Page 1

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism A case study of Chipping Village LICA 426 Summer Term Student Name: Seungil Lee Student Number: 30087704 E-mail of student: MA Design Management 2011/2012

Collaborative Hotel Development towards Sustainable Rural Tourism Student Name: Seungil Lee

Contents Executive Summary


Chapter 1 Introduction


1.1 Tourism and Chipping


1.2 Significance of the Study


1.3 Research Purpose


1.4 Research Process and Methods


Chapter 2 Literature Review


2.1 Sustainable Tourism Development


2.2 Sustainable Hotel Development


2.3 Co-design and Planning


2.3.1 Advantages of and Barriers to Co-design


2.3.2 Considerations in Co-design


Chapter 3 Initial Findings Summary


3.1 Key Factors


3.2 Discussion


Chapter 4 Field Research


4.1 Chipping: Geographic and Tourism Features


4.2 Conceptual Study for Collaborative Hotel Development


4.3 Co-design in Practice


Chapter 5 Research Findings

36 Page 2 of 98

5.1 Field Research Key Findings


5.1.1 Development Company’s Perspective


5.1.2 Current Perspective of Collaboration


5.2 Research Findings: Discussion


5.3 Development of Design Aims and Criteria


5.3.1 Design Aims


5.3.2 Criteria


Chapter 6 Design Developments


6.1 Design Process


6.2 Results: Features and Benefits of Collaborative Hotel Development


6.3 Reflection


Chapter 7 Discussion of Finalised Proposal


7.1 Stakeholders’ Response to Initial Ideas in the Workshop


7.2 Action-oriented Issues via the Workshop


Chapter 8 Conclusion and Implications


8.1 Summary of the Design Research of the Chipping case


8.2 Conclusion for Co-design in Chipping


8.3 Further Implications of Co-design in Collaborative Hotel Development






Page 3 of 98

Executive Summary This paper seeks to define “co-design� within the hotel development industry and to articulate appropriate co-design processes. Although encouraging the local community to become involved in participating in decision-making has been introduced by the UK government, in some areas it remains limited. The main focus of this paper is to develop a co-design approach for hotel development within a sustainable rural tourism framework, a subject which has been studied less in current scholarship, even though hotel development is important for tourism. To explore the possibility of co-design in hotel planning, a case study was actively conducted involving interviews, observations and participation in the design stages to examine latent practical insights of co-design for both corporations and stakeholders. The Chipping hotel development is a successful example of the application of co-design, showing the opportunities and constraints and defining co-design in hotel development. Collaborative development is more than a design method for increasing tourism through attracting visitors. It works towards local development which is sensitive to the social sustainability of local identities and stimulates social engagement. The results of the study suggest further research directions for possible co-design in the hotel planning currently in existence.

Page 4 of 98

Chapter 1


1.1 Tourism and Chipping

The countryside is an important resource for tourism in UK, dominating a quarter of all domestic holiday nights and a third of all day trips and supporting about 400,000 jobs (Countryside Commission, 1995: 4). Nevertheless, there are problems that are often highly localised, due to intrusive development, traffic congestion and a loss of rural identity due to agricultural changes (Swarbrooke, 1999: 161). In the UK, sustainable tourism has been seen as a solution to these problems. In particular, Agenda 21 was set up to generate benefits for countryside visitors and local communities without damaging the environment (Countryside Commission, 1995: 5). Although the UK government manages the programme in line with sustainable tourism principles, in the countryside, the economic downturn and loss of traditional employment continue to challenge the government’s policy and affect local tourism and the economy.

These issues are relevant for Chipping, a village located in the eastern part of the Forest of Bowland in the UK. Due to the closure of one of the largest local businesses, HJ Berry furniture, in 2010, local employment and the number of local businesses have decreased. In 2011, Chipping Council announced its community-led Chipping Village Plan 2011 (Chipping and Bowland-with Leagram Parish Council, 2011: 2). According to this initiative, a plan for the village’s future and local community’s demands was articulated. The strategic plan emphasised the importance of local tourism and the regeneration of the former HJ Berry furniture sites, including the Mill building site, a modern factory area, and Chipping Brook, a more rural area. Eventually, a plan to convert the Grade II listed Arkwright Mill into a

Page 5 of 98

hotel and to develop the furniture factory sites was developed. The plan aimed to encourage local employment and local business and promote sustainable tourism in Chipping (ibid.: 9, 13, 14).

1.2 Significance of the Study

Sustainable tourism is constantly threatened by conflicts between systems and structures, and between individuals and communities, due to the processes of commercialisation of place assets in the environment, both cultural and social (Taboada, 2009: 69). Therefore, sustainable hotel development planning schemes to need to take many different positions into account. Some researchers argue that sustainable tourism development is more focused on concept-led schemes than project-led schemes (Krippendorf, 1982; Lane, 1990; Godfrey, 1996; Swarbrooke, 1999: 15). Roseland (2005) emphasises that sustainable development must do more than merely protect the environment: it means economic and social changes to improve human well-being and reduce the need for environmental protection (Roseland, 2005; Taboada, 2009: 69).

Thus, it is necessary to consider a transition towards sustainability within hotel planning in Chipping. This transition requires radical changes in the way of life (Jansen, 1993; Braungart & McDough, 1998; Manzini, 2007: 161). “Significant progress towards sustainable development cannot be achieved by maintaining our current life styles in the economically developed countries� (Walker, 2008: 26). As an alternative to traditional design approaches that focus on designer-based processes, a new way of thinking geared towards sustainability has emerged which takes into account the knowledge and expertise of clients and other experts. It aims to create a new vision and purpose, based on the notion of sustainability, which concerns

Page 6 of 98

society and the environment (Fuad-Luke, 2007: 28). With regard to this type of design, Fuad- Luke (2007: 46) suggests using co-design as a method to generate new ideas to meet society’s needs.

1.3 Research Purpose

Co-design is characterised as being societal rather than commercial in character (Fuad-Luke, 2007: 46), because the dynamics and effects of design activities are regulated by business factors, rather than purely creative factors (Findeli, 2001; Fuad-Luke, 2007: 46). Therefore, examples of co-design might be easily found in public projects and community-based projects, rather than in commercial enterprises.

Even though it can be argued that hotel development involves a certain degree of collaboration between professionals, such as architects, interior designers and technology providers from the beginning of the design process, it might still be limited to project-led schemes as non-sustainable forms of tourism. Shepherd (1998) argues that participation in rural development is still regarded as being very idealistic and ideological. However, Macdonald (1993) views this as an appropriate method for rural areas (Osborne et al., 2002: 1). Until now, the application of collaboration theory to hotel development in rural areas has been a new phenomenon. It has not been addressed clearly.

Therefore, the main aim of this research is to develop a co-design approach for hotel development within a sustainable rural tourism framework. This is achieved by considering the Chipping hotel development project as a case study. This thesis aims to answer the following research questions:

Page 7 of 98

1) What are the opportunities for collaborative hotel development through co-design in Chipping? 2) What issues arise when co-design principles are applied to hotel development in Chipping? 3) How can collaborative hotel development for sustainable rural tourism be defined in the context of Chipping? To attain the main aim of this research, the following objectives need to be accomplished: 1) Review and discuss the theories of co-design, rural tourism and hotel development; 2) Articulate an initial methodology for collaborative hotel development through primary research; 3) Explore how a co-design approach can be used in the initial stages of practical hotel development; (4) Articulate further discussions and conclusions in terms of opportunities, barriers and defining collaborative hotel development in the context of Chipping.

1.4 Research Process and Methods

Regarding design practices in a hotel development project, the methodology of this research involves background theoretical research. First, this research scrutinises the theory of community involvement and tourism planning in the context of sustainable rural tourism and hotel development. Second, a combination of primary and secondary research to understand the contextual background of hotel development is used. Finally, this combination is interpreted via self-reflection by the design researcher in order to find answers to the research questions stated above. According to Walker (2007: 57), the way to develop a more comprehensive

Page 8 of 98

appreciation of design processes is to engage in them. Thus, the ideas and approaches generated by this form of research could be considered an important step in collaborative hotel development.

The secondary research presented in the literature review below examines existing studies on the subject, in the form of books, journals, conference papers and online resources. The purpose of a literature review is to uncover research problems for further study (Machi & McEvoy, 2009: 2) by focusing on the current state of knowledge about the study questions. Therefore, background data and findings from previous research are reviewed to validate some practical aspects of theoretical frameworks underlying collaborative hotel development. Secondary research provides an understanding of the advantages, barriers and other issues related to collaborative hotel development, which is necessary for further study.

This paper utilises a case study method for primary research. Case studies can provide knowledge about previously under-investigated research areas (Eisenhardt, 1989; Gummesson, 2000; Kristensson et al., 2008: 479). They can investigate complex and unique subjects that cannot be investigated by analytical or quantitative 1.Literature review

Sustainable rural tourism Hotel development

3.Develop a design

2.Primary research

Design Development in case study

Data collection from case study

4. Discussion

4. Discussion Co-design

Define co-design approach based on a case study

4. Discussion

Interview of co-design

5.Define a model

Page 9 of 98

methods (Sato, 2009: 39). Moreover, according to Yin (1989), an unusual subject in existing knowledge is viewed as having an important role to play in a case study.

Therefore, the researcher conducts a case study to develop an in-depth understanding of collaborative hotel development, which is still under-investigated in co-design. Moreover, Chipping encountered difficulties in reaching agreement between a hotel development company and local residents, as the former did not have a clear vision to share with local residents. Hotel development in Chipping can affect the local ecology as well as residents’ everyday lives. In the field research conducted in this study, the major activities are: 1) Field meetings and workshop with the hotel development company in Chipping; 2) Workshop with Chipping local residents. Qualitative data obtained from these activities were organised into different categories and qualitative analysis was carried out.

To gain feedback and a local perspective from the residents, a case study proposal was designed with various scenarios for hotel development. Polanyi (1967) highlights that tacit knowledge can only be communicated and shared by people when they are given “adequate means for expressing themselves” (Polanyi, 1967; Taboada, 2009: 193). According to Zeisel (2006: 272), people’s mental images of the future can be articulated in a picture.

To understand co-design perspectives, two internal interviews with the hotel development company, as key informants in the project, were conducted. The interviews covered nine questions, based on the main theoretical principles of codesign discussed in the literature review. In addition, four external interviews were

Page 10 of 98

conducted with a service designer, a hotel project manager, an architect, and a councillor, via emails and Skype, to explore the possibilities and challenges of collaborative hotel development from an outside perspective, with individuals not involved in the project. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed. Finally, to evaluate the current design processes of the hotel development company, interviews with three internal participants were conducted.

This thesis is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 2 comprises a literature review of sustainable rural tourism, hotel development planning processes and the role of collaborative design in tourism and hotel development. Chapter 3 discusses the main theoretical principles that emerge from the theoretical review of collaborative tourism and hotel development, together with some case studies in this area. Chapter 4 examines a case study of collaborative hotel development. Chapter 5 presents the findings of observations of design practices in Chipping hotel development as an initial planning stage, based on main theoretical principles. Chapter 6 focuses on design development to engage local communities in collaborative hotel projects. Chapter 7 discusses the contributions of this research and real feedback. Chapter 8 draws a conclusion in response to the research questions posed in this paper.

Page 11 of 98

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Sustainable Tourism Development

Tourism plays an important role in the regeneration and diversification of rural economies and communities, it provides a means to counteract economic decline (Walford, 2001: 331). However, there are growing concerns about the negative effects of tourism, such as natural resources degradation, lack of interaction between hosts and visitors, lack of control by operators in local tourism, temporal concentration, and the gap between host supply and visitor demand (Swarbrooke, 1999: 162). Therefore, the main concern of sustainable rural tourism is to find better ways to manage and develop tourism in rural areas without damaging the environment (Countryside Commission, 1995: 4-5). This requires effective planning and management to achieve the potential benefits of rural tourism and to optimise these benefits, while seeking to minimise any negative effects on the environment, economy and society in rural areas (Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997: 131). This means adopting an integrated and holistic approach to achieve balanced and sustainable development in rural areas.

Community involvement and partnerships are often viewed as a way of achieving sustainable tourism. For instance, the Countryside Commission (1995) introduced a local action plan for sustainable rural tourism via 21 case study projects involving local communities. It suggested improving communication, participating in decisionmaking and encouraging direct participation to promote sustainable tourism (ibid., 1995: 31-32). The World Trade Organisation (WTO) views the participation of relevant stakeholders as a social dimension of sustainable tourism (WTO, 2004; Panyik et al., 2011: 1353). This point is supported by Woodley (1993), who

Page 12 of 98

demonstrates that a community-based approach to tourism development is a precondition to sustainability (Woodley, 1993; Sharpley & Sharpley, 1997: 125). Therefore, these movements towards social change may be important factors in planning sustainable rural tourism. Based on the importance of social context, Taboada (2009) suggests that collaborative planning methodologies may be a viable alternative for sustainable tourism planning, as they stimulate trans-disciplinary discussion among diverse local and social groups and meet the need to consider multiple interactions, feedback relationships, complexities and uncertainties (Taboada et al., 2010: 72). Furthermore, the emerging focus on sustainable development and communities has built a body of knowledge about place design, master planning, design codes and design reviews (RIBA, 2011a: 15).

Community involvement was found to be related to residents’ attitudes towards tourism, for which favourable attitudes are a prerequisite for additional development. Many rural communities have very strong identities generated by an identity of place (Osborne et al., 2002: 17). Communities are viewed as a tourism product because they are the final destination for most travellers (Blank, 1989; Simmons, 1994; Scheyvens, 1999; Panyik et al., 2011: 1353). However, there remains the challenge of balancing appropriately the various priorities of stakeholders (Aronsson, 2000; Pigram, 2000; Cawley et al., 2007: 319). This might depend on the complex and dynamic relationships between visitors, host communities and rural resources. Furthermore, local people are suspicious of change and nervous about the types of new housing or other development that might be built (RIBA, 2011a: 8). Therefore, a clear objective for tourism development and a vision for local communities might be crucial to ensuring community involvement.

Page 13 of 98

2.2 Sustainable Hotel Development

Hotel development emphasises the quality of accommodation and a unique identity to attract visitors. According to Mintel (2003), high standards of accommodation and facilities are the most important factors for tourists (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Albacete-Saez, 2007; Pattullo & Minelli, 2006: 32). To differentiate themselves successfully from other destinations with similar attractions, hotels should integrate unique values of local culture in their design, and should weigh these against the costs and benefits of standardisation (Riewoldt, 2006; Lee, 2011: 708). Riewoldt (2006) argues that “hotel design that capitalises on the unique aspects of a destination will maintain appeal for ‘new’ tourists” (Riewoldt, 2006; Lee, 2011: 709). For example, visitors to rural areas can enjoy alternative types of accommodation: camping barns as simple low-cost accommodation, bunkhouse barns or converted country houses (Wight, 1997: 217).

Hotels play an important role in tourism as a key component of the industry (ibid.: 210). They function to provide a total living environment with multi-complex functions and activities, rather than simply being monuments or rental spaces (Rutes et al., 1985; Ransley, 2004: 57). However, within tourism, hotel development is often criticised for building new units which are at odds with the principles of sustainable development: they utilise architectural styles which are foreign to the area, create resorts with large-scale private grounds, and restrict access to local residents while using valuable land (Swarbrooke, 1999: 299-300).

However, since the introduction of Agenda 21, the hospitality industry has done a lot to improve its performance towards sustainable development (UNEP, 2002: 41). For example, from an economic perspective, the hotel industry contributes to job creation

Page 14 of 98

and considerable growth of the local economy. This includes a “multiplier effect” that contributes to the community’s economy via hotel guests spending in the local area (UNEP, 2002: 35).

Although principles for sustainable hospitality exist, it is difficult to find examples of sustainable hotel development in hospitality research. One possibility for hotel design for sustainability might be a form of an eco-friendly or green hotel, but it is more likely to focus on energy efficiency and environmentally friendly buildings, rather than a holistic approach with sustainable dimensions. According to Davis (2004: 229), many architects consider eco-design to equate to eco-friendly in hotel development. Only 1 per cent of “100 iconic” designers utilise sustainable design thinking (referring to environmental, social and economic factors), and 5 per cent occasionally use ecodesign thinking (Fuad-Luke, 2007: 25). “Sustainable design has not yet been taken up by the majority of mainstream product designers in the UK” (Richardson et al., 2005: 35). Geok and Buche (2008: 8) highlight the importance of social and community development as a key contributor to sustainability in their case study of the Hertance Kandalama resort. Therefore, in hotel development, a sustainable design approach that goes beyond simple eco-design may be required.

2.3 Co-design and Planning Since the 1970s, involving communities or stakeholders1 has been considered in design research and in urban and regional planning (Cross, 1972: 12). According to Sanders and Stappers (2008: 6), co-design indicates creative designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process. The codesign concept is used in various sectors of the design industry and in other


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

Page 15 of 98

Table 1 Different Interpretations of Co-creation !"#$%&'()*+,%-#.*



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

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

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

Source: LSE (2009: 7)

disciplines, e.g. environmental psychology, planning and regeneration, and housing and policy-making (Jenkins et al., 2010: 60). The term includes collaborative design, cooperative design, co-design and social design (Margolin & Margolin, 2002). However, its definition differs from context to context and according to the disciplinary outlook (LSE, 2009: 7) (see Table 1).

Broadbent (2003) describes the following characteristics of co-design (Faud-Luke, 2007: 38):

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

Being an iterative, non-linear interactive process;

Being “action-based” research;

Involving top-down and bottom-up approaches;

Simulating the real world;

Being useful for complex systems or problems;

Being situation driven, especially by common human situations;

Satisfying pluralistic outcomes;

Being internalised by the system.

Page 16 of 98

2.3.1 Advantages of and Barriers to Co-design

According to the Design Council (2012), co-design is viewed as a new way for businesses to innovate and create competitive advantages, thus creating more authentic and holistic results. Including diverse perspectives from multiple stakeholders in design decisions brings practical results in design projects and is viewed as a fresh source of design inspiration (Bell, 2004: 30). According to Wates and Knevitt (1987: 115), in architecture, building environments are becoming more complex and existing hierarchies cannot deal effectively with this complexity. Thus, user participation is suggested as a solution. Furthermore, other researchers argue that “public participation reduces the vandalism and enriches the life of the community” (King et al.,1989; Sanches and Frankel, 2010: 3). Therefore, co-design has various advantages for businesses today (Binder et al., 2000; Steen et al., 2011: 53; LSE, 2009: 4).

On the other hand, it is sometimes unclear how co-design contributes to design projects. According to Sanders and Stappers (2008: 9), there are four basic challenges when adopting co-design: (1) the assumption that all people are creative; (2) the possibility that the participants’ thinking opposes consumerism; (3) participatory design is likely to be relevant to academic endeavour rather than to the competitive market; and (4) markets become complex due to human experience. According to other case studies and theoretical studies, more practical barriers to codesign are revealed. Barriers can be categorised by organisational levels into company level barriers and actor level barriers (Table 2). Most barriers are revealed at the company level, “time and cost”. Only two barriers exist at the actor level: “unfamiliar process and trust”. Moreover, trust can be difficult to regain after it is lost.

Page 17 of 98

Table 2 Barriers to Co-design !"#"$%&'%(%)(**+"*% 12.&*%$"#"$%

% )3%




!""%89::;<% =(6($%>%?".@%83AAB<%



DE)1%89:33<% =(6($%>%?".@%83AAB<%













C(Q&(0(%".%($R89::A<% =(6($%>%?".@%83AAB<% M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<% ="5K+5,%89:39<% !""%".%($R%89::;<% !-S%89::A<%














M(6+0%>%FI&+%89:33<% )3:%



















)3H% )3N%

="5K+5,%89:39<% )3B%



Trust, for instance, is easily fractured by one false step, and hard to mend - like a pane of glass (Handy, 1993:141). Thus, it must be earned and should be fostered in a mutual learning relationship (RIBA, 2011b: 6).

2.3.2 Considerations in Co-design

Page 18 of 98

According to Jenkins (2010: 17), the issue of power is most important in the process, before defining any participatory engagement. In architectural planning, there are three broad categories of participation, including professional, client and user groups or the wider public: (1) “providing information” as a one-way flow from the professional to the user group or wider public, (2) “consultation” as a two-way flow between professionals, user groups or the wider public, and (3) “shared decisionmaking forms” between professionals, user groups or the wider public (ibid.: 13). Moreover, Arnstein (1969: 217) classifies systems for participation by using “a ladder of participation”. Most public involvement programmes fall in the consultation category (Lacofano et al., 1988; Sanches & Frankel, 2010). However, it is important to distinguish between co-design and consultation in user participation. According to Siu (2003: 72), consultation utilises users’ general knowledge in the design process. On the other hand, co-design refers to working together with users to create ideas in more shared decision-making ways. Thus, consultation is less risky than co-design, so consultation may have been largely implemented in design projects. However, it is easy to make the case for mixed use, although the interpretation of these categories is different. According to The Prince’s Regeneration Trust (n.d.), effective consultation is viewed as a powerful tool to understand community groups, educate them about projects, and work with them to address their concerns. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the border between consultation and co-design in design practices has been blurred, and it may be important to recognize this as a continuum rather than being mutually exclusive. Furthermore, “wider participation” refers to user or wider public participation and belongs to consultations and shared decisionmaking (Jenkins, 2010: 13). Therefore, participation is not always an empowering form of decision-making, although shared decision-making is ideal and empowering. Users can become part of a design team, as “experts of their experiences” (Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2005; Sanders & Stappers, 2008; 12). Knowledge of design is not exclusive to designers (Cross, 2006; Press, 2011: 520). This means it is possible for

Page 19 of 98

Table 3 Four Levels of Creativity !"#"$%




















Source: Adapted from Sanders and Stappers (2008)

all to participate as experts. Yet, even though this is accepted in the context of codesign, there are still mitigating factors in terms of appropriate participant profiles. Sanders and Stappers (2008) introduced four levels of creativity in living (Table 3): (1) doing, (2) adapting, (3) making, and (4) creating. They argue that becoming a codesigner relies on the expertise, passion and creativity of users (Sanders, 2006; Sanders & Stappers, 2008; 12).

Some suggest that creative stakeholders are more suitable. However, others argue that specific co-design contexts and purposes are the only reliable forms of involvement (LSE, 2009: 16). Therefore, the design context and purpose may be the criteria for selecting stakeholders.

Even though stakeholders are involved in the participatory process, if they do not understand its purpose, this may be an unrealistic aspiration. In the early stages of the process, understanding the overall objectives of design participation is viewed as key (Jenkins, 2010: 17). Therefore, the following question needs to be asked: What is the agenda for participation? This question is important, since it sees design as a problem-solving activity and creates customised value for a design project (Cooper & Press, 1995: 16).

Page 20 of 98

Figure 1 Co-designing Process

Source: Adapted from Sanders and Stappers (2008)

Although collaborative approaches should have clear aims, Taboada (2009: 46) emphasises that there should be no pre-defined outcomes, rather they should come from a shared understanding and emerge from a self-organised activity that may occur within a system. On the other hand, Hamid and Choi (2011: 218) argue that setting a clear purpose should save time during workshops organised for co-design projects. Furthermore, there are two types of participation: (1) purpose driven codesign with specific aims, and (2) opening driven co-design to produce new ideas (LSE: 2009). Therefore, the purpose of co-design depends on the context of the project.

Determining the timing for participation in planning is a key issue. Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s involvement in the planning process often takes place after completing the planning stage (Jenkins et al., 2012: 71). However, earlier involvement is recommended so as to enhance ownership and avoid objections. A fuzzy front end in the early stages of co-design is advocated to understand the users and contexts in a project in terms of

Page 21 of 98

user participation (Sanders & Stappers, 2008: 6) (see Figure 1). RIBA (2011a, 10) supports this: “Start the conversation before you come up with solutions and let the community own the ideas”. However, this is still arguable because participation in the earlier stages cannot guarantee the quality of participation and outcomes. Therefore, it is necessary to explore standard criteria for participants’ intervention into co-design stages. According to Jenkins et al. (2012: 60), participatory processes are often seen as enabling building users to identify problems and needs. Since co-design depends on the context and purpose of a project, it is hard to define it as a single process. To explore the ideal stages and types of co-design processes, the researcher conducted case studies based on existing resources in architectural projects (Table 4). This table reflects the use of co-design processes in architectural projects in relation to rural tourism, since this relates to most specific projects.

Table 4 Co-design Processes from Case Studies !"#$%&'(


+%,-./( 0/1*,'"2(


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


46'%":688( 462(

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

C%%( =>??IA(

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

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


!"%:%"%/&%( ,'6.%(

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

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



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

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


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


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

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

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



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


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

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

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


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



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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

S#3%( T688%2(

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: Coloured cells represent the engagement of stakeholders

Page 22 of 98

The key findings of the case studies are: •

Ideas in most projects are generated during meetings or workshops with stakeholders, and engagement in the majority of the projects occurs at the beginning of the entire process.

There is no fixed process in the seven cases presented above in relation to each stage of co-design. Therefore, a project requires customised processes reflecting local or social identities.

Most projects adopt simple stages.

There is an open management process without fixed structure or tools (Waterfall Way).

Page 23 of 98

Chapter 3

Initial Findings Summary

3.1 Key Factors

Secondary research highlights three categories: rural tourism, hotel development, codesign and planning. First, research reveals that the UK rural community encourages local partnerships and community-involved planning to manage and develop sustainable tourism. Thus, rural tourism development is closely related to social aspects such as a communal identity. Moreover, stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; priorities are major concerns in tourism planning. Second, from the hotel development perspective, hotelsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; unique characteristics need to be compared with those of other competitors. However, there is still tension between authentic housing and modern facilities. Furthermore, in hotel development, social and community aspects are viewed as important components in building hotel identity. A hotel is likely to combine local culture with a strong local community identity to differentiate itself from others. At the starting point of a project, excellent management skills might be required as the local identity is stronger than the hotelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Finally, various barriers and advantages are explored, and aspects of co-design such as interpretation, empowerment for decision-making, selecting stakeholders, and the processes and stages of participation in co-design rely on this context. Interestingly, Chapter 2 presented various characteristics of co-design, which are still not clear with regard to common aspects of co-design or more specific cases. However, it is less arguable that it is difficult to find case studies on collaborative hotel development pertaining to the planning stages of design, although there are some case studies on collaborative tourism planning. Therefore, it might be important to deal with these case studies in co-design as hotel development can have a huge impact on rural society and its

Page 24 of 98

physical environment by attracting visitors and building relationships between visitors and the community.

3.2 Discussion

According to the three study questions outlined in Chapter 1, it is necessary to reflect on these in relation to the findings of the literature review. However, it is difficult to answer these questions due to the lack of existing studies on collaborative hotel development. Another reason is that the notion of co-design, as discussed in the literature review, relies on the design contexts and purposes of co-design, rather than providing standard guidelines for practical purposes. According to the NSW Heritage Office (2005: 5), the term ‘context of a historical building’ is defined as: “The specific character, quality and physical, historical and social characteristics of a building’s setting.” According to RIBA (2011a: 9), to understand the context of a place, an architect studies its history, topography and identity (visual, social, environmental and economic).

On the other hand, co-design processes can be changed, based on the characteristics of local stakeholders, as this involves working together with multistakeholders, and local people are viewed as a tourism destination. Thus, standardised or exemplar approaches are not available for hotel development. A design approach to hotel development in a rural area might face substantial challenges and might require an alternative co-design approach to handle the various tendencies of stakeholders. From these points of view, using co-design in hotel development is still complex, although the method is known as a useful way to deal with complex systems or problems.

Page 25 of 98

A researcher might require more adaptable and flexible processes and criteria to overcome changeable situations such as different localities and residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; characteristics in collaborative hotel development. In this situation, the definition of co-design for hotel development can change. Hence, field research requires an indepth understanding of the context of Chipping in relation to tourism and hotel development. Moreover, it might be fundamental that the researcher first listens to local residents to understand local points of view. RIBA (2011a: 9) highlights the fact that local people have strong views, vital perspectives and much to contribute, and this is the basic starting point when planning for localism. Therefore, these issues might constitute the basic starting point for collaborative hotel development in Chipping.

Page 26 of 98

es on the ourish, with nefiting too. es to gged robin orks has ts, many etation

of shallow wader scrapes and reprofiling of steep sided ditches provide shallow muddy edges for wading bird chicks to feed. Grazing by native Hereford cattle ensures that rush 4is keptField under control. Chapter Research

4.1 Chipping: Geographic and Tourism Features

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

How to find us

situated above the valley of the River Loud in the heart of Lancashire's scenic Ribble Valley, on the edge of the Trough of Bowland (see Figure 2). Chipping is within the

Public Transport: Chipping is served by the Number 4 bus from Longridge destination. Chipping derives its name from the Old English “ceping”, which means a and Preston. (You can also reach Longridge by using market. Chipping market developed the bridge over Chipping B12Brook linksat the andnearClitheroe).The from Blackburn buses Chipping to Clitheroe and Garstang on a Thursday only. Traveline onUK0870 6082 608. For details Figuremore 2 Location Map of call Chipping, Lancashire,


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





Riv e


Lu ne

Clap C Clapham Station

0 Ri v e r

Riv er

5 10 A5



Hindbu rn



27 B5


B6 48 0

5 A6

u oeb River R

83 A6 Bare Lane



83 Settle




B6 47

Giggleswick Station






A5 105









odder er H Riv







C er

Long Preston Hellifield

B6 478



A6 5


River R ibble

l Cana aster Lanc



Lancaster (Forton) S

B647 8

Hotel Development Site





B e ck

er Riv






Co n d

Tosside Beck

River Wyre


A6 82


B5 2 90


9 A5

Toss ide B5272

ibb er R Riv



B 62


252 B6

9 A5


B6 3 38

A6 82


r ste

ld e


a nc La


R ive






River Hodder




B6 2

Forest of Bowland AONB

69 4 B62


B 62 4 7

68 A6 0




9 A5

S ab

de n

A6 06 8






2 B6

River C


32 Langho Station

ald e

B 62 42

9 A5

66 A6


8 A67



A6 71

434 B6

By Road: the From the south, Chipping can be reached by leaving Page 27 of 98 M6 at junction 31A near Preston and then heading north through Longridge - approximately 12 miles. From the 1 24 B6


0 26 B5

B51 9




B6 2

82 A6


6 A5

Whalley Station

11 B54



24 8





B6 24 6


8 A5





69 52

© Crown copyright. Lancashire County Council. Licence No. 100023320 2007 26 B5


Leed s

A5 88


& Live rp ool Ca nal

r Br Rive

A68 2




A5 9

A5 8

er Riv




le Ribb River


Rive r Wenni n g


0 41 B5


en ning


377 B5

6 52



W ennington Wennington




2 B5

Horton-in-Ribblesdale Station


A6 B6254

Poulton-le-Fylde Station


R i ver Greta

83 A6 4 25 B6



39 B5 4




B5 27 0


River Ke er


rK ive

B 52 75

ral e and , blanket England ble ch esses are e same er and to make e, while servation sed. For AONB, m or ring usinesses h



entrance to the vast Royal Forest of Bowland to the east of the village. Chipping flourished industrially, having seven water-powered mills on Chipping Brook when water power in the district was fully developed.

The village is in the centre of a conservation area with stone-built cottages and Arkwright Mill (Grade II). Chipping has shops, schools, churches and several restaurants and cafĂŠs. Several attractive inns can also be found in the village centre.

Figure 3 Newspaper article announcing the closure of HJ Berry

Page 28 of 98

Moreover, there are at least 25 active local clubs and groups in the village catering to many leisure interests. This picturesque Lancashire village has won a number of best-kept village competitions over the years, e.g. the Bloom Competitions. The area is also frequented by cyclists from the North West and is a favourite resting point with its cafĂŠs. Visitors can choose from a wide range of accommodation, from camping barns to hotels. However, following the UK rural tourism trend, B&Bs and farm-based types of accommodation with self-catering facilities dominate Chipping. The village also has three major annual shows: an agricultural show, a horticultural show and a steam fair. In this sense, tourism is viewed as an integral source of employment by local businesses.

The Chipping Village Plan 2011, reflecting local communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs, was launched to develop Chipping across all areas from housing to the police service. The plan has two main priorities: to boost tourism because of its vital role for local businesses, and to regenerate the former HJ Berry Ltd site, a furniture factory that closed in 2010, laying off 85 people (see Figure 3). In early 2011, a hotel development company canvassed the idea of developing the site and conducted a public consultation with the community. Imagination Lancaster at the University of Lancaster initiated work on a concept plan and feasibility study in 2012.

4.2 Conceptual Study for Collaborative Hotel Development

According to the project plan, research was to be completed between April 2012 and July 2012 (Table 5). To create scenarios for hotel development, the first phase of research involved desktop research based on secondary sources. In the second, key informants from a hotel development company and design agencies conducted conversations and workshops in order to understand each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s viewpoints. Next, a

Page 29 of 98

Table 5 Research Timetable !"#$%&'%($)$*(+,%









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


D*1+*)/$(% I108$()0/"%



D*1+*)/$(% I108$()0/"%

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



Note: ( ) number of participants

researcher, acting as a designer, visualised various scenarios based on communication with local stakeholders and findings from the first and second phases of the research. Lastly, the researcher invited local community members and stakeholders to a workshop to share ideas and opinions on the initial designs. The overall research was organised into four main phases, as shown in Figure 4, below, adapted from Dott’s action research methodology in SEA Communications (2010: 12), apart from phase 3: •

Phase 1 Diagnose: setting up the project and diagnosing issues including existing research and activities around Chipping;

Phase 2 Co-discover: focusing on and examining local issues with the design team and other stakeholders;

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

Phase 4 Co-design: communicating the initial ideas to local residents in a workshop setting.

Page 30 of 98

Figure 4 Design Process for Collaborative Hotel Development in Chipping

Phase 1: Diagnose The main objective of this phase sought an accurate understanding of Chipping through community- and company-led schemes. The research began by analysing the broader context of Chipping. Then, a more detailed analysis was carried out. General facts about Chipping were collected through Chipping Village 2011. Although it did not provide detailed information, it was possible to understand broader government plans for Chipping. The Ribble Valley Borough Council (2011: 2) report highlighted that â&#x20AC;&#x153;overall, the Chipping Village Plan has taken forward the neighbourhood planning and localism concept (as far as this is understood) and produced a community-led plan that articulates as far as possible a collective viewâ&#x20AC;?.

In the company-led scheme, collaboration with the hotel development company during field meetings offered different viewpoints. These were more aspirational, progressive and detailed. Their basic concepts were in line with the Chipping Village Plan 2011. However, a research approach that takes into account specific local conditions, needs

Page 31 of 98

and desires through the design processes involved but without local input can face several challenges in understanding the Chipping context. These challenges stem from the regulations imposed on commercial design practices, relying on indirect methodologies which communicate with the hotel development company to understand the local context.

Phase 2: Co-discover The main objective of this phase was to develop concepts and ideas based on Phase 1. After reaching a contextual understanding of Chipping based on the communityand company-led schemes, the researcher worked with the hotel development company to gain an in-depth understanding of Chipping and to generate ideas. A field meeting and an ideas-sharing workshop in June 2012 allowed the researcher to generate initial ideas (see Figure 5). The researcher combined the community-led and the company-led plans. These were integrated with general tourism trends in the UK and a sustainable rural tourism framework to identify visitors, programmes, physical aspects and local stakeholders for tourism. This research can be viewed as an opportunity with in academia and conceptual design, as compared with corporate

Figure 5 Field meeting at Chipping

Page 32 of 98

culture, which tends to focus on day-to-day priorities (Walker, 2011: 129). Furthermore, this research is practical and closely related to village life as a whole. The direction of the project was decided upon based on several propositions.

Phase 3: Design Development After generating ideas in Phase 2, the researcher started work to visualise them. They needed to be visualised to persuade and inform local residents about hotel development in their area (see Figure 6). The visualisation of ideas can remove peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initial doubts about change, as mentioned in Chapter 2. However, as discussed in Chapter 2, Taboada (2009: 46) argues that pre-defined outcomes have to be avoided in co-design. Therefore, visualisation methods in this research needed to be changed for this project since the demand was for flexibility in design options. In sum, the ideas for the Chipping project had to allow some room for changes.

Phase 4: Co-design: Initial Workshop

Figure 6 Visualisation of Scenarios

Page 33 of 98

Figure 7 Workshop at Lancaster University

This phase aimed to collect feedback on hotel development and on Chipping as a site for this. A small workshop conducted with the local community provided an opportunity to examine local peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attitudes ideas about previously generated and participation in hotel development. The researcher received predominantly positive responses (Figure 7). The workshop findings are discussed in Chapter 7.

4.3 Co-design in Practice

Since this project is about focused co-design, the researcher needed to conduct internal interviews with major participants. The main objective was to examine how co-design could be a valid process for the project. Moreover, it was necessary to observe this point from different perspectives related to hotel planning and co-design

Page 34 of 98

Table 6 Internal and External Participants of Co-design !"#$%"&' ()*)%"+,'-).)/' 720)"2%/' !%"0#+#1%20*'

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

720)".#)8' 9)0,46'




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


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


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

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

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


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


!)"*42%/' 720)".#)8'




!)"*42%/' 720)".#)8'


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


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




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

in order to maintain objectivity. Therefore, while internal interviews were conducted, selected external participants were interviewed (Table 6).

Internal interviews allowed the researcher to examine practical notions of co-design. First, interview questions focused on understanding co-design, then they moved to challenges to co-design. P1 and P2 had in-depth knowledge of co-design and both had positive opinions. Interviews with external participants (P3-P6) were conducted to investigate co-design from subjective and diverse perspectives. The interview results are presented in Chapter 5 in more detail. Chapter 7 discusses the workshop results.

Page 35 of 98

Chapter 5

Research Findings

5.1 Field Research Key Findings

Key participants in the project included the development company, architect and landscape architect. Field research findings focused on information obtained from these participants. In addition, information obtained from the hotel development company about Chipping revealed more about the village than the information available from the Chipping Village Plan 2011.

5.1.1 Development Company’s Perspective

It was important to explore the priorities of the development company to identify the desires and aspirations that could affect the project. For this, the researcher conducted field meetings and a workshop. The hotel development project was viewed as a Chipping development project by the development company. It focused on sustainability. The development company, the architect and the landscape architect based their vision on the Chipping Village Plan 2011. Important points were as follows:

New employment opportunities;

New tourism / leisure facilities;

Enhanced accessibility through the site and to adjacent countryside;

Support for existing services / facilities;

New tourism for improving the local economy;

Preservation of the existing village character;

Page 36 of 98

Additional car parking;

New allotments;

Improved access to broadband and other infrastructures;

Support for implementation of village-wide renewable energy measures.

From their perspective, hotel development in Chipping could be viewed as satisfactory for visitors and residents. One interesting finding was that the hotel development site had been isolated from Chipping for a long time and required reconstruction of its connection to Chipping. The hotel development area is approximately one third of the village settlement. This means that hotel development in Chipping is very important for the village. Therefore, it is important to understand local residents’ profiles and their perceptions of the development. According to the development company, the village residents have focused predominantly on employment issues. Hence, their perspectives are relatively narrow. A key informant in a field meeting stated: “Local people only remember the factory and they want the factory back with employment.”

Local people’s attitudes towards the changes planned for Chipping as a result of the hotel development project were passive and past-oriented. Therefore, the company had to take into account employment issues to involve local residents in the project.

5.1.2 Current Perspective of Collaboration

At this point, it is necessary to acknowledge the current perspective of collaboration with the local people from a steering group (hotel development company, architect and landscape architect). Therefore, the feasibility of co-design in a hotel

Page 37 of 98

development was examined by interviews with internal participants (P1, P2), dealing with knowledge of, and opinions related to, co-design methods of hotel development. The results of these interviews indicated that all participants regarded co-design as a positive method for the project. One key informant (P2) stated: “I feel community involvement with the evolution of Chipping is very important. The community needs to understand that change is needed, but this can be positive for the village and themselves.”

According to an internal participant (P1), the motivation for involving stakeholders was important: “We can be satisfied that our scheme has had as full an input as possible from both our existing team, but that we have taken on board thoughts and ideas from external, possibly unusual ideas.” However, this did not mean that local residents would directly design the hotel rooms and space, but rather that they would help in offering a wide variety of views and opportunities and engage with the design process. “A greater understanding of how communities work and can aid the design process, whether it be through providing knowledge and ideas about their environment or identifying where the local community can initiate immediate change” (P2).

On the other hand, various challenges to co-design were revealed in the interviews (Table 7). Although all internal interviewees had positive attitudes, the major challenges related to the time and cost of collaboration with local residents.

Overall, key participants in the hotel development project viewed co-design as beneficial. However, from the company’s perspective, there were still barriers to the efficient use of co-design. Even though challenges to co-design were directly revealed at company level, and the project manager for the hotel development (P1) regarded the current process as co-design, local residents were still suspicious of

Page 38 of 98

Table 7 Challenges to Co-design in Internal Interviews !









24663'.+>! "@!


















change, according to the interpretation of the hotel development company. Therefore, the local community needs to understand the process of regeneration of the hotel development site and how it fits with the existing village. From this, the designer can gain an in-depth understanding of the place, and the community can understand the design process.

5.2 Research Findings: Discussion

The findings discussed in this subsection focus on practical constraints on co-design and local residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; vision of the hotel development, as opposed to the vision of the hotel development company. The aim of the discussion is to find an appropriate codesign model for Chipping. Based on field research findings and the literature review presented above, the researcher identified constraints on collaborative planning in the hotel development.

Page 39 of 98

Hamid and Choi (2011) present ideas which can lead to efficient collaboration. First, a better understanding of a project’s context, such as markets, trends and competitors, can save time (Hamid & Choi, 2011: 218). This suggestion matches the opinion revealed in an internal interview with P1, who stated that “ensuring quality information [was] given” was important. Additionally, Hamid and Choi (2011: 217) argue that to overcome pressure from stakeholders, it is vital to assure them that codesign with participation can add value to the ideas generation stage, including ‘time and cost’. External participant P6 argues that co-design in the early stages makes planning easier for the planning committee and local people, and developers feel happy about the proposed development. This can save time and money that might be spent altering planning proposals and obtaining planning permission. An internal interviewee, P2, emphasised the need for professionalism within the local community: to act and accept the fact that the developer has budgets and timetables. This is one of the ways to overcome the barriers of time and cost.

From the field research, a passive attitude to employment issues was revealed as the major problem among local residents (see Section 5.1.1). However, this can be seen as a problem that extends beyond the local residents’ capacity. It can be seen as a constraint at the company and actor levels. Even though the development company showed its vision of new employment opportunities to local residents, they did not understand the vision for the hotel development.

This can result from a lack of understanding of the reality by the local community at the actor level, which can result in bias at the company level (B9). However, if this is a real problem, it will deny the application of the basic definition of co-design to untrained people (Sanders & Stappers, 2008: 6). It can come from a lack of management in a co-design project. Sleeswijk Visser et al. (2005) argue that residents must be given appropriate tools to express themselves in order to become

Page 40 of 98

part of the design team as “experts of their experience” (Sanders & Stappers, 2008: 12). On the other hand, if local residents’ problems stem from a lack of knowledge about the benefits they would receive from the hotel development through co-design, it may be necessary to introduce an educational programme to inform them of the its benefits (Tosun, 2000; Ladkin & Bertramini, 2002: 88). At this point, Manzini (2009: 54) introduces the concept of enabling solutions, which is a new way of considering individuals and communities: to look at them for the opportunities they offer, rather than their problems, and their capabilities rather than their needs. Additionally, he highlights, “ the less the user is motivated, the more the system must be not only friendly, but also attractive” (Manzini, 2009: 54).

On the other hand, at the company level, the researcher can assume that the hotel development company did not deliver its vision appropriately to the local community, due to the lack of explanation about new employment opportunities in their vision of the development (B12). Manzini (2007: 78) argues that collaborating to build possible scenarios for a sustainable society is the first and most important step in shifting the designer’s role from one of problem generator to that of solution promoter.

Based on the findings, the opinion of the company on co-design for the hotel development project was, on the whole, positive and revealed an accurate and profound understanding of Chipping and its current status. However, there are still barriers at the company level that must be dealt with to stimulate local people to engage with the project without any misunderstandings. The project may require a clear vision, using efficient visualisation to explain the benefits of the hotel development to Chipping. Moreover, the research has until now not contacted local people to elicit their needs and desires. Although the company understands codesign very well and has a positive attitude, it is true that it did not carry out the development successfully in Chipping. Therefore, it is important to select efficient

Page 41 of 98

communication tools and flexible methods for collecting initial ideas and scenarios in order to reduce any conflict between company and residents.

5.3 Development of Design Aims and Criteria

5.3.1 Design Aims The aim of the design is to develop conceptual scenarios based on the Chipping context for the hotel development project, which would be practical and academically reasonable and appropriate in terms of a development for the village. More detailed objectives are to realise the development in Chipping, to facilitate local residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; access to the hotel development, and to formulate proactive engagement. The scenarios have to be flexible to include the diverse opinions of local residents, while helping to communicate with the hotel development company and local stakeholders. This means that design processes must be inviting to local residents to help fill gaps in different attitudes towards the hotel development. The design could provide local residents with the opportunity to have an overview of the project by providing sketches of the site. This could encourage more active feedback and opinions from the various bodies involved. Then, the design proposals would not be a blueprint for the future but would rather provide an indication of the direction that the plan might take for more sustainable development, being more accessible to local communities, and relieving Chippingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic downturn.

5.3.2 Criteria Hotel development criteria for Chipping were developed based on relevant background research into the hotel industry and collaboration with the development

Page 42 of 98

ity bil ina

Easy & Attractive Information


e ist e nc


-ex Co

ten dib ilit y


Ap pr op ria

sta Su

ten es


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)

Page 43 of 98

2) Easy and attractive information: Will most people be able to engage in the hotel development after sharing design ideas? (Source: Literature review)

3) Co-existence: Is there an appropriate balance between conservation and development, and of perspectives of local residents and the hotel development company, for mutual benefit? (Source: Literature review)

4) Extendibility: Does it suggest a visual interpretation to incorporate the insights of local residents in the development? (Source: Literature review, Field meetings and interviews)

5) Distinctiveness: Is it well distinguished from other competitors and does it avoid competition in Chipping? New ideas from collaborative businesses will create new visions. (Source: Literature review & Field meetings)

6) Sustainability: Does it consider social aspects for sustainability with eco-design? (Source: Literature review & Field meetings)

Regarding the co-design process, these criteria are not fixed; they stand as flexible criteria that will change according to the specific nature of the project through consensus within local residents. In other words, it aims to gain stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; opinions for further development, and therefore the criteria for the co-design process should be iterative.

Page 44 of 98

Chapter 6

Design Developments

6.1 Design Process

The design development aims to create possible scenarios to communicate with local residents to gain feedback that can contribute to further development. The scenarios help to design a set of possible future Chipping models and hotel development models based on different primary assumptions developed from the background research. According to Roxburgh (2009: 3), scenarios are viewed as â&#x20AC;&#x153;predetermined outcomesâ&#x20AC;?, in particular unexpected and uncertain conditions to explore new undiscovered insights. Future scenarios can create interest in continued involvement in the planning process (Evans et al., 2008: 99). The design

Figure 9 Existing Environment in Chipping

Page 45 of 98

development stage for collaborative hotel design comprises three main steps. This process reflects on the observations made in the context of Chipping, which is found at the co-discovery stage, representing possible ideas from undiscovered insights and themes, then returning to tangible solutions with visualisations (see Chapter 4).


Review Chipping


Creating ideas



1) Review Chipping During the review phase, the designer collated existing resources on the hotel development in Chipping, including stories and inspiration from local residents and

Figure 10 Existing Tourism Resources Analysis

Page 46 of 98

Figure 11 SWOT Analysis

the hotel development company (see Figure 9). Existing resources were generated from the diagnosis and co-discovery stages in the main research process. A diagram analysing existing tourism resources was considered to remind us once again of current tourism resources (see Figure 10). SWOT analysis was used to analyse the data collected for internal and external factors (Cooper & Press, 1995: 209) (Figure 11).

2) Creating Ideas The creating ideas phase translated the â&#x20AC;&#x153;review Chippingâ&#x20AC;? stage into frameworks, opportunities, solutions and prototypes. At this stage, the designer could shift from the facts and contextual observations the designer had collected to a more abstract way of thinking about the conceptual mapping of programmes, for both local

Page 47 of 98

Figure 12 Division of the Hotel Development Site

Mill Pond

Zone 2 Zone 1

Hub: Friendly Business & Health care

Mill Building

Heritage Experience

Former Factory site

Former Factory site

Chipping Brook

Zone 3 Natural Experience

stakeholders and visitor segments. Furthermore, the development site was divided into three main zones according to aspects of the site (Figure 12):

Zone 1: The mill site was designed for a heritage experience, considering its heritage value and relevance to targeted visitors;

Zone 2: As a former modern furniture factory site, it was developed for a more active atmosphere offering new facilities;

Zone 3: So-called Chipping Brook site, which had recently been developed, was designed for a natural experience for visitors and local residents, while considering the flood risk and “Root Protection Area”.

In the hotel development project, conceptual mappings were used as a vehicle to represent ideas and create relations between them. A conceptual map was based on findings from the primary and secondary research (see Figure 13).

Page 48 of 98

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

3) Visualisation The visualization phase represents the first stage in developing ideas stemming from the conceptual map, with rapid sketches and planning prototypes. According to Tzonis (2004: 69), one architectural sketch is â&#x20AC;&#x153;worth 10,000 wordsâ&#x20AC;? and can be used for communication to aid design collaboration. This can help the designer offer new initial ideas to local residents. Visualising materials for the workshop also helped engage participants and stimulate their thoughts and ideas (Hamis & Choi, 2011: 220). In particular, the visualisation possibilities were provided via four possible scenarios of the future (see Figure 14). It is important to emphasise that these images of the future are not final. They should be viewed as inspirational material.

Page 49 of 98

Figure 14 Four Future Scenarios for Zone 3 Enjoy Accommodation

Development Natural Camp




Balance Natural Ground

Outdoor Living Room


Enjoy Nature

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

Page 50 of 98

Figure 15 HCBP Diagram

Local Stakeholders

Local Stakeholders

Local Stakeholders

Vision Vision


HOTEL Vision

Vision Vision

Local Stakeholders

Local Stakeholders

Local Stakeholders

Hotel Community Business Partnership Programme




Chipping due to the recent loss of the furniture factory with 85 people now unemployed, and ensures trust and motivation to participate in co-design. HCBP indicates productive activities based on the rural partnership described in Chapter 2. Furthermore, this might go beyond the traditional boundaries in the hotel business, so that the hotel and local stakeholders can share ideas to develop Chipping and attract visitors, thus offering several benefits: competitive advantage, building trust in communities, improving stakeholder relations and increasing the attractiveness to prospective employees. A partnership can act as a vehicle for mobilising resources, and skills, leading to efficiency and productivity gains (De Lacy et al., 2002; Pfueller et al., 2011: 736). Through heightened awareness of local and appropriate programmes, creative decisions become more profound in the context of the project for both residents and visitors. The project presented three zones with various ideas

Page 51 of 98

Figure 16 Stakeholder Map

that related to the different types of stakeholders identified in Chipping (see Figure 16).

1) Heritage Experience (Zone 1): “High Standard of Living with Heritage” is the guiding principle for Zone 1. It signifies an opportunity for visitors to relax and spend time in the Heritage Mill building. Experiencing the life of furniture craftsmen producing handmade furniture and offering private picnics in the Mill Pond area and front garden were selected as executive programmes for the private experience in the scenarios for Zone1 (see Figure 17).

2) Friendly Business & Healthcare (Zone 2): The former factory site has been converted to become the core of the hotel development project. As the site requires many buildings to provide tourist accommodation, there is a good possibility of partnerships occurring in the zone, such as “my furniture show” and

Page 52 of 98

Figure 17 Conceptual Map for Zone 1 special interest international quality standard

55~64 age

picnic lunch

overseas tourist

my furniture experience

short break taker

secret garden with pond

visitor types

local crafts

pond natural pond footpath

local crafsmanship

quality experience


boutique hotel

highend restaurant

handmade life

local food energy saving

eco-building private spa

flower garden

high quality service hydro power

natural relax concierge service

open day to public

water wheel secret garden with flower education travel

Zone-1. Heritage Experience

Chipping Mill Building

High standard life with heritage Natural Experience

Community Business Partnership

Education, Satisfaction, Appreciation

Figure 18 Conceptual Maps for Zone 2

friendly Chipping life brochure

old stone building(barn) Chipping knowledge

business visitor

Reception Gym

visitor type


New Houses

differentiation & similarity

21st stone building


day traveler

Conference Hall Show Case eat in & out catering service

Cafe & Restaurant


short & extended break takers

local cultural & business activity

visitor type self catering

local food booth

my furniture show local crafts allotment

my allotmont organic prouduct

my enterprise show

+65 age

Car park


gardening bike storage & self repair booth

Zone-2. Hub: Friendly Business & Healthcare

Business Camp

Healing Camp

Market Camp

Another Village: Chipping-in-Chipping Creating 21st Village Natural Experience

Community Business Partnership

Education, Satisfaction, Appreciation

Page 53 of 98

Figure 19 Conceptual Map for Zone 3 adventure

seasonal accommodation


spring to summer life

special interest

natural house

private camping

visitor types

alternative accommodation

extended break takers

natural experience VFR Eco-playground


pup up hotel glamping

35 ~ 54 age with children planting scheme



visitor types

green event - conservation activity local character

short break takers

tree archtecture special interest

conservation nature

!my garden" event in Chipping

hydro power

35 ~ 54 age with children !my house" event in Chipping bridge type walk path

public access

extend local journey for visitor & residents education experience

Zone-3. Natural Experience

Peaceful Camp

Outdoor Camp

Authentic House Nature-based Tourism Natural Experience

Community Business Partnership

Education, Satisfaction, Appreciation

a “local food booth” (see Figure 18). At this point, the site presents “another village” which is physically separate from the historical Chipping area. However, Chipping’s identity can be shared, with visitors coming to a businesses camp, with opportunities for recuperation, and a market camp as a revival of the ancient market (see Chapter 4).

3) Natural Experiences (Zone 3): Natural experiences must be considered in the design development (Figure 19). Zone 3, as a natural wooded area, can invite local residents and tourists into the hotel. Visitors can be viewed as eco-tourists who love to experience nature. Therefore, the design for Zone 3 focuses on reducing the impact on nature during the hotel development. Accommodation types (alternative accommodation such as a temporary hotel and natural architecture) are incorporated to reduce damage and preserve nature (see Figure 14).

Page 54 of 98

Hotel Community Business Partnership Programme (HCBP) offers numerous features and benefits:

1) Tourism The HCBP was ergonomically designed to attract visitors when using the hotel. Various programmes allow visitors to rest and experience Chipping during their travels and provide educational experiences about the natural environment for their children. The hotel can accommodate different types of visitors, offering various facilities within HCBP, so that the hotel can overcome the negative impacts of seasonality faced in many rural tourism areas (see Chapter 2).

Furthermore, the hotel can enhance the linkage between Chipping and the site of the hotel development, which had not previously been considered part of Chipping according to field meetings, using physical and psychological elements, such as amenities that local residents can enjoy and the opportunities on offer to be close to nature. This can create a strong local identity for both hotel and Chipping through distinctiveness, compared with other villages in the Forest of Bowland.

2) Sustainability The hotel was designed to use local resources, including local eco-friendly materials. Moreover, the HCBP is about a sustainable society with proactive local communities. Focusing on local activities and practices can rein in our tendency to be destructive norms to achieve sustainability (Walker, 2011: 62). By offering its facilities to residents, the hotel can contribute to the physical quality of life in Chipping and residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; well-being. Local communities can be inspired to participate in ownership of the hotel development through the HCBP. Therefore, these outcomes, through participation and partnership, can reduce the lack of interaction between visitors and

Page 55 of 98

hosts as one of tourismâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s problems (see Chapter 2).

3) Employment and Local Business The core concept of the HCBP is based on encouraging local employment and businesses. The hotel, with HCBP help, can expand its traditional boundaries in the hotel business and expect stable business with local partnerships (see Figure 15). Moreover, this might facilitate adaptability in constantly fluctuating tourism market trends and demands from visitors. According to Lee (2011: 31-32), partnerships offer benefits to businesses, including increasing the attractiveness to prospective employees and contributing to the resolution of social problems. Therefore, the HCBP might ensure sustainable employment through social equity.

4) Balance in Development After engaging with local residents through the HCBP, the four visualised scenarios provide possible options for the participants to apply and stimulate their viewpoints. This allows the researcher to collect opinions and demands from local residents without any discrimination or misunderstandings. This can enable local residents to give their opinions more freely about unfamiliar aspects of hotel development. Therefore, HCBP can help to achieve a balance between conservation and development with proactive participation (see Figure 20).

6.3 Reflection

In developing these concepts the project has aimed to show the possibilities of hotel development in a local context and to realize a hotel development in Chipping, with input from local residents and encouraging their participation. This is because the environment in which they live will inevitably change. There are many programmes

Page 56 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.

Page 57 of 98

Chapter 7

Discussion of Finalised Proposal

7.1 Stakeholders’ Response to Initial Ideas in the Workshop

The workshop was held on 17 July 2012 at Lancaster University. It was attended by ten local residents, the hotel development company’s representatives and design agencies. The atmosphere at the stakeholders’ meeting was friendly and the researcher had the impression that most of the participants felt comfortable in bringing their opinions to the workshop. However, some participants hesitated to speak and preferred to listen. This could have been due to feelings of resentment towards the future scenarios in the Chipping hotel development. However, the flexible scenarios described in the sketches helped overcome participants’ doubts.

During the workshop, local respondents were asked whether they thought their participation in the hotel development would be important for the village’s development in the future. They were also asked about their opinions of the visualised scenarios. To understand stakeholders’ responses better, the results of this workshop are shown in Table 8. Table 8 demonstrates positive and negative feedback based on six design criteria (see Figure 8).

Several interesting aspects of the workshop are revealed. Most participants considered understanding Chipping to be an important factor. They thought that researching Chipping’s culture and analysing the hotel development site were important. The HCBP concept and community participation in the hotel development were most welcome among regional stakeholders. However, three participants were not sure about the need for community participation and the HCBP concept in

Page 58 of 98

Table 8 Evaluation of Respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Feedback !"#$%"#&'




70)%"-$&0)'!8#66#04'&0)'$8%'-#$%'/9'8/$%:' )%2%:/6;%0$'















3%%)';/"%')%$&#:%)'&0)'$&04#*:%'#09/";&$#/0' #0'./0%B'&0)'./0%'C'



!8#66#04'"%-#)%0$-'F&0$'-/;%'+/00%+$#/0' *%$F%%0'8/$%:')%2%:/6;%0$'&0)'!8#66#04'G HF8&$I-'8&66%0#04'#0'/A"'2#::&4%J'










M/0I$'4#2%';&0>'6"/4"&;;%D'&0)'4#2%' /66/"$A0#$#%-'0%L$'4%0%"&$#/0'





N&$+8#04'#--A%'/9'+&;6#04'&0)'8/$%:' &++/;;/)&$#/0-'/0'$8%'4"%%0'&"%&''















R%4&")#04'$/A"#-;'&-'&'-#;6:%'%0$%"$&#0;%0$' *%9/"%'










3%%)':/+&:'-$&,%8/:)%"-'#0'$8%'*%4#00#04'/9' $8%'6"/+%--D'0/$'&9$%"'4%0%"&$#04'#)%&-'








5:$%"0&$#2%'&++/;;/)&$#/0'&-'A6;&",%$'+&0' *%'A-%)'&-';&",%$#04'$/'-$/6'2#-#$/"-'#0' !8#66#04'







N/"%')#-+A--#/0'/9'8/$%:')%2%:/6;%0$'#0'$8%' 2#::&4%I-'+/0$%L$'&-'&'F8/:%Q'




T6%0'4"%%0'&"%&-'$/'"%-#)%0$-'9/"'6#+0#+-'&0)' F&:,-'&"/A0)'G'#$'+&0'*%'$8%'/0:>'-6&+%'9/"' >/A04'+8#:)"%0''


















!/A0$%";%&-A"%'/9'F%$'&"%&'&0)'&'9://)'' 6"/*:%;'





N/"%'+/0+%"0-'&*/A$'F8&$'6%/6:%'&"%'8&66>' F#$8'



=&->'?'5$$"&+$#2%' #09/";&$#/0'











' '


' '




Page 59 of 98

general. One resident asked, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Why do stakeholders need the hotel?â&#x20AC;? Moreover, there was some scepticism about rural tourism as a good solution to local employment problems.

Two participants said the Mill building in Zone 1 was Chippingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s heritage and should belong to the local community, rather than being converted into a hotel. On the other hand, some residents welcomed regeneration of the building. The programmes offered for Zone 2 were evaluated negatively by one participant because he was concerned about opportunities for the next generation to set up in business in Chipping. On the other hand, all participants agreed with demolishing the existing buildings, excluding the old barn, due to a mismatch between the style of buildings and the surroundings.

Local stakeholders welcomed the opening of a green area in Chipping Brook for residents and visitors in Zone 3. This was not previously accessible by the public, due to its private ownership. However, participants differed in their attitudes towards Zone 3. Some agreed with a more developed scenario, such as eco-houses and natural camps. Others rejected having camping sites. As seen in Figure 21, a natural conservation scenario for Zone 3 was ranked highly by stakeholders. This shows that many stakeholders wanted to maintain the status quo due to the suspicions of local residents towards change (RIBA, 2011a; 8). A case study of landscape planning conducted in Denmark produced similar results (Tress & Tress, 2003: 173). Furthermore, analysis of the results of the workshop indicates that individual opinions differed, so it is difficult to reconcile them.

The workshop with local residents revealed that they were passionate about Chipping and were concerned about things that happen in their village. Furthermore, the ideas generated by the designer stimulated local residents to participate in the

Page 60 of 98

Figure 21 Schematic Workshop Responses about the Scenario for Zone 3 Development Eco-House

Natural Camp




P5 P9





P4 P6





P3 P1



P4 P9 P2 P1


Natural Ground

Outdoor Living Room Conservation

Note: P: participant

co-design process, whether it was good or bad for them. However, the participants argued for the necessity of early engagement of the local community, as the initial ideas did not reflect their ideas but were based on a researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective of the development. Many participants thought they must be involved in the development, as this will affect them and their living environment. After expressing these points, local residents could put forward their ideas for the hotel development project more actively.

7.2 Action-oriented Issues via the Workshop The workshop helped the researcher explore the desires, needs and visions of local residents concerning the project. Based on this, the researcher could explore co-

Page 61 of 98

design of the development more deeply.

Differences between local residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and the hotel development companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspectives were revealed in field research, including the workshop with local residents. From the viewpoint of the hotel development company, they described local people as a group presenting a lack of understanding of the current atmosphere relating to employment and further passive attitudes towards involvement in planning. However, the workshop revealed their passion for Chipping and their desire to work together on the development, as it will directly affect their lives in Chipping and they want to monitor any changes there. Moreover, the researcher could see that most participants in the workshop felt that, without them, planning activities would not respect their interests, although these partially agreed with the initial ideas presented. Rather, the respondents required involvement at the very earliest stages of the project, in a proactive attitude of participation.

This is in line with the opinions of participants at an early stage of the project, as revealed in the literature review (Sanders & Stappers, 2008: 6). To discuss participation in the hotel development further, the researcher interviewed additional internal (P7-P9) (see Table 9) and external participants (P3-P6) (see Table 6). According to the additional interviewees, who worked as researchers for the Chipping project, it was commonly argued that the constraints on communication by researchers with local residents prior to the workshop impaired more in-depth understanding of the community, such as their desires and needs. Three external interviewees (P3, P4, P6) also emphasised the participation of local stakeholders in the early stages of the co-design process. They argued that hotel development through co-design could bring benefits to both local residents and the development company, including providing better facilities (P4), sharing cultural values and reflecting local identity (P5). P6 argued, â&#x20AC;&#x153;if local people and developers are involved

Page 62 of 98

Table 9 Internal Interview of Additional Participants in Co-design !

842#)4,%! (,)2*0*3,42/!

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

:&42#;2<,%! 842#)$*#9!


842#)$*#9! +#21&7!


(=! .#/#,)01#)! >!7#/*?4!)#/#,)01! *4!21#!:1*33*4?!3)&@#02!

(#)/&4,%! 842#)$*#9!

(A! .#/#,)01#)! >!7#/*?4!)#/#,)01! *4!21#!:1*33*4?!3)&@#02!!

(#)/&4,%! 842#)$*#9!

(B! .#/#,)01#)! >!7#/*?4!)#/#,)01! *4!21#!:1*33*4?!3)&@#02!!

(#)/&4,%! 842#)$*#9!

right from the beginning, it makes it easier for the Planning Committee to know that the people feel happy about the proposed development”. Nasser and Holyoak (2012: 17) highlight the importance of community participation in the planning process in localism, as it saves time and money in the planning process as well as increasing social, environmental and financial benefits. Murphy (1985) also argues that community involvement in planning and development is crucial for the overall sustainability of tourism (Jamal & Getz, 1995: 194). Hence, the researcher believes that it is much easier to combine people’s ideas, visions and desires through the involvement of stakeholders during the initial stages of a project.

At this point, the researcher compares the current processes of co-design with the desired process from the perspective of local residents (see Figure 22). This is based on Lee’s flow map (2008), which presents three modes of participation (to reflect clearly the process of a design research project on a continuum of participation) (Lee, 2008: 37). In the current process of the map, the hotel development showed only linear movement in the “Expert World” and communication only occurred in a top-down attitude, from the development company to local residents.

On the other hand, the desired processes in Steps 6 and 7 include a continuum of design participation, but it is still linear movement compared with the iterative

Page 63 of 98

Figure 22 Hotel Development Flow Map

process among co-design characteristics (Broadbent, 2003; Faud-Luke, 2007: 38). Therefore, the project might require a more customised iterative process to move towards collaborative hotel development.

Evaluation of the respondents’ feedback (see Table 8) presented contrasting perspectives from local residents. Although further design development is not the purpose of this design research, this brought to the surface the issue of how we can integrate feedback in the next step (i.e. whether to accept two opposing opinions through consensus or select one perspective). It connects to the empowerment issue of co-design in Chapter 2 and cannot be simply judged by certain designers or researchers alone. Therefore, it requires greater consideration from all stakeholders. According to RIBA (2011b: 6), when the stakeholders’ opinions do not reflect the design development, it can remain a “window-dressing ritual” and relate to the notion

Page 64 of 98

of trust. At this point P3, as an external interviewee, emphasised that it is important to know who the decision-maker is for the process itself in co-design. The hotel development might face the issue of how to develop further the criteria based on the design criteria in Chapter 5, rather than directly reflecting on the hotel design. Additionally, in reality, any decision involving just ten respondents from among the total population of Chipping is limited in its ability to bring about better decisions. Jasma and Visser (2011: 29) introduce the matter of developing criteria and reaching agreement with stakeholders before starting the design process. Therefore, further workshops in the co-design process are needed to deal with contrasting perspectives.

Consequently, from the results of the workshop, the early involvement of local residents, a customised iterative process and the development of criteria in the codesign process are required. However, it is hard to overcome the gap between the companyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and local residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perspectives through just one workshop without involving them in the design process. Relevant communication methods for local residents on these issues may be needed.

Page 65 of 98

Chapter 8

Conclusion and Implications

8.1 Summary of the Design Research of the Chipping case

A key aspect of this research has been to link fundamental research in co-design within academic boundaries with design practice. It has sought to delineate the key characteristics of co-design as explored initially and apply them practically in a collaborative hotel development through a design proposal and involvement of the wider public. A case study of a recent development in Chipping was used to present insights into collaboration in hotel design as well as to outline some opportunities and challenges that exist for successful implementation of co-design in practice. The research discusses the possibilities for collaborative development based on a workshop with local residents. Eventually, the discussion was conducted via three internal interviews with key participants in the project, four external interviews with experts in collaborative hotel development, and three internal interviews with researchers and ten local residents in a workshop.

The study aimed to develop an appropriate co-design approach for hotel development in sustainable rural tourism. Especially, this research focuses on these questions:

1) What are the opportunities for collaborative hotel development through co-design in Chipping? 2) What issues arise when co-design principles are applied to hotel development? 3) In the context of Chipping, how can collaborative hotel development for sustainable rural tourism be defined?

Page 66 of 98

8.2 Conclusion for Co-design in Chipping

Opportunities for co-design: Chipping residents are not yet fully engaged in the codesign process, as the project still divides the local public and professionals. Although co-design has been mentioned less in the hotel industry than in others, such as product design, there are opportunities and sufficient reasons to support codesign in the case of Chipping, which can become a successful example of codesign in hotel development for the following reasons: (1) local residents are strongly motivated to participate in the project; (2) the hotel development company revealed a positive attitude to a co-design approach in the design, and considered the current research as an example of a successful case of incorporating co-design; (3) the UK government encourages community involvement and partnerships in sustainable rural tourism.

It proves that the three key participants are well motivated to work with the design community in a collaborative hotel development seeking sustainable rural tourism. Therefore, while co-design can be an effective process in actively solving problems in rural tourism and hotel development, the Chipping project can be a positive example of the application of co-design. However, there remain several constraints.

Constraints on collaborative hotel development: In Chipping, collaborative planning has yet to be carried out via a fully relevant co-design process. Several constraints (see Figure 23) were revealed by the workshop and field meetings and can be broadly categorised as: (1) stakeholders, (2) process, and (3) attitudes towards codesign. An interesting constraint revealed in the process is a lack of recognition of the need for engagement of the public earlier within the co-design process. Even though the hotel development company admitted that the effects of co-design in their

Page 67 of 98

Figure 23 Constraints Map for Chipping

relationship with the local residents were positive, they still objected to the inclusion of local stakeholders in the design process. They also held some stereotypical views about local residents, seeing them as passive receivers with unrealistic opinions and desires. Similarly, local stakeholders felt excluded from the hotel plans. These distinctive constraints in Chipping were generated by specific local characteristics, especially the closure of the furniture factory and consequent loss of jobs in Chipping. Local residents look back to the furniture business as providing employment. It differs from existing barriers, as explored in existing scholarship, as the constraints are based on the characteristics of Chipping and its situation. Therefore, the hotel development company and local stakeholders must perceive themselves as interdependent in building the hotel and regenerating Chipping to overcome these constraints on collaborative hotel development.

Page 68 of 98

Defining collaborative hotel development in Chipping: As explained in Chapter 2, due to various interpretations of co-creation, collaborative hotel development can be interpreted differently (LSE, 2009). Through defining collaborative hotel development in Chipping, the gap between hotel planning and the theoretical background of co-design can be lessened. However, from the research, the researcher found that co-design relies heavily on location context. Therefore, the designer must recognize the “personality of the place”. Local characteristics are integral to developing a collective understanding of the community’s needs, problems and future opportunities (Lachapelle et al., 2012: 90). In this sense, co-design in hotel development will require a customised process for each community involving engaging the community in the process of designing, planning and implementing the development. Therefore, “collaborative hotel development” in Chipping must bring

Figure 24 Iterative Plan with Design Community for Next Step in Chipping

Page 69 of 98

together thinking and working from different perspectives, and involve resolving considerable conflicts (Bucciarelli,1996; Adams et al., 2011; 588). This interpretation is in line with â&#x20AC;&#x153;being situation drivenâ&#x20AC;?, among the characteristics of co-design, as explained by Broadbent (2003) (see Chapter 2).

In the next step, collaborative hotel development needs agreement on the criteria for development from many more local residents. To achieve this, effective communication between the hotel development company, local stakeholders and government authority in a well-organised workshop is an essential element in an iterative co-design plan (see Figure 24). Furthermore, for successful collaboration, Chipping needs to train designers to successfully manage a co-design process, develop relevant tools and skills to understand stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience, and overcome the constraints generated by specific local characteristics in order to involve stakeholders in future development.

8.3 Further Implications of Co-design in Collaborative Hotel Development

Until recently, the dominant hotel planning model showed a linear process, starting with clients and designers, followed by the knowledge of other experts, and then distribution within the marketplace through business marketing in order to ensure a sufficient and stable business. At this point, collaborative hotel development might be an interesting case in co-design, revealing the need for an iterative process and working with multi-stakeholders. Direct engagement of local people in the design process can provide deeper insights into collaborative hotel development than simple reliance on the analysis of co-design theories.

So what can other hotel developments gain from the experiences in Chipping

Page 70 of 98

regarding the practical application of co-design?

1) The importance of workshops to observe stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience: desire and opinions;

2) Preparation of expected constraints as challenges (i.e. different and conflicting perspectives on development from local residents);

3) A way of understanding a certain context of place to create a reasonable design proposal (i.e. using a community-based plan and contact with local people to reduce misunderstandings);

4) Customising the co-design process according to differentiation of the characteristics of the site.

However, there are sill conflicts and constraints when planning a hotel and promoting sustainable rural tourism, even though co-design provides new opportunities for hotel development. Therefore, co-design should not be shown as a panacea, but rather evaluated critically in terms of its application to the hotel industry.

Initial suggestions for future research arise from this study. There is need for further research to examine the nature of participation and define more clearly the various aspects of co-design in the context of current rural tourism and the hotel industry. Research should investigate other successful practices, beyond the range of that investigated in this case study, to gain more objective insights into hotel planning. Therefore, this approach raises certain research ideas:

(1) The study has highlighted the need for continued research into the constraints

Page 71 of 98

revealed in the Chipping case study;

(2) Such research should identify methods for engagement of the wider public in the context of a chosen site;

(3) The outcome for co-design in hotel development is still vague, so the productivity of local community participation should be studied.

These research ideas will contribute to the possibilities of furthering co-design practices in hotel development.

In conclusion, the key message of this research into sustainable rural tourism is that theoretical knowledge and practical experience can not only be studied and analysed, but successfully brought together. This research has shown that in reality co-design is a complex process, especially when interaction or conflicts between corporate players and local stakeholders are taken into account. It is vital to note that this research into certain contexts is only one case of collaborative hotel development and the link between co-design and hotel development. However, the possibility of implementing a successful co-design approach can hopefully be seen in this case study, and practical knowledge obtained through such interactions might be a cornerstone for further collaborative hotel development.

Page 72 of 98

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

Albacete-Sáez, C., Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M. and Lloréns-Montes, J. (2007) Service quality measurement in rural accommodation, Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 45-65.

Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American institute of planners, 199, 244–255.

Bell, B. (2004) Good deeds, good design: community service through architecture. New York: Preston Architectural press.

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

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2000) Tourism collaboration and partnerships e Politics, practice and sustainability. Sydney: Channel View.

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

Blank, U. (1989) The community tourism industry imperative: The necessity, the opportunities, its potential. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Page 73 of 98

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

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

Cawley, M., Marsat, J. B. and Gillmor, D. (2007). Promoting integrated rural tourism: comparative perspectives on institutional networking in France and Ireland. Tourism Geographies, 9(4), 405-420.

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

Cooper, R. and Press, M. (1995) The design agenda: a guide to successful design management. West Sussex: Wiley.

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

Cross, N. (1971) Here comes Everyman. In Cross, N (Eds.), Design Participation: Proceedings of the Design Research Societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Conference 1971, London, UK: Academy editions.

Cross, N. (2006) Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer.

Crouch, G. and Ritchie, J. (1999) Tourism, Competitiveness, and Societal Prosperity. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 137-152.

Page 74 of 98

Davis, S. (2000) Planning accommodation. In Ransley, J. and Ingram, H. (Eds.), Developing Hospitality Properties and Facilities. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Design Council (2012) Design Council - co-design. Available at: [Accessed: 12 May 2012 ]

De Lacy, T., Battig, B., Moore, S. and Noakes, S. (2002) Public/private partnerships for sustainable tourism: delivering a sustainability strategy for tourism destinations. CRC for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Evans, K., de Jong, W. and Cronkleton, P. (2008) Future scenarios as a tool for collaboration in forest communities. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society, 1, 97â&#x20AC;&#x201C;103.

Findeli, A. (2001) Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological and ethical discussion. Design Issue, 17(1), 5-17.

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

Geok, W. B. and Buche, I. (2008) Sustainable Tourism: Heritance Kandalama Resort of Sri Lanka, Nanyang Technological University, publication no: ABCC-2008-009.

Page 75 of 98

Godfrey, K. B. (1994) Sustainable Tourism â&#x20AC;&#x201C; What is it Really? Address to the 18th Meeting of Experts on Human Settlements Problems in Southern Europe, United Nations Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on Human Settlements, Nicosia, Cyprus, 6-8 June.

Gray, B. (1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hamid, J. and Choi, Y. (2011) Co-creation between organisations and consumers. Participatory Innovation Conference (PINC 2011), 215 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 222.

Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations. London: Penguin.

Iacofano, D. S., Moore, R. C. and Goltsman, S. M. (1988) Public involvement in transit planning : a case study of Pierce Transit, Tacoma, Washington, USA. Design Studies, 76-85.

Jamal, B. T. and Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22 (1), 186-204.

Jansen, J. (1993) Toward a Sustainable Oikos. En Route with Technology! Delft : Documento di Lavoro.

Jansma, J. E. and Visser, A. J. (2011) Agromere: Integrating urban agriculture in the development of the city of Almere. UrbanAgriculture, 25, 28-31.

Page 76 of 98

Jenkins, P. (2010) Concepts of social participation in architecture. In Jenkins, P. and Forsyth, L. (Eds.), Architecture, Participation and Society. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jenkins, P., Pereira, M. and Townsend, L. (2010) Wider scoping of relevant literature. In Jenkins, P. and Forsyth, L. (Eds.) Architecture, Participation and Society. New York, NY: Routledge.

King, S., Ferrari, D., Conley, M. and Latimer, B. (1989) Co-design: A process of design participation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Kristensson, P., Matthing, J. and Johansson, N. (2008) Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(4), 474-491.

Krippendorf, J. (1987) The Holiday Makers: Understanding the impact of Leisure and Travel, English edition. Oxford: Heinemann.

Lachapelle, P., Emery, M. and French, C. (2012) Teaching and Implementing Community Visioning. In Walzer, N. and Hamm, G. F. (Eds.), Community Visioning Programs: Process and Outcomes. Oxon: Routledge.

Ladkin, A. and Bertramini, A. M. (2002) Collaborative tourism planning: a case study of Cusco, Peru. Current Issues in Tourism, 5 (2), 71-93.

Lane, B. (1990) Developing Sustainable Rural Tourism. Pare presented at Planning and Tourism in Harmony. The Irish National Planning Conference. New market on Fergus, Country Clare, Ireland.

Page 77 of 98

Iacofano, D. S., Moore, R. C. and Goltsman, S. M. (1988) Public involvement in transit planning : a case study of Pierce Transit, Tacoma, Washington, USA. Design Studies, 76-85.

Lee, L. (2011) Business-community partnerships: understanding the nature of partnership. Corporate Governance, 11(1), 29-40.

Lee, T. J. (2011) Role of hotel design in enhancing destination branding. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 708-711.

Lee, Y. (2008) Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31-50.

Lee, Y., Bichard, J. and Coleman, R. (2008) Designing with Users â&#x20AC;&#x201C; How? Investigating Users Involvement tactics for effective Inclusive Design Processes. Proceedings of International DMI Education conference.

LSE (2009) Co-creation: New pathways to value an overview. Available at: [Assessed 11 April 2012]

Macdonald, J. (1993) Primary health care: Medicine in its place. London: Earthscan.

Machi, L. A. and McEvoy, B. T. (2009) The literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Page 78 of 98

Margolin, V. and Margolin, S. (2002) A â&#x20AC;&#x153;social modelâ&#x20AC;? of design: Issues of practice and research. Design Issues, 18(4), 24-30.

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

Manzini, E. (2007) The scenario of a multi-local society: creative communities active networks and enabling solutions. In: Manzini, E., Walker, S. and Wylant, B. (Eds.), Enabling Solutions for sustainable living: A workshop. Calgary: The University of Calgary Press.

Manzini, E. (2009) Service design in the age of networks and sustainability. In: Miettinen, S. and Koivisto, M. (Eds.), Designing Services with Innovative Methods. Publication Series of the University of Art and Design, Helsinki B 93. Kuopio Academy of Design, Taitemia Publication Series 33, Otava. Keuruu, 2009.

Murphy, P. E. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuren.

NSW Heritage Office (2005) Design in Context: Guidelines for Infill Development In the Historic Environment. Available at: [Assessed 6 May 2012]. Nasser, N. and Holyoak, J. (2012) Localism. Urban Design, 123, 16-17.

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

Page 79 of 98

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

Pattullo, P. and Minelli, O. (2006) Ethical Travel Guide: Your Passport to Exciting. Gateshead: Bath press.

Pfueller, S.L., Lee, D. and Laing, J. (2011) Tourism Partnerships in Protected Areas: Exploring Contributions to Sustainability. Environmental management, 2011(48), 734-749.

Pigram, J. (1993) Planning for Tourism in Rural Areas: Bridging the Policy Implementation Gap. In Pearce, D. and Butler, R. (Eds.), Tourism Research: Critiques and Challenges. London: Routledge.

Polanyi, M. (1967) The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge.

Press, M. (2011) Working the Crowed: Crowdsourcing as a Strategy for Co-design. In Cooper, R., Junginger, S. and Lockwood, T. (Eds.), The Handbook of Design Mangement. Oxford: Berg.

Ransley, J. (2004) Design. In Ransley, J. and Ingram, H. (Eds.), Developing Hospitality Properties and Facilities. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Riewoldt, O. (2006) New hotel design. London: Laurence King Publishing.

RIBA (2011a) Guide to Localism Opportunities for architects: Part one: Neighbourhood planning, November.

Page 80 of 98

RIBA (2011b) Guide to Localism Opportunities for architects: Part two: Getting community engagement right, November.

Ribble Valley Borough Council (2011) Ribble Valley Borough Council Report to Planning & Development Commitment. Available at: bligations_background_paper_2008.pdf [Assessed: 20 April 2012]

Roxburgh, C. (2009) The use and abuse of scenarios. McKinsey&Company, November 2009, 1-10.

Richardson, J., Irwin, T. and Sherwin, C. (2005) Design & Sustainability A Scoping Report: for the Sustainable Design Forum. London: Design Council.

Rutes, W. A., Penner, R. H. and Adams, L. (2001) Hotel Design, Planning, and Development. New York: W.W. Norton.

Sanches, M. G. and Frankel, L. (2010) Co-design in Public Spaces: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Street Furniture Development, dsr2010.

Sanders, E.B.-N. (2006) Design serving people. In Salmi, E. and Anusionwu, L. (Eds.), Cumulus Working Papers. Helsinki, Finland: Copenhagen, University of Art and Design, 28â&#x20AC;&#x201C;33.

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

Page 81 of 98

Sato, K. (2009) Perspectives on design research. In Poggenpohl, S. and Sato, K. (Eds.), Design intergrations: research and collaboration. Bristol: Intellect.

Scheyvens, R. (1999) Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism Management, 20(2), 245-249.

SEA Communications (2010) Can Co-design Benefit Deprived Communities?: The ‘Designing Communities’ Story. Available at: [Assessed: 29 April 2012 ]

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

Shepherd, A. (1998) Sustainable rural development. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Simmons, D. G. (1994) Community participation in tourism planning. Tourism Management, 15(2), 98-108.

Siu, K. W. (2003) Users’ Creative Responses and Designers ’ Roles. Design Issues, 19(2), 64-74.

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

Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., van der Lugt, R., and Sanders, E.B.-N. (2005) Contextmapping: experiences from practice. Co Design, 1 (2), 119–149.

Page 82 of 98

Swarbrooke, J. (1999) Sustainable tourism management. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

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

Taboada, M. B., Dutra, L. X. and Haworth, R. (2010) Engaging complexity through collaborative brand design. Design Research Society International Conference 2010.

The Princeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Regeneration Trust (n.d.) Planning for Sustainability: a local authority toolkit. Available at: [Assessed: 11 May 2012]

Tosun, C. (2000) Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management 21, 613â&#x20AC;&#x201C;33.

Tress, B. and Tress, G. (2003) Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning-a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(3), 161-178.

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

UNEP (2002) Industry as a partner for sustainable development: Tourism, UK: The Beacon.

Visser, A. J., Jansma, J. E., Schoorlemmer, E. and SlingerlandIn, M. (2009) How to

Page 83 of 98

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

Walford, N. (2001) Patterns of Development in Tourist Accommodation Enterprises on Farms in England and Wales [J ]. Applied Geography, 21, 331 - 345.

Walker, S. (2007) Design Redux. In Chapmani, J. and Gant, N. (Eds.), Designers, Visionaries + Other stories: A collection of sustainable design essays. Oxon: Earthscan.

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

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

Wates, N. and Knevitt, C. (1987) Community architecture: how people are creating their own environment. London: Penguin Books.

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

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

Page 84 of 98

World Tourism Organisation (WTO). (2004) Sustainable development of tourism e Conceptual definition. Available at: [Assessed 21 November 2009]

Yin, R. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

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

Page 85 of 98

Appendices Appendix 1 Interview Question 1) Question to Internal participants 1. Could you tell me what you understand the term “co-design” to mean? In your opinion, what are the key principles of co-design? 2. Do you use co-design in projects? • If yes, what are the key steps? • What are the appropriate situations suited to co-design? • If you don’t use it, why not? 3. Considering the interest of co-design, how are co-design methods perceived in your organization? 4. What, to you, is the relationship between consultation and co-design in practice? 5. From your perspective, could you imagine the use of co-design in the Chipping project for rural tourism? 6. What are the practical challenges you would face in terms of using co-design in Chipping? 7. Whose responsibility is it to instigate co-design? 8. From your perspective, what value would co-design bring to the industry? 9. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Page 86 of 98

Appendix 1 Interview Question 2) Question to External participants 1. Which organization do you work for? and What is your job title?

2. Could you tell me what you understand the term “co-design” to mean? In your opinion, what are the key principles of co-design?

3. What kinds of projects has your organization carried out?

4. Have you utilized principles of co-design in these projects? If yes, could you describe how with the key steps? If not, why not?

5. What are the appropriate situations suited to co-design?

6. What are the practical challenges you have faced?

7. From your perspective, what value would co-design bring to the industry?

8. What, to you, is the relationship between consultation and co-design in practice?

• Do you think it is continuum? If yes, is it possible to get out of the co-design’ area temporally in the same project?

9. Do you use different strategies for different projects in terms of using co-design methods?

• How is it different?

Page 87 of 98

â&#x20AC;˘ Which criteria do you use to distinguish each other? Is there any standard?

10. Have you experienced failure case to use co-design methods? If yes, why?

11. Have you thought co-design method as a way of sustainable design? If yes, which area is the most important?

12. Have you thought co-design method to hotel industry? If yes, do you think it is possible?

13. What is the most important element in design approach to co-design?

Page 88 of 98

Appendix 1 Interview Question 3) Question to an External participant (Hotel Planning Manager) 1. Could you tell me what you understand the term â&#x20AC;&#x153;co-designâ&#x20AC;? to mean? In your opinion, what are the key principles of co-design?

2. Have you thought co-design method to hotel industry? If yes, do you think it is possible?

3. From your perspective as a company level in hotel industry, what is your opinion of the rationale of using co-design methods in hotel development?

4. What is your opinion of the reason of no choosing co-design methods in hotel development?

5. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Page 89 of 98

Appendix 1 Interview Question 4) Question to Researchers 1. Could you tell me what you understand the term â&#x20AC;&#x153;co-designâ&#x20AC;? to mean? In your opinion, what are the key principles of co-design?

2. What are the practical challenges you would face in terms of practical research in Chipping?

Page 90 of 98

Appendix 2 Communication Material 1) Collaborative Hotel Development Brochure in Chipping

Page 91 of 98

Page 92 of 98

Page 93 of 98

Page 94 of 98

Page 95 of 98

Page 96 of 98

Page 97 of 98

Page 98 of 98

Collaborative Hotel Development_Paper  

This is my dissertation as a Major researh in MA Design Management at Lancaster University.