Introduction

1

UNDERSTANDING TOURISM DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA

1.1 TOURISM DESTINATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Undoubtedly, the tourism industry plays a vital role in regional development. However, opinions vary regarding how tourism works as a tool for development. Much of the literature since the mid-1990s emphasizes that the tourism sector can not only help destinations increase local revenue by generating job opportunities, but also spur investment in local infrastructure, human capital, and technology (Shahzad et al., 2017). However, as tourism expanded, researchers found that significant economic contributions were lauded. More recent literature, however, has paid its attention on the negative impacts of tourism, such as bringing only low-wage job opportunities and limited impact on a community’s economic growth, as well as pollution to the local environment1 .

These negative results also happen in Chinese Tourism Destinations. Sun and Fu (2018) indicated that state-owned or big real estate developers take control of most tourism development, leaving almost no room for locals to participate by simply relocating them to other parts of the city. Meanwhile, the most criticized tourism model, mass tourism, has been dominant for its convenience and efficiency throughout 1992-2011 in China (Zhao et al., 2020). The proliferation of mass tourism grew alongside the boom of domestic tourism, and it has had a significant impact on destination development in China. A massive influx of tourists has accelerated the relocation of locals and the commercialization of tourism destinations (Lu, 2020).

Beginning in the 1980s, and as shown in Figure 1.1, niche tourism has diversified the tourism industry by providing travelers with more local and special1 United Nations. (2018). World Urbanization Prospects (The 2018 Revision). https://www.un.org/ development/desa/en/news/population/2018- revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html What Is Ecotourism. (n.d.). The International Ecotourism Society. Retrieved 31 December 2020, from https://ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism/

Figure 1.1 Tourism industry’s history Source: author’s own drawing for Essay I-B

ized experiences. With the deindustrialization of urban and rural territories in recent years, branches of niche tourism, including ecotourism, cultural tourism, and heritage tourism, emerged as the tourism market began to split. This illustrates a shift from mass tourism to more sensible and sustainable tourism, which takes tourism destination development to the next level.

1.2 COMPETITIVENESS OF TOURISM DESTINATIONS

A large volume of newly published studies focuses on sustainable tourism destination development, emphasizing the benefits of the locals and its public value. It also focuses on smart tourism destination development, which in turn focuses on bringing ‘smartness’ into destinations. Despite different names, all these developments aim to achieve destination competitiveness with the fundamental promise of its residents’ prosperity (Manyara & Ndivo, 2016). Leung & Baloglu (2013) indicated that the competitiveness of a tourism destination is crucial for a community to position itself better within the global tourism market and ensure a competitive advantage. Traditionally, it has been argued that tourism is offering “products” that are the main motivation for developing competitiveness (Heath, 2002.). Poon (1993) was the first to establish a competitive strategy model that is applicable to the tourism industry. The most commonly seen model, however, is the one developed by Ritchie & Crouch (2000). The authors describe competitiveness as:

Ritchie & Crouch, 2000 “...the ability to increase tourism expenditure, to increasingly attract visitors while providing them with satisfying, memorable experiences and to do so in a profitable way while enhancing the well-being of destination residents and preserving the natural capital of the destination for future generations.(Page 2)”

In the description, it is clear that scholars began to measure competitiveness in different scales of the tourism destinations.

During the past 30 years, more information has become available on cultural tourism-led urban regeneration. Mckercher & du Cros (2003) defined it as “a form of tourism that relies on a destination’s cultural heritage assets and transforms them into products that tourists can consume.” Placenti (2011) further explained that an urban territory, with a strong cultural identity, is a crucial component of cultural tourism. Numerous previous studies in the literature have investigated the positive effect of cultural-tourism development and urban regeneration upon a collaborative planning scheme by studying recent cases such as the conversion of the Ruhr Region in Germany (Leung et al., 2015), the High Line Park in New York (Giovene di Girasole, 2014: Aitani & Sathaye, 2017), and the city of Bilbao in Spain (Plaza, 2000; Aranburu et al., 2016).

The Chinese government places high value on cultural tourism, which is evidenced by the publishment of ‘Implementation plan of cultural tourism promotion project in the period of the thirteenth five-year plan’, which creates a favorable policy environment for cultural tourism development (Zhao et al., 2020). In this context, several studies have begun to examine how to use tourism as a tool for urban regeneration strategies in China.

When tracing the history of the Chinese tourism industry, particularly since the iconic Xintiandi project in Shanghai (He & Wu, 2005; Wai, 2006), it can be seen that the development of cultural tourism has experienced multiple changes in the mechanism models, from the Traditional Commercialization Development Model, to the Micro-Regeneration Model (Zhang & Li, 2016), and to the Community Redevelopment Model (Li and Zhu, 2014; Dong, 2017).

The major driving force behind tourism-led regeneration projects is profit-oriented. As observed in many projects, the government and developers’ focus is on the large-scale and modernized physical transformations. Those destinations are often reduced to places for the pursuit of leisure and tourism-based consumption. Ironically, those places are often blamed for becoming commercialized for mere leisure and tourism-based consumption. In this type of urban redevelopment, citizens’ opinions were neglected, and social conflicts occurred occasionally.

Take Xintiandi as an example, where He & Wu (2005) argue that destination development is dominated by a top-down planning model. In this model, the government provides financial support for arts and cultural projects using tax credits for charitable contributions, matching grants, and support for specific projects. This type of redevelopment was seen primarily in the 1990-2010 redevelopment practices (Lu, 2020). Clearly, this was the most efficient model with potentially the highest profit. However, it also puts the development at high risk of homogenization with other existing ones, and it risks replacing the site’s original ‘everydayness’ with performativity if not managed properly. Figure 1.2 shows the traditional commercialization development model.

3

2 4

Figure 1.2 Traditional Commercialization Development Model Source: author’s own drawing Figure 1.3 Micro-Regeneration Model Source: author’s own drawing Figure 1.4 Community Redevelopment Model Source: author’s own drawing

1.3.2 MICRO-REHABILITATION MODEL

One important feature of the recent urban redevelopment policy in China is the promotion of ‘micro-rehabilitation’ (referred to as weigaizao), which has received scant attention. One pilot project is the Yongqingfang in Guangzhou. Zhang and Li (2016) studied the renovation of the Enning Road district in Guangzhou and pointed out that non-government organizations (NGOs) are critical in urban regeneration projects (Zhang & Li, 2016). When taking a deeper look at the Enning Road project, this model achieves the goal of community conservation by keeping the original function of the site. It also encourages the residents to renovate for themselves. However, an apparent weakness of this model is that it lacks a sustainable business model. That is, without funds from the government, it will struggle to be a self-sustaining model. Figure 1.3 shows the Micro-Regeneration Model from (Zhang & Li, 2016).

1.3.3 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT MODEL

More recent attention has focused on the financing community building in cultural-led urban regenerations. Qiang & Tuohan (2016) applied the Qinghe experiment group in Beijing to illustrate how citizen participation can benefit community renovation. Li and Zhu (2014) established a decision-making model of a responsive subject between government officials and citizens to innovate public participation mechanisms and applied it to the Shanghai Tianzifang regeneration project. Furthermore, Dong & Wang (2017) used comparative cases to emphasize the importance of community empowerment in promoting public participation in urban regeneration projects. However, the literature also shows that citizens have a relatively low level of knowledge regarding urban planning, and it may be difficult for them to persuade others in the participation process, due to a lack of special training and targeted resources. Figure 1.4 shows the Community Redevelopment Model.

1.4 DESIGN AND INNOVATION FOR CULTURAL TOURISM LED DESTINATION IN THE ERA OF ICT:

Innovation has been widely pinpointed as a critical factor for hospitality and tourism enterprises, organizations, and destinations (Pikkemaat et al., 2019). Meanwhile, the rapid development of Information and Communication technologies (ICTs) has challenged the traditional tourism development framework by bringing ‘smartness’ into destinations.

China has invested heavily in smart tourism-related projects (Cavalheiro, 2020). The “Thirteenth Five-Year Plan for National Tourism Informatization” issued by the National Tourism Administration in 2017 revealed the important role of information technology applications in the development of China’s tourism industry, encouraging the integrated development of (mobile) Internet, the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, computer simulation, big data, and other technical fields with tourism. Under this policy environment, and in order to meet the increasing demand for tourism quality of tourists, China’s tourism industry was observed to use the power of other industries to help with the innovation process. For example, the technology industry facilitates the development of intelligent and smart tourism. New technology devices, platforms, systems, and infrastructure have continued to shape industry landscapes, stimulating tourism development at an unprecedented rate. The cultural and leisure industries catalyze the diversification and personalization of tourism products. It is undeniable that the development of new technology in the tourism sector will remain a constant theme. However, there has not been any urban regeneration model that considers how to embrace the new trend of smart tourism.

Traditional theories and models of destination management (Laws, 1995; Ritchie & Crouch, 2000), destination governance (Pechlaner et al., 2012), and destination leadership (Beritelli et al., 2014; Pechlaner et al., 2018) have contributed to the advancement of tourism destination research and practice. With technology becoming further infused into our everyday lives, the connection between daily life and travel is tighter than ever, and basically, tourism development has not been the same. In the western context, Living Labs (Cigir, 2018; Calzada, 2019) have been applied to tourism destinations in the face of such trends. Previous studies of tourism development mechanisms and planning strategies in China have not dealt with such new trends, which calls for a new mechanism for Smarter Tourism Destination Development.

Figure 1.5 ICT and Cultural Tourism Destination Development in Nanjing Source: Nanjing Government Website

2

LOCATING THE LIVING LAB IN CHINA

There is a growing recognition that cities face environmental and social problems that are too complex and interconnected to overcome without multi-stakeholder collaboration. This trend requires a new design intervention. This dissertation argues that the ULL, as a designing and planning method, holds the possibility of creating a better urban regeneration model for the sustainable development of cultural and tourism destinations for China.

2.1 GENEALOGY OF URBAN LIVING LABS

A Living Lab is a research concept conceived of by the City Science group at MIT in 2006. Their first iteration of a Living Lab was the PlaceLab, a shortterm experimental environment where researchers could observe and test people’s usage of specific products by establishing a data collection system of sensing, monitoring, and tracking equipment, as shown in Figure 2.1. Researchers later based the idea of Living Labs on the PlaceLab experiment. The Living Lab is defined not only as a physical environment for testing, but also a “user-centered methodology for prototyping, validating, and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life contexts”1 .

After its inception, the Living Lab quickly gained traction and underwent further evolution as a research and development (R&D) method in Europe. In 1998, Finnish scholar Niitamo Veli-Pekka came across the concept during a visit to MIT while he was conducting fieldwork. He later applied it to the Nokia Corporation’s cooperation project. This was the first European application of the Living Labs concept. In 2005, many cities, including Barcelona, Helsinki, and Manchester, joined a telecommunications project in Europe called “Information Cities.” Professor William Bill Mitchel, one of the founders of Living Lab from MIT, was engaged as an external expert on this project. Throughout the project, Mitchel discussed and referred to his experience at MIT. The participating cities in Europe were inspired to form a network to assess this idea’s applicability in an urban context. These applications are the predecessors of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), shown

1 Mitchell, Larson, and Pentland in Core Labs (2006), http://www. ami-communities.net/wiki/CORELABS Archived 2006-07-16 at the Wayback Machine.

in Figure 2.2, initiated by the President of Finland in 2006. Since then, many European countries have tried to use this co-creation method for regional policymaking, social innovation, lifestyle exploration, etc. During this process, the ULL was born.

Unlike the Living Lab, the ULL usually sits in the urban territory, trying to find local solutions to complex global crises, including climate change and energy transition (Steen & van Bueren, 2017). In recent years, the ULL concept has been well accepted and implemented in Europe with the help and funds from ENoLL and respective governments. ENoLL currently has 475 members, as shown in Figure 2.3, and the growth of such an institution has brought more and more industries into the forum in recent years. However, as of 2021, there is only one officially registered Living Lab organization in China, which is located in Tongji University.

2.2 THE EVALUATION OF LIVING LAB CHARACTERISTICS

During the above-mentioned birth and expansion process, as shown in Figure 2.4, the definition of a Living Lab has been broadened and enriched with actual practices, and many new characteristics are shown. To distinguish a ULL from a Living Lab, von Wirth et al. (2019) prepared a literature review to define the characteristics of both, as shown in Figure 2.5. As can be seen, a ULL is a Living Lab with an actual physical space embedded in the city, and it also has a mature financing model and an added political dimension (Chronéer et al., 2019).

2.2.1 FROM USER-CENTRIC TO MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT

The main objective of a Living Lab has been to early involve different stakeholders, especially users, on the innovation process. This User-Centric Design Method stemmed from the ICT industry and proved to be beneficial in other industries’ R&D departments as well. At the time, it was defined by many as R&D research (Eriksson et al., 2006). It was found that in practice, the Living Lab includes more stakeholders than solely designers and end-users. As an experimental environment, the Living Lab also stresses an educational purpose by bringing students into this process (Hawk et al., 2012). Living Labs also allow students to understand real-life problems through an active, practical, and reflexive learning experience (Zen, 2017). To systematically understand the stakeholders behind this method of engagement, a Quadruple helix model was first defined (AMS Institute, 2019) to include users, private actors, public actors, and knowledge Institutes. More recently, a Penta helix framework was proposed (Calzada, 2019), including public actors, private actors, academics, civil society organizations, and social entrepreneurs/ activists. In ULLs, the end-user usually refers to citizens, which shows how the establishment of such an institute includes considerations of citizen empowerment.

1

2

6 Figure 2.1 MIT PlaceLab Retrieved from: http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~tmcleish/Selected%20 Publications/PlaceLab%20Overview.pdf Figure 2.2 European Network of Living Labs Retrieved from: https://openlivinglabs.eu/ Figure 2.6 chronocyclegraph, a tool to study human motion Note: The Five Strands of Living Lab: A Literature Study of the Evolution of Living Lab Concepts in HCI (Alavi, Lalanne, Rogers, 2020)