exploring different perspectives related to hotel planning and co-design in order to maintain objectivity

Identifying current design processin Chipping

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

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

Hotel development through co-design could bring benefits to both local residents and the development company:

(P4) Providing better facilities

(P5) Sharing cultural values & reflecting local identity

(P6) Easier way for the planning committee

P4

P7

P8

P9

P6


Field Research Phase 3: Design Development


Page 43 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

ty

Distinctiveness

Sustainability

Criteria

Design Criteria Hotel Community Business Partnership Stakeholdersʼ Map

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.

Objectives:To realise the development in ChippingTo facilitate local residentsʼ access to the hotel developmentTo 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.



Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Chipping Brook

Mill Building

Mill Pond

Former Factory site


Conceptual maps for zones

Heritage experience

Friendly Business environment& Healthcare

Natural Experiences

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism Seungil Lee 2. Methods & Process


Page 57 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.

Visualisation of scenario for Zone 3

Four future scenarios for Zone 3

Peopleʼs mental images of the future can be articulated in a picture.Zeisel (2006: 272)

One architectural sketch is “worth 10,000 words” and can be used for communication to aid design collaboration.

Tzonis (2004: 69)

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.

Visser et al. (2009: 244)

Page 50 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

Conceptual maps for zones


Adapted from Goal-action-feedback loops (Pangaro, 2002)

Goal(Desire State)

Action

Feedback(Transfer of information)

Measurement

Field Research Phase 4: Co-design with workshop

Local residents

x 10

Small workshop was conducted with 10 local residents.

Most participants felt comfortable relating their opinions.

Some participants hesitated to speak and preferred to listen.

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

T

V

V

T

V

V

To collect different perspectives of:1) their participation in the hotel development2) their opinions of the visualised scenarios



Findings from workshop

3. Results

Criteria

Appropriateness

Easy & AttractiveInformation

Co-existence Extendibility

Distinctiveness

Sustainability

Feedback of Design Proposal

Measurement

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

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

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

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

Limited number of participants in achieving objectivity

x 10

Needs guidelines to combine various opinions

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism Seungil Lee 3. Results

Findings: Inclusion of co-design in Chipping research

Additional interview

Internalinterview

Companylevel

Residentslevel

External interview

Co-design

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

- Importance of local context

- Negative constraint in design process

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

- Positive method for hotel development- Benefits of broadening ideas- Providing knowledge to local residents in the change of environment

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

Positive response Negative response

Gap between

general co-d

esign and

co-design in reali

ty

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism Seungil Lee 4. Insights

Opportunities for Co-design in Chipping

Local community

Hotel development

company

UK Government

Chipping in the UK

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

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

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

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

Positive motivation

Osborne et al. (2002)

Chipping Village Plan 2011 (2011)

Community Commission (1995)Workshop in research

Interviews in research


Barriers presented by the Company and Local Residents

Prejudice and alienation

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

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

B : Barriers in theoretical background and existing cases EC: Barriers in external interviews related to hotel planning C: Barriers in internal interviews related to Chipping project

W: Barriers in workshop with local residents M: Barriers in field meetings & workshop with development company


Collaborative Hotel Development in Chipping

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

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

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

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

Together

Thinking

Working

Hotel development company Local community

New social activity Existing social activity


Future Stages of Co-design in Chipping

Current Process of Hotel Development in Chippingfrom a corporate

Desired Process of Hotel Development in Chippingfrom local residents

Next step of Hotel Development in Chipping

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

Steps in process

(Influenced by Lee, 2008)

Current and desired process in Chipping project is still linear movement

One of the characteristics of co-design is an iterative, non-linear interactive process. (Broadbent, 2003; Faud-Luke, 2007: 38)

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


Conclusion

5. Conclusion

Limitation Time limitation for further researches Sensitive constraints in commercial businessTrust between the company and the researcher

Learning The importance of direct engagement of local people in deeper insights of projectCo-design research through design practiceCo-design relies on the context of place and characteristics of people who will be involved.Co-design is no panacea due to existing barriers

What next? Needs actual outcome of co-design in hotel development and the productivity of local community participationThe effects of constraints and barriers in terms of co-design Ways of overcoming existing barriers

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

Seungil Lee Lancaster University

Thank youSeungil LeeEmail: [email protected]



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

Binder, T., Brandt, E., & Gregory, J. (2008) Editorial: Design participation(-s). CoDesign, 4(1), 1-3.

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

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

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

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

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

Communityplanning.net (2008) community planning | casestudies | Caterham Barracks Village. [online] Available at: http://www.communityplanning.net/casestudies/casestudy009.php [Accessed: 18 April 2012].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Lee, Y. (2008) Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles fordesigners in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31-50.LSE (2009) Co-creation: New pathways to value an overview. Available at: http://www.promisecorp.com/documents/COCREATION_REPORT.pdf [Assessed 11 April 2012]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit Britain (2005) Rural and Farm Tourism. England Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Tourism Organisation (WTO). (2004) Sustainable development of tourism e Conceptual definition. Available at: http://www.world- tourism.org/sustainable/top/concepts.htm. [Assessed 21 November 2009]

Zeisel, J. (2006) Inquiry by Design. New York: Norton & Co Ltd.

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

Visit Britain (2005) Rural and Farm Tourism. England Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Tourism Organisation (WTO). (2004) Sustainable development of tourism e Conceptual definition. Available at: http://www.world- tourism.org/sustainable/top/concepts.htm. [Assessed 21 November 2009]

Zeisel, J. (2006) Inquiry by Design. New York: Norton & Co Ltd.

Date post:	23-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	seungil-lee
View:	219 times
Download:	2 times

Collaborative Hotel Development

Documents