Download pdf - Bramwell, Sharman 1999 Local Collaboration

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 392Ð415, 1999Þ 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved\ Pergamon Printed in Great Britain

0160-7383/99 $19.00+0.00

PII: S0160-7383(98)00105-4

COLLABORATION IN LOCALTOURISM POLICYMAKING

Bill BramwellAngela Sharman

Sheffield Hallam University, UK

Abstract: Collaborations among stakeholders to develop policies for a destination are thesubject of growing interest among researchers and managers. This paper presents an analyticalframework to assess whether local collaborative arrangements are inclusionary and involvecollective learning and consensus-building. The framework considers whether or not specificcollaborations reduce the power imbalances between stakeholders, and it develops the conceptof partial consensus. The practical value of the framework is suggested in an examination oflocal collaborative arrangements to develop a visitor management plan for the Hope Valleyin Britain|s Peak District National Park. Keywords: policymaking, collaborative planning,consensus-building, stakeholders, Peak District, United Kingdom. Þ 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reserved.

Re�sume� : La collaboration dans la politique locale du tourisme. Les collaborations parmi lesinte�resse�s pour de�velopper des politiques pour une destination touristique sont le sujet d|uninte�re¼t croissant parmi les chercheurs et les directeurs. Cet article pre�sente un cadre analytiquepour de�terminer si les de�cisions collaboratives locales sont inclusives et si elles entraı¼nent unde�veloppement ciollectif de connaissances et de consensus d|opinion. Ce cadre mesure si cer-taines collaborations re�duisent les de�se�quilibres de pouvoir entre inte�resse�s, et il de�veloppe leconcept de consensus partiel. La valeur pratique du cadre est sugge�re� dans un examen dede�cisions collaboratives locales pour de�velopper un plan de gestion de visiteurs a� la valle�e deHope dans le parc national du Peak District au Royaume-Uni. Mots-cle�s: politique de tourisme,planification collaborative, consensus, inte�resse�s, Peak District, Royaume-Uni. Þ 1999 ElsevierScience Ltd. All rights reserved.

There are many potential benefits when stakeholders in a destinationcollaborate together and attempt to build a consensus about tourismpolicies. First, such collaboration potentially avoids the cost of resolv-ing adversarial conflicts among stakeholders in the long term (Healey1998). Adversarial conflicts are wasteful as stakeholders entrenchtheir mutual suspicions, improve their adversarial skills and play outsimilar conflicts around each subsequent issue. Second, collaborativerelations may be more politically legitimate if they give stakeholdersa greater influence in the decision-making which affects their lives(Benveniste 1989). Third, this collaboration improves the coor-dination of policies and related actions, and promotes considerationof the economic, environmental, and social impacts of tourism. Theresulting outcomes are potentially more efficient and sustainable

Bill Bramwell is Reader in Tourism Management and Angela Sharman is Teaching andResearch Associate in the Centre for Tourism, Sheffield Hallam University (City Campus,Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK. Email ð[email protected]Ł). Bill Bramwell helped developlocally-based collaborative tourism partnerships while employed by the English Tourist Board.He co-edits the Journal of Sustainable Tourism and his research interests include urban andsustainable tourism planning. Angela Sharman conducts research on environmental man-agement and sustainable tourism.

392

393BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN

(Lane 1994). Further, collaboration {{adds value|| by building on thestore of knowledge, insights, and capabilities of stakeholders in thedestination (Bramwell and Broom 1989). For example, Roberts andBradley (1991) suggest that the sharing of ideas among stakeholdersresults in a richer understanding of issues and leads to more innovativepolicies. Such joint working may also promote a {{shared ownership||of the resulting policies, and thereby channel energies into jointimplementation or {{co-production|| (Susskind and Elliott 1983).

While locally-based tourism collaborations may offer advantages tostakeholders and destinations, their development gives rise to difficultchallenges. For example, the resource allocations, policy ideas, andinstitutional practices embedded within society may often restrict theinfluence of particular stakeholders on the collaborative arrange-ments. The power of stakeholders is often unequal, and it is suggestedthat {{power governs the interaction of individuals, organizations andagencies influencing, or trying to influence, the formulation of tourismpolicy and the manner in which it is implemented|| (Hall 1994:52).

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework of issues toconsider when evaluating whether local collaborative tourism pol-icymaking is inclusionary and involves collective learning and con-sensus-building. Destination managers need advice about how topromote locally-based collaborative arrangements, and the frameworkis intended to assist them in this work. The proposed frameworkincorporates consideration of the extent to which power imbalancesamong stakeholders are reduced, if at all, within a collaboration. Itdiscusses whether and how relevant stakeholders have a voice, areinvolved in collective learning, and build trust and consensual viewsacross divisions. Further, the paper indicates the practical value ofthe theoretical framework by applying it to assess stakeholder involve-ment in the development of a visitor management plan for the HopeValley and Edale in Britain|s Peak District National Park. This areahas long been a magnet for visitors, and there is concern about theimpacts of tourism on its physical environment and ways of life.While the circumstances of each collaborative initiative are unique,important general lessons still may be learnt by assessing whetherindividual initiatives succeed in being inclusionary and based on col-lective learning and consensus-building.

LOCAL COLLABORATIVE POLICY-MAKING

The framework developed in the paper to assess local collaborativetourism policy-making draws ideas from literature about inter-organizational collaboration, {{communicative|| approaches to plan-ning, and citizen participation. The review suggests that some recentassessments of tourism policymaking draw on general theories ofinterorganizational collaboration to explain how stakeholders maycollaborate to solve problems (Jamal and Getz 1995; Long 1997; Selinand Beason 1991). In the field of interorganizational theory, Graysuggests that collaboration occurs when the problem is complex anda single organization cannot solve it on its own. It {{is a process in whichthose parties with a stake in the problem actively seek a mutually

394 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

determined solution||, with stakeholders retaining their independencein decision making despite agreeing to abide by shared rules amongthe collaborating parties (1989:xviii). Getz and Jamal (1994) useinterorganizational theory to assess stakeholder collaboration in tour-ism planning in Canada|s Canmore and Bow Corridor, while Jamaland Getz (1997) employ the same theory to examine community-based {{visioning|| for tourism development. Interorganizational col-laboration theory also forms a basis for Selin and Chavez (1995) todevelop an evolutionary model of partnerships in destinations, andfor Selin and Myers (1998) to assess factors constraining or promotingthe effectiveness of such partnerships.

Reed reviews Jamal and Getz|s work on collaboration in destinationsand argues that {{While power relations are included within col-laborative theory, it is frequently assumed that collaboration canovercome power imbalances by involving all stakeholders in a processthat meets their needs|| (1997:567). She contends that such powerdifferences among stakeholders actually are so embedded in societythat they always affect the nature of the collaboration. A furtherproblem not highlighted by Reed is that collaboration theory mightsuggest the inequitable proposition that participants may be excludedfrom collaborative arrangements if they lack resources or capacity.Hence, Jamal and Getz suggest that {{a stakeholder who is impactedby the actions of other stakeholders has a right to become involved inorder to moderate those impacts, but must also have the resourcesand skills (capacity) in order to participate|| (1995:194).

The literature on {{communicative|| approaches to planningexplores opportunities to enable relevant stakeholders to have a voicein policymaking. For example, Healey (1997) contends that planningshould draw on the webs of relations found in local areas and buildthe capacities of stakeholders so that they can have more directinfluence on their own lives. It is argued that it is important to promotehorizontal forms of collaboration, where stakeholders with legitimateand often conflicting interests in a local area engage in discourse andconsensus-building. The challenge is seen as developing the capacityof the diverse stakeholders who potentially could assert concern abouttheir locality (Bryson and Crosby 1992; Forester 1989; Innes 1995).

Healey (1997) emphasizes how systemic constraints, such aspower inequalities and institutional practices, can inhibit the influ-ence of stakeholders on collaborative arrangements, but she alsomoves beyond simply considering who controls the resource flows.Attention is focused on the processes within collaboration throughwhich relations can be built up among relevant stakeholders, andto the communicative forms through which their often conflictinginterests and views can be identified and consensus developed. Muchemphasis is placed on respectful {{speaking and listening|| amongstakeholders (Forester 1989). It is contended that forms of dialogue,collective learning, and consensus-building are required which buildtrust, confidence, and mutual understanding across the often deepfractures which divide the stakeholders (Friedmann 1992). In suchways {{Consensus-building practices have transformative potential,changing the frameworks for thinking, and potentially changing the


content and modes of use of rules, and the way resources flow|| (Healey1997:265).

In the literature on citizen participation in tourism policymakingthere is much discussion of the merits of specific techniques of involve-ment (Marien and Pizam 1998; Ritchie 1985). However, the broaderprocesses of citizens and industry leaders {{crafting|| a vision for thedevelopment of a destination are also examined (Ritchie 1993). Somecontributions suggest that there are differing degrees of intensity ofparticipation in the planning process, with Arnstein|s (1969) workon citizen involvement in decision-making sometimes being cited(Haywood 1988; Simmons 1994). Arnstein describes increasinglyintense citizen inputs on a continuum whose opposite poles aremanipulation and citizen control, and which distinguishes betweentokenism and citizen power.

This paper|s theoretical framework draws mutually compatibleideas from literature in the above three fields. The framework ident-ifies issues to consider when evaluating the extent to which a localinitiative in collaborative tourism policymaking is inclusionary andpromotes collective learning and consensus-building. Concern for theimportant systemic constraints which affect a collaboration is inte-grated with the need to identify whether there is evidence of moredemocratic forms of policymaking. Three sets of issues are consideredin the framework, these being the scope of the collaboration, itsintensity, and the degree to which consensus emerges among par-ticipants. Important issues not included in the framework surroundthe implementation of the policies resulting from the collaboration.Numbers assigned to each issue in the framework are also used in itsapplication to the Hope Valley and Edale case study.

Scope of the Collaboration

One set of issues to consider when evaluating collaborative pol-icymaking in a destination relate to the scope of the collaboration.This is denoted here as {{A|| and is made up of several levels ofrelationships and representations.

The extent to which the range of participating stakeholders is representative ofall relevant stakeholders (A1). A study of participants in a tourism andoutdoor recreation alliance in the United States found that theyfrequently mentioned the diversity of the participating stakeholdersas a factor in the alliance|s effectiveness (Selin and Myers 1998). Astakeholder is taken here to be {{any person, group, or organizationthat is affected by the causes or consequences of an issue|| (Brysonand Crosby 1992:65). This group may include those with fairly similartourism interests, which may apply to environmental groups, andalso those with heterogeneous interests, which often occurs with thecommunity living in the destination (Abbot 1996). There are alsogovernment stakeholders involved in collaborative arrangements forreasons such as to address concerns about {{public goods|| (Jamal andGetz 1995) and to protect less active citizens (Murdoch and Abram


1998). It is difficult to assess what might be a representative balanceamong the relevant stakeholder groups. For example, what balanceshould there be between stakeholders with power and those with littlepower, and between {{insider|| stakeholders who live in the destinationand are directly affected by tourism policies and {{outsiders|| whohave an interest in the area|s tourism but are less directly affected?(Department of Environment 1994). Another key issue is that somestakeholders seek to collaborate only with those who share compatiblegoals and resources while others are ignored or marginalized (Stoker1995). Hence, collaborative arrangements in destinations can becomeconversations among local elites, rather than involving a rep-resentative range of stakeholders.

The extent to which relevant stakeholders see there are positive benefits to enticetheir participation (A2). For example, managers of tourism businessesmay be encouraged to collaborate if it offers them the prospect ofgreater influence on decision-making, additional resources for theirobjectives, or improvements to destination management (Jamal andGetz 1995; Selin and Beason 1991; Waddock 1991). By contrast, somestakeholders may remain outsiders as they are concerned either thatthe collaboration will be coopted by dominant groups or that the policyoutcomes will be detrimental to the destination (Stoker 1995).

Whether the collaboration includes a facilitator and the stakeholders responsiblefor implementation (A3). At least one stakeholder is required to initiateand facilitate a collaboration, such as by inviting participants to joinand by organizing meetings. This facilitator may be from outside thedestination, with an {{outsider|| sometimes considered to have fewervested interests (Friedmann 1992). A facilitator may encourage par-ticipation by all relevant stakeholders, but could favour some stake-holders and marginalize others. A related issue is that collaborationsmay be more successful if they include the stakeholders likely to beresponsible for policy implementation (Benveniste 1989). Hence, Graycontends that {{Acceptance of any solution is enhanced when thosewho must abide by it are included in designing the solution|| (1989:64).If the implementers are not involved, then the collaboration may beby-passed by other policy arenas (Reed 1997). In addition, the peoplewho will implement a policy often provide valuable information aboutthe likely practical issues of implementation.

The extent to which individuals representing a stakeholder group are fullyrepresentative of that group (A4). For example, Shortall has commentedon {{the danger . . . of inferring community involvement on the basisof the participation of a small number of people not necessarily rep-resentative of wider local views||(1994:235). One related issue,especially for public sector agencies, is that individuals participatingin a collaborative initiative because of their technical expertise orlocal knowledge may not have decision-making authority for theirorganization (Gray 1989). If an organization|s senior level personnelare not involved, it is possible that policies subsequently will be for-gotten or disavowed.


The number of stakeholders involved through the selected participation tech-niques (A5). The selection of participation techniques will affect thenumber of stakeholders involved in some way in a collaboration. Aquestionnaire can, for example, help collect the general opinions ofmany individuals, while a workshop can help reveal the more nuancedviews of a small group of individuals (Ritchie 1985). Much col-laborative policymaking is made in working groups with a fairly smallnumber of individuals representing a range of interests and types ofexperience (Brandon 1993). However, the use of working groups maybe supplemented by other techniques involving many individuals.

The extent to which there is initial agreement among participants about theintended general scope of the collaboration (A6). Such an agreement canbe important as differing expectations may derail the project. Thegeneral scope of the collaboration is affected by decisions on thedrawing of geographical boundaries, on the economic and social con-cerns to be addressed in policies, and on whether the collaborationwill simply exchange information or also develop policies. Anotherissue affecting the overall scope of the exercise is the amount ofresources realistically available for planning and implementation.For instance, the stakeholders might be facing a situation wheregovernment is reducing its funding support and is looking to thecollaborating stakeholders to find replacement funding (Murdoch andAbram 1998). A further issue is whether there is agreement aboutthe general scope of what realistically can be delivered through thecollaboration. It may be the case that if the participants have unreal-istic expectations which cannot be met, this will cause disappointmentor conflict (Freeman, Littlewood and Whitney 1996; Johnson 1984).For example, local communities may have to recognize early on thatsome negotiation within the planning system is limited by policiesand practices which are determined from afar (Department ofEnvironment 1994).

Intensity of the Collaboration

A second set of issues when evaluating local collaborative tourismpolicymaking relate to the intensity of the collaboration by the stake-holders (B).

The degree to which participants accept that collaboration is likely to producequalitatively different outcomes and that they are likely to have to modify theirown approach (B1). Participants who are more likely to accept theseprinciples become more receptive to alternative ways of thinking andnew types of policy proposals. However, this acceptance may not beforthcoming. For example, there may be little acceptance of theseprinciples among hegemonic elites when it is easy for them to securebeneficial policies, or among elected representatives who considerthat stakeholder involvement in policymaking conflicts with their ownlegitimacy as democratically elected representatives (Department ofEnvironment 1994). Hall argues that often {{the level of public involve-


ment in tourism planning can be more accurately described as a formof tokenism in which decisions or the direction of decisions has alreadybeen prescribed by government|| (1994:169).

When and how often the relevant stakeholders are involved (B2). Gunn(1994), for example, suggests that citizens may be more thoroughlyengaged in developing a tourism plan if they participate from thestart of the planning process. It may also be the case that citizensinvolved only at a late planning stage are more likely to constructtheir concerns in adversarial terms and to adopt entrenched positions(Haywood 1988; Healey 1998).

The extent to which stakeholder groups receive information and are consultedabout the activities of the collaboration (B3). Information disseminationand consultation activities are likely to increase the accountability ofa collaborative initiative to relevant stakeholders. One issue to con-sider is whether the representatives directly involved in attendingcollaborative working group meetings, also consult with others in theirgroup and inform them about progress. Consideration should be givento whether the collaborative practices are reducing accountabilityin local policymaking, particularly if fewer decisions are made bydemocratically elected politicians (Hastings 1996).

Whether the use of participation techniques only disseminates information oralso involves direct interaction among the stakeholders (B4). Some col-laborative techniques involve information-giving or campaigning(such as displays or newsletters), or else opinion-collecting (such asinterviews and questionnaires). These techniques are valuable, butthey do not provide participants with the opportunity for direct debateand consensus-building with other stakeholders, as can occur withfocus and working groups (Marien and Pizam 1997). However, thesedifferent techniques may be integrated within a broad strategy forstakeholder involvement. Hence, Simmons contends that to promotecitizen involvement in tourism planning, {{No technique can fulfilalone all the requirements of participation and a {staged approach|,using a variety of techniques, will be required|| (1994:100).

The degree to which the dialogue among participants reflects openness, honesty,tolerant and respectful speaking and listening, confidence, and trust (B5). Thecharacter of the dialogue is likely to be a major influence on whetherthere is mutual understanding and learning across the differencesamong stakeholders (Forster 1993; Friedmann 1992; Innes 1995). InSelin and Myers| (1998) study of members of a US tourism and outdoorrecreation alliance, the factor they identified most frequently as con-tributing to the alliance|s effectiveness was the {{collaborative atmo-sphere||. However, the styles of dialogue within a collaboration mayshut out the views of the less powerful (Joppe 1996).

The extent to which the participants understand, respect, and learn from eachothers| different forms of argument (B6). The forms of argument willreflect varying technical, moral, and expressive modes of under-


standing and reasoning. Healey contends that it is necessary toappreciate different forms of argument in order to remove {{thehegemonic communicative distortions through which powerful groupshave maintained their position in the past|| (1997:264).

The extent to which the participants come to understand, respect, and learnfrom each others| different interests, forms of knowledge, systems of meaning,values, and attitudes (B7). The policies developed by collaborativealliances are likely to have more leverage if they arise out of the {{localknowledge|| of the participants (Healey 1997). Without sustainedattention being paid to the interests, types of understanding, framesof reference, values, and attitudes of all participants, this involvementmay be seen as a token gesture and the views of the powerful par-ticipants may prevail (Arnstein 1969; Joppe 1996). Is governmentinvolving the community simply to legitimise its policies? Are somestakeholders involved only as a cynical exercise to secure additionalfunding? Are the views of participants who do not contribute financialresources to the exercise being ignored? Is the debate and the col-laborative process being coopted by government institutions? (Has-tings 1996). Do the representatives from professions consider thattheir form of knowledge and technical expertise is always superior to{{lay|| types of understanding (Smith and Blanc 1997)?

The extent to which the facilitator of the collaborative arrangements exertscontrol over decision-making (B8). The intensity of participation by arange of stakeholders will be greater when the facilitator or convenorof the collaboration steps back to encourage collective decision-mak-ing and consensus-building (Johnson 1984; Robinson 1997). However,the facilitator may want to retain a direct influence on policy outcomesif they are investing a great deal of time and other resources in thecollaboration.

Degree to Which Consensus Emerges

An evaluation of collaborative policymaking in a destination canalso consider issues concerning the degree to which consensus emergesamong the stakeholders if and when this takes place (C).

Whether participants who are working to build a consensus also accept thatsome participants will not agree or embrace enthusiastically all the resultingpolicies (C1). Participants in collaborative arrangements may havemore realistic expectations of consensus-building if they are awareand accept that it may be impossible to get the agreement of everyoneabout every aspect of the resulting policies.

Extent to which there is consensus among the stakeholders about the issues, thepolicies, the purposes of policies, and how the consequences of the policies areassessed and reviewed (C2). Healey (1997) contends that reaching aconsensus in collaborative policymaking involves a discursive processwhere the participants learn about and respect each other and their


differing points of view, come to reflect on their own point of view,work together with this combined {{local knowledge|| to establish anew discourse or story about the issues and the policy direction, andcome to value and respond to the new policy direction. Knowledge,understanding and policies are produced through collaborative sociallearning processes. Such processes will need to recognise the oftendeep divisions among stakeholders, and the cultural, economic, andpolitical bases for these, and do so in ways which help the stakeholdersto understand each others| concerns and reach out across their dif-ferences. The resulting new policy direction may cover agreed policies,purposes of policies, and how the consequences of the policies will beassessed and reviewed. If this process is successful, the stakeholders{{are then likely to have some sense of {ownership||| of the resultingpolicies (Healey 1997:279).

There will be differing degrees to which consensus-building is suc-cessful. Stakeholders involved in collaboration may well not agree allaspects of a new policy direction, and they may strive more prag-matically to ensure that each receives some benefit from it, oftenthrough an informal trading-off of benefits and costs. Based on anassessment of collaborative alliances in tourism, Selin and Chavezargue that {{It is highly unlikely that a partnership will be successfulunless there is a perception that partnership outcomes will result inbenefits to each partner|| (1995:849). There are several other reasonswhy it may be more realistic to achieve only a {{partial consensus||.For example, the overall policy direction established by consensus-building might be considered reasonably acceptable to stakeholdersand be supported by them even if it is not their most preferredoutcome (Gray 1989). Bryson and Crosby also suggest that {{Coalitionmembers do not need to agree with every detail of the proposal, butthey must be able to agree to support the proposal|| (1992:245). Peoplemay be prepared to accept that it is not necessary for everyone to agreeabout everything in the policies developed through collaboration. Inaddition, a supposed consensus may be based on a less thoroughexamination of a potentially divisive issue or a continuing underlyingambiguity, with these perhaps more likely when consensus-buildingfocuses on {{common ground|| rather than contentious issues (Smithand Blanc 1997). Even when a pragmatic consensus is reached, itmight be expected that in communities with high levels of caution orcynicism the stakeholders will only be fully convinced by actions ratherthan aims (Department of Environment 1994).

Extent to which consensus and {{ownership|| emerges across the inequalitiesbetween stakeholders or reflects these inequalities (C3). As Ritchie suggests:{{Because of the number and diversity of the stakeholders involved inthe crafting of a destination vision for tourism, the value systemsbrought to the process can be greatly different, even to the point ofbeing diametrically opposed. As such, the task of reaching a consensusand obtaining endorsement of the destination vision is a challengingand often delicate task|| (1993:381). Fundamental differences ofresources, interests, and opinions may mean that a consensus andsense of shared ownership of the resulting policies will not emerge


among all the stakeholders. In relation to community involvement intourism planning, Prentice suggests that {{there is no guarantee thatdifferences in opinions can be resolved without dissension betweenbeneficiaries and non-beneficiaries|| (1993:226). Even when a con-sensus is reached, it should be remembered that it still may reflectthe continuing hegemony of a local elite or other inequalities amongthe stakeholders (Goodwin 1998; McArthur 1995).

Extent to which stakeholders accept that there are systemic constraints on whatis feasible (C4). If the collaborative activity results in too few policychanges then this may be unacceptable to some stakeholders. But ifthe policies go too far, then this may be both unacceptable to somestakeholders and unrealistic given the systemic constraints that can-not easily be influenced. Collaborative efforts will vary according tothe extent to which stakeholders come to accept the implications ofthis delicate balancing act.

Whether the stakeholders appear willing to implement the resulting policies(C5). There is likely to be greater commitment to consensus-buildingwhen participants appear committed to implement the policy out-comes (Benveniste 1989). A key issue here is whether there is aperception that sufficient resources are devoted to the collaborationin order to ensure that progress is not interrupted by lack of resources(Jamal and Getz 1995). One way for organizations to demonstratesuch commitment is for them to identify the resource implicationsof policy implementation in their own internal budget and staffingcommitments. However, it may be difficult to expect participantsto be certain they can deliver on agreements when the purpose ofcollaboration is to reach unknown compromises and when cir-cumstances can change quickly. Similarly, local government officersmay find that the clear objectives with which they entered the par-ticipation process may alter over time as new priorities are introducedby senior officers, different departments, or elected politicians(Department of Environment 1994).

The above A, B and C frameworks incorporate a range of issues toconsider when assessing whether local collaborative tourism pol-icymaking is inclusionary and involves collective learning and con-sensus-building. It is intended to promote concern for the multipleissues involved in consensus-building and for the power relations andinstitutional constraints which affect them. A selection of these issuesare illustrated now through a case study.

The Hope Valley and Study Methodology

The Hope Valley and Edale lies at the heart of Britain|s PeakDistrict National Park, which latest estimates suggest is the world|smost visited national park (Figure 1). Its dramatic scenery consists oftwo valleys surrounded by high moorland. As a long-established tour-ism honeypot, it attracts numerous general sightseers and outdoorrecreationists, with the two valleys estimated to attract annually


Figure 1. The Hope Valley Parishes of Castleton, Edale and Hope.

around 2.5 million visitors (PTP 1994a). The proportion of visitorsstaying overnight to day visitors is low, with crude estimates varyingbetween 5Ð30% depending on the time of year (PTP 1994b). Thisstudy examines only the three parishes of Castleton, Edale, and Hopewithin Hope Valley and Edale, which have a population of around2,000. For simplicity the study area is called the Hope Valley. Heretourism supports many local businesses and jobs, but there is muchconcern among residents about the pressures it has brought, such asfrom traffic congestion, parking problems, overcrowded villagecenters, changes in local shop provision, and reduced privacy (CVAC1993). Visitor pressures are particularly concentrated in summermonths, weekends, and public holidays.

Between 1993Ð95, 30 stakeholder representatives collaborated todevise a visitor management plan for the three parishes. This col-laboration was promoted by the Peak Tourism Partnership, a public-private sector organization established to develop visitor managementand sustainable tourism in the Peak District (PTP 1993a, 1996). AHope Valley Visitor Management Plan Working Group was set upinvolving a range of stakeholder representatives in joint working andconsensus-building in order to develop a local visitor managementplan. The present evaluation of tourism policymaking in the HopeValley considers developments between 1993Ð95, which was prior toconcerted attempts to implement the plan|s proposals.


The policymaking process is assessed through interviews with 17members of the Hope Valley Visitor Management Plan WorkingGroup, who were working principally as representatives of communityinterests (7), environmental interests (4), local government (4), rec-reational interests (2), tourism interests (2), and other interests (2).Several working group members also represented other stakeholderentities, but these additional affiliations are identified here only forfour members who mentioned another group in their interview. Theinterviewee sample represented a cross-section of stakeholder rep-resentatives, with the interviews conducted between April and June1995. Each interview was semi-structured, used non-directive ques-tioning techniques, lasted at least one hour and was tape recorded(Fowler and Mangione 1990). Additionally, local reports and otherdocuments were consulted.

Scope of the Collaboration

The first set of issues examined here which affected the scope ofthe Hope Valley collaboration was the extent to which the rangeof stakeholders who participated was representative of all relevantstakeholders (A1). This is considered specifically for the stakeholderrepresentatives on the Hope Valley Visitor Management Plan Work-ing Group, which met regularly to develop the visitor managementstrategies. It was intended that the group of members was rep-resentative but not so large it was unwieldy, with the members prin-cipally representing community interests (13), environmentalinterests (5), local government (5), recreational interests (3), tourisminterests (3) and other interests (5)(Table 1). Some members hadmore than one affiliation, but this is identified only when mentionedin an interview. One member commented that {{they went to a lot oftrouble to try to get representatives from as many organizations aspossible||.

The working group was chaired by a local farmer. Some membersrepresented national agencies and each of the three parishes wasrepresented by both a parish councillor and at least two residents. Thelocal community is particularly heterogeneous, so its representativescould be regarded as distinct from other stakeholder members. Thisdiversity among the residents included groups employed in agric-ulture, tourism, and at a large cement works, as well as there beingmany comparatively wealthy retired people and commuters to nearbycities. There was a substantial number of community representativesamong the participants, suggesting there was a genuine attempt toinvolve residents. One parish representative commented that {{it hasbeen up to each village to arrange meetings and appoint the peoplethey think would be suitable as a village representative||. Anotherparish member explained that {{the parish council insisted that localrepresentatives from the village were involved, not just elected parishcouncillors||. While over half of the representatives lived and workedin the Hope Valley, this still raises important questions about thebalance of {{insiders|| and {{outsiders|| and how much weight to give


Table 1. Principal Interests Represented on the Hope Valley Visitor Man-agement Plan Working Group

Community interests (13):Access Group (for disabled residents)Castleton Parish CouncilCastleton representatives×2Hope with Aston Parish CouncilHope with Aston representatives×2Edale Parish Council×2Edale representatives×3Peveril ward, High Peak Borough CouncilEnvironmental interests (5) :Council for the Protection of Rural EnglandCountryside CommissionEnglish HeritageEnglish NatureNational TrustLocal government (5) :Derbyshire County CouncilHigh Peak Borough Council×2Peak Park Joint Planning BoardPeak National Park Losehill HallRecreational interests (3) :Hope Valley Riding ClubRamblers AssociationYouth Hostels Association/Outdoor Centres AssociationTourism interests :East Midlands Tourist BoardHope Valley Tourist AssociationSpeedwell CavernOther interests (5) :Blue Circle CementHope Valley Rail Users GroupNational Farmers Union (Working Group Chair)Peak Tourism PartnershipRural Development Commission

Some members of the working group had more than one affiliation, but these areidentified only when mentioned in an interview.

to their views. While two members principally represented tourisminterests, and some others earned income from this business, theworking group was not dominated by tourism representatives. Somerecreational stakeholders were represented on the working group, butthe important car-borne day visitors were not represented, whichcould reflect difficulties in selecting a representative or else the poli-cies of the convening agency, the Peak Tourism Partnership. Therewas also perhaps a relatively small involvement by local shopkeepersor traders and a strong middle class representation.

Consideration is also given to the number of stakeholders involvedthrough the participation techniques (A5) used in developing the


Hope Valley visitor management plan. Figure 2 summarizes the mainparticipation techniques which were employed, including the workinggroup. Professional consultants in community involvement wereappointed early on by the Park Tourism Partnership, and they used acommunity {{mapping|| technique to identify individual stakeholderswho were knowledgeable about the local social fabric, and they met aselection of these people to discuss tourism issues. Based on the{{mapping|| procedures, the 57 people {{judged to offer the greatestnetworking potential|| were invited to attend a workshop on tourismin the Hope Valley and on local ideas for a visitor management plan.The workshop was also promoted in the local media, with 60 peopleattending the event. The workshop focused on {{developing a com-munity agenda for tourism based on local needs rather than tourism

Figure 2. Participation Techniques Used in the Hope Valley.


demands||, and there was information provision on communityinvolvement in visitor management plans as well as discussion in smallgroups on the local benefits and costs of tourism and on potentialpriorities for protection of the area and for tourism (PTP 1993b:7Ð8).

Following the workshop, the Peak Tourism Partnership invitedindividuals representing a range of stakeholder groups to be membersof the working group to lead the development of the Hope Valleyvisitor management plan. A second professional consultancy team,which specializes in sustainable tourism, was appointed to draft theplan under the direct guidance of the working group. Several tech-niques were used so that the consultants and working group couldlearn about the opinions of a large number of relevant people. Forinstance, the consultants drew on findings of {{village appraisal|| sur-veys of the views of Castleton and Edale residents about local issues,and they also interviewed a range of relevant stakeholders. Theirinterviews included discussion with representatives of local govern-ment and such agencies as the Rural Development Commission aboutwhat was feasible to implement. The consultants also reported onprogress and discussed ideas in the regular working group meetingsas well in a workshop organized at the half-way stage (PTP 1994b).The parish representatives also explained ideas being developed forthe visitor management plan at parish council meetings and also atoccasional public meetings held in the three parishes, with theserepresentatives reporting back to the working group. Initial proposalsfor the management plan were summarized in a newsletter sent toevery local household, which also listed the names of all communityand parish council representatives and encouraged people to contactthem about their views. While the consultations involved in devisingthe plan were quite wide-ranging, there was no direct use of ques-tionnaire surveys giving all residents opportunities to explain theirviews on tourism and to respond to proposals. There was also scopefor more extensive use of newsletters to report on the developmentof ideas for the plan.

Intensity of the Collaboration

Among the 17 working group interviewees there was some divisionof opinion about the adequacy of the consultation with people livingin the Hope Valley to develop the visitor management plan. Eightconsidered the consultation was generally adequate, six held somemixed views about its adequacy, and three considered it generallyinadequate.

The respondents generally considered that in the working groupmeetings the dialogue between participants reflected openness andrespectful speaking and listening (B5). Several working group mem-bers commented on the vigorous but useful debate which took placein the meetings. One described how they {{had some heated debates||,but that they were constructive and allowed people to express theirviews openly and discuss them at considerable length. Care had beentaken to create conditions for open discussion in both the community


workshop and working group meetings. For instance, the communityworkshop was held in a local school as a neutral venue which wascentral to community activities, and the working group met in a roomin a local pub as it was an informal setting which was not intimidatingor associated with any one particular organization (PTP 1993b). Moregenerally, it should be stated that a wide range of stakeholder rep-resentatives attended the regular working group meetings, with oneenvironmental group representative commenting that they had {{pro-duced as many meetings as possible for a small body||. In drafting thevisitor management plan for subsequent consultation, the consultantstried hard to ensure the report was not full of jargon, was succinct,and was {{easy to read and of practical use|| (PTP 1994b:1). However,the respondents mentioned other aspects of the consultation processto develop the plan where there had been difficulties.

Some of the difficulties related to when and how often the relevantstakeholders were involved (B2). Several respondents concluded thatthere should have been more consultation with the Castleton com-munity prior to sending out the draft visitor management plan forcomment and amendment. A tourism representative argued that{{people felt not consulted until the very late stages when the parishcouncil representatives, for example, had a document in their handsand could call a village meeting with something concrete and say{What do you think about this?|, by which time I think it was too lateto start changing and taking people|s views into it||. However, someworking group members considered that such views arose becauseCastleton shopkeepers and traders objected strongly to certain pro-posals in the draft plan. One working group member living in Cas-tleton observed that {{it was the traders of the village who were verymuch in arms, saying they weren|t consulted. And that wasn|t true atall. Notices had been put around in our village, for example, and theinterest was very small . . . local people are never interested in it untilit hits them personally||. It was also commented that the Castletonrepresentatives on the working group, including one who became vice-chair of the Castleton Chamber of Trade, had not objected to theproposals prior to the adverse reaction of the traders.

Another difficulty identified in the interviews arose from the extentto which stakeholder groups were consulted about the activities of thecollaboration (B3). Specifically, it was suggested that some workinggroup members failed to consult adequately with the stakeholdersthey represented. One community representative explained that{{people get on the committee and don|t have the opportunity forgoing back to consult and disseminate||, and another working groupmember suggested that {{if we ever did try it again, it ought to beexplained to them that they had a duty to consult their members andseek views of their members rather than their own opinions. Now I|mnot sure they did that as well as they could||.

Further, two respondents suggested that it had not been the casethat the participants came to understand, respect and learn from eachothers| different interests and attitudes (B7) within the working groupmeetings. They complained specifically that there had been con-straints on the freedom of the working group to consider all views


equally and to determine its own agenda. One suggested that theviews of parish representatives were not always taken into account,and decisions appeared to have been made prior to meetings. Anothercomplained that the {{only people who were really being consultedwere commercial interests||, and that at meetings it seemed a {{rulingparty caucus|| had already decided what would be done. A factorhere might be that the convening organization, the Peak TourismPartnership, had led the setting up of the working group, had estab-lished the framework to develop a visitor management plan for sus-tainable tourism, and had provided continuing administrative supportto the working group. Nevertheless, the Peak Tourism Partnershipclearly intended to secure a {{close involvement of the community andthe various agencies in the preparation of the plan|| and had workedhard to ensure the working group included broad stakeholder rep-resentation (PTP 1994b:1).

Degree to which Consensus Emerged

The visitor management plan was the focus for the collaboration,so a key issue for the case study is the extent to which there wasconsensus among the stakeholders about the policies and the purposesof policies (C2) contained in the plan. According to the plan, the broadintention was to balance {{increasing concern about the impact oftourism|| with {{a recognition that visitors make an important con-tribution to the local economy||(PTP 1994b:1). The specific policyobjectives were to prevent an increase in visitor numbers on peakdays, to reduce the number of cars on peaks days, to lessen visitorpressure on the most sensitive locations, to improve the quality of lifefor local residents, to increase the benefits that tourism brings tothe local community, and to enhance the visitors| experience andappreciation of the area|s special character. Numerous practical pro-jects are outlined in the plan to help secure these objectives. Theseincluded new car parking arrangements, promotion activity for localtourism accommodation, a park-and-ride service, and a schemeenabling visitors to contribute money for environmental conservation(PTP 1994b). The plan claims that {{these projects have emerged andevolved as a result of extensive consultation and discussion and webelieve that this process has helped build a strong consensus andsupport for the overall programme|| (PTP 1994b:17). Occasionally,the plan notes that a consensus was not reached on a project proposal.For example, in relation to a proposed visitor center it was explainedthat {{we favour the Castleton option but emphasize that there issome resistance to this locally . . . Given the contentious nature ofthis proposal it cannot proceed without detailed consultation|| (PTP1994b:project blueprint 17).

In the interviews with working group members, about half werelargely in favor of the visitor management plan proposals, with theothers expressing some reservations. Typical more enthusiasticresponses were that {{they came to a reasonable consensus . . . theyhave tried to strike a reasonable balance of opinions||, and {{they have


come to a consensus and it|s reasonable||. One respondent consideredthat the collaboration {{has been a good thing in my book as it hasmade people think beyond their narrow sectional interests and atoverall management questions . . . now we|ve actually got a series ofproposals I think we can work on, with a large measure of support||.A typical response with some reservations about the proposals was{{Some I agree with, and some I don|t||. Similarly, a national agencyrepresentative concluded that the proposals were reasonable andacceptable, while he regretted that the broad ideas of sustainabletourism had been reduced by local people to a focus on traffic man-agement.

However, some respondents had clear reservations about the pro-posal in the plan for on-street car parking charges in Castleton village,with the scheme intended to reduce problems of inconsiderate parkingand traffic congestion (PEP 1994b). There were two reasons for theirreservations. First, some considered it unfair that this schemeincluded proposals to charge Castleton residents for on-street parkingpermits, with some interpreting this charge as yet another cost oftourism to fall on local residents. However, as many as 88% of Cas-tleton residents who responded in an earlier {{village appraisal|| surveyhad favored parking areas reserved for exclusive use by residents(CVAC 1993). The visitor management plan had suggested that{{there does not appear to be support for such a scheme amongstresidents||, but had added that it {{could only be implemented afterextensive local consultation|| (PTP 1994b:project blueprint 1).

Second, some interviewees had regrets that the proposed on-streetcar parking charges had annoyed shopkeepers and traders in thevillage (because it might reduce the number of visitors) and hadcreated local ill feeling. One respondent stated that {{once the traderssuddenly felt that the Park Tourism Partnership was going to restrictthe number of visitors, they were absolutely aghast and up-in-arms||.The perceived threat to tourism businesses led to Castleton Chamberof Trade being formed, and this organization protested strongly aboutthe car parking proposals and drew up its own scheme for Castletonwhich differed from that favored by the working group and also byCastleton Parish Council. As one respondent explained in relation tothe working group {{they had parish councillors*two or three of themon this committee*and I was at meetings where they certainly voicedtheir opinions very forcibly . . . but still there was a breakaway groupfrom the Chamber of Trade from Castleton whose views were not inaccordance with the views of the parish council even||.

The spread of approval and reservations about the plan proposalsis perhaps unsurprising as the consensus-building involved the par-ticipants in discussion across significant differences of interest andoutlook. For example, when the working group members were askedin the interviews for their opinion about the general balance of advan-tages and disadvantages that tourism had brought to the Hope Valley,six said it had brought a balance of advantages and disadvantages,four said it had brought more disadvantages, four said it had broughtmore advantages, and three did not consider it possible to simplifysuch a complex issue in this manner. Indeed, it might be claimed that


after such consensus-building it is common still to have tensions andeven some dissension. Nevertheless, the majority of interviewees didbroadly support the visitor management plan, even when it did notmatch their preferred outcome.

It could also be argued that the visitor management plan did notexamine in detail the potentially divisive question of the area|s overalltourism carrying capacity, and that this left an ambiguity in the planwhich meant it might appeal to a wide range of stakeholders. Theproposals which most directly relate to the area|s carrying capacityare intended to prevent an increase in visitor numbers and cars onpeak days and to lessen pressure on the most sensitive areas. Theseproposals may well appeal to stakeholders wanting to restrict tourism,but they also offer scope for interests to increase tourism in the HopeValley at less busy times and in less sensitive places. This ambiguity,whether intentional or not, might have helped widen the appeal ofthe plan to multiple stakeholders.

Observations can also be made about the extent to which consensusemerged across the inequalities between stakeholders or reflectedthese inequalities (C3). Several interviewees commented that thecollaboration had successfully overcome many of their earlysuspicions, which often related to considerable distrust of one stake-holder organization, the Peak Park Joint Planning Board, which isthe local planning authority. The extent to which agreements werereached around the visitor management plan is notable in the contextof this antipathy to the local planning authority. However, a fewconcerns were expressed that some stakeholders had gained morethan others from the plan proposals. One parish councillor com-mented that {{too much consideration is given to visitors as againstresidents, particularly in relation to parking||, and another communityrepresentative suggested that the proposals {{are all in favor of thetourists, they did not seem to help the local population||. In contrast,a tourism member argued that {{there are sections of the plan which,particularly from a tourism economy point of view, need very, verycareful consideration, probably even re-consideration||.

Some respondents also expressed concerns about whether the publicsector organizations which were participating in the collaboration andmight have relevant funding actually did intend to implement theresulting policies (C5). The concerns focused on whether there wouldbe a transfer of the {{ownership|| of the policies and proposals to thesekey public sector organizations, as well as on there being a potentialshortage of funding available to these bodies. Because the implemen-tation of the proposals then might be hampered, there was also con-cern that local people|s expectations could have been raisedunrealistically. The working group itself lacked resources toimplement the proposals, and it was highly dependent on the rep-resentatives of local government and the Peak Park Joint PlanningBoard ensuring that the plan|s practical projects were included in theexpenditure commitments of their organizations. Some working groupmembers were concerned that this did not appear to happen quickly,if at all, and that delays in implementation were creating disil-lusionment. One working group member stated that the delays had


meant that people had {{got a bit frustrated||. While implementationissues are not the focus of this paper, it should be noted that delayscontinued after the period when the interviews were conducted,although by early 1996 funding had been secured for several trafficmanagement proposals and a few other initiatives (PTP 1996).

CONCLUSION

The paper began with an analytical framework intended to assistresearchers and destination managers dealing with local collaborativetourism policymaking. The framework encourages a wide-ranginganalysis of collaboration, based on assessment of its scope, its intensity,and the degree to which consensus emerges among participants. Itexamines whether collaborative arrangements are inclusionary andinvolve collective learning and consensus-building. Unlike somerecent uses of collaboration theory, the framework questions theextent to which power imbalances among stakeholders may bereduced, if at all, within a collaboration. Particular attention is paidto the concepts of consensus and {{partial consensus||. While theframework discusses many issues in collaborative tourism policy-making, there are others which could have been included. It wouldalso be possible to extend the framework to include a fourth broadset of issues relating to policy implementation. With this theoreticalframework in place, its application was discussed with the intent ofassessing stakeholder collaboration to develop a visitor managementplan for the Hope Valley. In this case study attention was paid to alimited selection of issues within each of the three sets of issues inthe analytical framework. Some overall conclusions can be made aboutthe extent to which this collaboration was successful in beinginclusionary.

Several aspects of the Hope Valley collaboration were quite suc-cessful in being inclusionary. For example, the working group whichdeveloped the visitor management plan included representatives ofmany relevant stakeholder groups, and varied participation tech-niques were used so that the working group was informed about theopinions of numerous relevant people. The regular working groupmeetings also promoted open dialogue and helped overcome sus-picions among the stakeholders. Another relatively successful featurewas the extent to which many members broadly supported the visitormanagement plan which emerged from the collaboration. Stake-holders with varied interests and attitudes had worked together todiscuss the issues and possible courses of action, and they had reachedmuch agreement across their differences about a plan which {{madesense|| in terms of the collective discussions and what was oper-ationally feasible. The plan had not been determined largely by theconvening organization, the Peak Tourism Partnership, or any otherstakeholder group. The collaborative process gave the plan legitimacy,and it had further credibility as it provided a reasonably coherent andstrategic {{vision|| for tourism (Jamal and Getz 1977). Many proposalsin the plan drew on ideas that had been discussed by organizationsfor several years. But based on interview responses, the collaborative


process meant these proposals had been developed further and hadgained greater coherence and support. These successes are notableas the process had required a great deal of time, energy and organ-izational ability.

However, other aspects of the Hope Valley collaboration were lesssuccessful in being inclusionary. For example, there might have beenscope for greater consultation among working group members andthe stakeholder groups they represented, including local residents. Ifthe group had made greater use of questionnaire surveys and news-letters then more local people would have been aware of its activitiesand been given more opportunities to influence its decisions. Unfor-tunately, the working group lacked the resources needed for moreextensive use of participation techniques, which highlights the import-ance of the resources which are available to such collaborativearrangements. While the convening organization, the Peak TourismPartnership, had assisted in consultation work, it too lacked theresources to provide further assistance and it was keen also for thegroup to take the lead in undertaking its own work.

While many members broadly supported the visitor managementplan, this was only a {{partial consensus||. Many had reservationsabout specific proposals, and two proposals had created some divisionbetween tourism and other interests in Castleton and also in theworking group. Further, the plan did not examine sufficiently thepotentially divisive question of the area|s overall tourism carryingcapacity, and the resulting ambiguity might have helped widen theplan|s appeal to more stakeholders. In addition, several working groupmembers were more interested in actions than words, and there weresigns that delays in the year since the plan|s preparation were causingdisillusionment.

It may also be suggested that unequal power relations remainedamong the stakeholders, with the distribution of power weightedtowards the authorities rather than the residents. For example, thePeak Tourism Partnership exercised an important influence on thegeneral scope of the collaboration, such as in establishing its focus onsustainable tourism and in suggesting working group members. Moregenerally, the plan itself failed to give detailed consideration to howthe costs and benefits resulting from implementation would affectdifferent stakeholders and how these distributional outcomes wouldbe assessed.

A key issue is that the working group depended on implementationbeing carried out by its members through their own organizations.Without this transfer in {{ownership|| to other resource allocationarenas, the plan would be marginalized. This highlights the dilemmafor some collaborative initiatives that they need to retain their inde-pendence in developing policies, while also depending on the stake-holders with relevant resources adopting the policies and funding therelated actions. In this way, the stakeholders with these resourceshave considerable power. At the same time, it can be argued thatcollaborative initiatives ought to be linked to the long-establishedchannels of representative democracy of local and central government,and in particular to the accountability which is encouraged throughthe electoral system. Ž


Acknowledgments*The authors thank Chris Lewis (former project Manager, PeakTourism Partnership) for advice on organizing the interviews and for constructivecomments on an early draft of the paper. Helpful comments on the same draft werealso provided by Richard Denman (consultant with The Tourism Company, whohelped develop the visitor management plan for the Hope Valley), Phil Long andLindemberg Medeiros de Araujo (Sheffield Hallam University), and Bernard Lane(University of Bristol). Thanks are due to the interviewees for giving up their time.Some of the initial ideas for this paper were presented at the 1997 ATLAS Conferenceheld in Viana do Castelo, Portugal.

REFERENCES

Abbott, J.1996 Sharing the City. Community Participation in Urban Management. London:

Earthscan.Arnstein, S.R.

1969 A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners 35:216Ð224.

Benveniste, G.1989 Mastering the Politics of Planning: Crafting Credible Plans and Policies that

Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bramwell, B., and G. Broom

1989 Tourism Development Action Programmes: An Approach to Local TourismInitiatives. Insights A6:11-17.

Brandon, K.1993 Basic Steps toward Encouraging Local Participation in Nature Tourism

Projects. In Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, K. Lindberg andD.E. Hawkins, eds., pp. 134Ð151. North Bennington: The Ecotourism Society.

Bryson, J.M., and B.C. Crosby1992 Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-

Power World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.CVAC

1993 Castleton Village Appraisal. Castleton: Castleton Village Appraisal Commit-tee.

Department of Environment1994 Community Involvement in Planning and Development Processes. London:

HMSO.Forester, J.

1989 Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.1993 Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice. Albany: State University

of New York Press.Fowler, F.J., and T.W. Mangione

1990 Standardized Survey Interviewing. Applied Social Science Research MethodsSeries, Vol. 18. London: Sage.

Freeman, C., S. Littlewood, and D. Whitney1996 Local Government and Emerging Models of Participation in the Local Agenda

21 Process. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39:65Ð78.Friedmann, J.

1992 Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Oxford: Blackwell.Getz, D., and T.B. Jamal

1994 The Environment-Community Symbiosis: A Case for Collaborative TourismPlanning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2:152Ð173.

Goodwin, M.1998 The Governance of Rural Areas: Some Emerging Research Issues and Agen-

das. Journal of Rural Studies 14:5Ð12.Gray, B.

1989 Collaborating. Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gunn, C.A.1994 Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts and Cases. Washington: Taylor and

Francis.


Hall, C.M.1994 Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Chichester: Wiley.

Hastings, A.1996 Unravelling the Process of {{Partnership|| in Urban Regeneration Policy.

Urban Studies 33:253Ð268.Haywood, K.M.

1988 Responsible and Responsive Tourism Planning in the Community. TourismManagement 9:105Ð118.

Healey, P.1997 Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London:

Macmillan.1998 Collaborative Planning in a Stakeholder Society. Town Planning Review 69:1Ð

21.Innes, J.

1995 Planning Theory|s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Inter-active Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14:183Ð90.

Jamal, T.B., and D. Getz1995 Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism

Research 22:186Ð204.1997 {{Visioning|| for Sustainable Tourism Development: Community-Based Col-

laborations. In Quality Management in Urban Tourism, P.E. Murphy, ed., pp.199Ð220. Chichester: Wiley.

Johnson, W.C.1984 Citizen Participation in Local Planning in the UK and USA: A Comparative

Study. Progress in Planning 21:149Ð221.Joppe, M.

1996 Sustainable Community Tourism Development Revisited. Tourism Man-agement 17:475Ð479.

Lane, B.1994 Sustainable Rural Tourism Strategies: A Tool for Development and Con-

servation. In Rural Tourism and Sustainable Rural Development, B. Bramwelland B. Lane, eds., pp. 102Ð111. Clevedon: Channel View.

Long, P.E.1997 Researching Tourism Partnership Organizations: From Practice to Theory to

Methodology. In Quality Management in Urban Tourism, P.E. Murphy, ed., pp.235Ð251. Chichester: Wiley.

McArthur, A.1995 The Active Involvement of Local Residents in Strategic Community Part-

nerships. Policy and Politics 23:61Ð71.Marien, C., and A. Pizam

1997 Implementing Sustainable Tourism Development Through Citizen Par-ticipation in the Planning Process. In Tourism, Development and Growth. TheChallenge of Sustainability, S. Wahab and J.J. Pigram, eds., pp. 164Ð178. London:Routledge.

Murdoch, J., and S. Abram1998 Defining the Limits of Community Governance. Journal of Rural Studies

14:41Ð50.Prentice, R.

1993 Community-Driven Tourism Planning and Residents| Preferences. TourismManagement 14:218Ð227.

PTP1993a Peak Tourism Partnership Newsletter (Winter).1993b Community Involvement in Tourism Management: A Pilot Scheme to Estab-

lish a Visitor Management Plan for Castleton, Hope and Edale. Hope: PeakTourism Partnership.

1994a CastletonÐEdaleÐHope Local Interpretive Plan: Draft for Consultation.Hope: Peak Tourism Partnership.

1994b A Visitor Management Plan for Castleton, Hope and Edale. Hope: PeakTourism Partnership.

1996 Peak Tourism Partnership Final Report, August 1992ÐOctober 1995. Hope:Peak Tourism Partnership.


Reed, M.G.1997 Power Relations and Community-Based Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism

Research 24:566Ð591.Ritchie, J.R.B.

1985 The Nominal Group Technique: An Approach to Consensus Policy For-mulation in Tourism. Tourism Management 6:82Ð94.

1993 Crafting a Destination Vision. Putting the Concept of Resident-ResponsiveTourism into Practice. Tourism Management 14:379Ð389.

Roberts, N.C., and R.T. Bradley1991 Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Study of Public Policy Initiation

at the State Level. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27:209Ð227.Robinson, G.M.

1997 Community-Based Planning: Canada|s Atlantic Coastal Action Program.Geographical Journal 163:25Ð37.

Selin, S., and K. Beason1991 Interorganizational Relations in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research

18:639Ð652.Selin, S., and D. Chavez

1995 Developing an Evolutionary Tourism Partnership Model. Annals of TourismResearch 22:844Ð856.

Selin, S., and N.A. Myers1998 Tourism Marketing Alliances: Member Satisfaction and Effectiveness Attri-

butes of a Regional Initiative. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 7:79Ð94.

Shortall, S.1994 The Irish Rural Development Paradigm: An Exploratory Analysis. Economic

and Social Review 25:233Ð60.Simmons, D.G.

1994 Community Participation in Tourism Planning. Tourism Management 15:98Ð108.

Smith, D.M., and M. Blanc1997 Grass-Roots Democracy and Participation: A New Analytical and Practical

Approach. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15:281Ð303.Stoker, G.

1995 Regime Theory and Urban Politics. In Theories of Urban Politics, D. Judge,G. Stoker and H. Wolman, eds., pp. 54Ð71. London: Sage.

Susskind, L. and M. Elliot, eds.1983 Paternalism, Conflict and Co-Production: Learning from Citizen Action and

Citizen Participation in Western Europe. New York: Plenum.Waddock, S.A.

1991 A Typology of Social Partnership Organizations. Administration and Society22:480Ð515.

Submitted 6 February 1998Resubmitted 9 July 1998Accepted 15 July 1998Referred anonymouslyCoordinating Editor: Salah E.A. Wahab