Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.

392Ð415, 1999

\ Pergamon
Þ 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/99 $19.00+0.00

PII: S0160-7383(98)00105-4

COLLABORATION IN LOCAL
TOURISM POLICYMAKING
Bill Bramwell
Angela Sharman
Sheffield Hallam University, UK

Abstract: Collaborations among stakeholders to develop policies for a destination are the
subject of growing interest among researchers and managers. This paper presents an analytical
framework to assess whether local collaborative arrangements are inclusionary and involve
collective learning and consensus-building. The framework considers whether or not specific
collaborations reduce the power imbalances between stakeholders, and it develops the concept
of partial consensus. The practical value of the framework is suggested in an examination of
local collaborative arrangements to develop a visitor management plan for the Hope Valley
in Britain|s Peak District National Park. Keywords: policymaking, collaborative planning,
consensus-building, stakeholders, Peak District, United Kingdom. Þ 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Re sume : La collaboration dans la politique locale du tourisme. Les collaborations parmi les
inte resse s pour de velopper des politiques pour une destination touristique sont le sujet d|un
inte re¼ t croissant parmi les chercheurs et les directeurs. Cet article pre sente un cadre analytique
pour de terminer si les de cisions collaboratives locales sont inclusives et si elles entraı¼nent un
de veloppement ciollectif de connaissances et de consensus d|opinion. Ce cadre mesure si cer-
taines collaborations re duisent les de se quilibres de pouvoir entre inte resse s, et il de veloppe le
concept de consensus partiel. La valeur pratique du cadre est sugge re dans un examen de
de cisions collaboratives locales pour de velopper un plan de gestion de visiteurs a la valle e de
Hope dans le parc national du Peak District au Royaume-Uni. Mots-cle s: politique de tourisme,
planification collaborative, consensus, inte resse s, Peak District, Royaume-Uni. Þ 1999 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

There are many potential benefits when stakeholders in a destination

collaborate together and attempt to build a consensus about tourism
policies. First, such collaboration potentially avoids the cost of resolv-
ing adversarial conflicts among stakeholders in the long term (Healey
1998). Adversarial conflicts are wasteful as stakeholders entrench
their mutual suspicions, improve their adversarial skills and play out
similar conflicts around each subsequent issue. Second, collaborative
relations may be more politically legitimate if they give stakeholders
a greater influence in the decision-making which affects their lives
(Benveniste 1989). Third, this collaboration improves the coor-
dination of policies and related actions, and promotes consideration
of the economic, environmental, and social impacts of tourism. The
resulting outcomes are potentially more efficient and sustainable

Bill Bramwell is Reader in Tourism Management and Angela Sharman is Teaching and
Research Associate in the Centre for Tourism, Sheffield Hallam University (City Campus,
Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK. Email ðw.m.bramwell@shu.ac.ukŁ). Bill Bramwell helped develop
locally-based collaborative tourism partnerships while employed by the English Tourist Board.
He co-edits the Journal of Sustainable Tourism and his research interests include urban and
sustainable tourism planning. Angela Sharman conducts research on environmental man-
agement and sustainable tourism.

392
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 393

(Lane 1994). Further, collaboration {{adds value|| by building on the

store of knowledge, insights, and capabilities of stakeholders in the
destination (Bramwell and Broom 1989). For example, Roberts and
Bradley (1991) suggest that the sharing of ideas among stakeholders
results in a richer understanding of issues and leads to more innovative
policies. Such joint working may also promote a {{shared ownership||
of the resulting policies, and thereby channel energies into joint
implementation or {{co-production|| (Susskind and Elliott 1983).
While locally-based tourism collaborations may offer advantages to
stakeholders and destinations, their development gives rise to difficult
challenges. For example, the resource allocations, policy ideas, and
institutional practices embedded within society may often restrict the
influence of particular stakeholders on the collaborative arrange-
ments. The power of stakeholders is often unequal, and it is suggested
that {{power governs the interaction of individuals, organizations and
agencies influencing, or trying to influence, the formulation of tourism
policy and the manner in which it is implemented|| (Hall 1994:52).
The purpose of this paper is to present a framework of issues to
consider when evaluating whether local collaborative tourism pol-
icymaking is inclusionary and involves collective learning and con-
sensus-building. Destination managers need advice about how to
promote locally-based collaborative arrangements, and the framework
is intended to assist them in this work. The proposed framework
incorporates consideration of the extent to which power imbalances
among stakeholders are reduced, if at all, within a collaboration. It
discusses whether and how relevant stakeholders have a voice, are
involved in collective learning, and build trust and consensual views
across divisions. Further, the paper indicates the practical value of
the theoretical framework by applying it to assess stakeholder involve-
ment in the development of a visitor management plan for the Hope
Valley and Edale in Britain|s Peak District National Park. This area
has long been a magnet for visitors, and there is concern about the
impacts of tourism on its physical environment and ways of life.
While the circumstances of each collaborative initiative are unique,
important general lessons still may be learnt by assessing whether
individual initiatives succeed in being inclusionary and based on col-
lective learning and consensus-building.

LOCAL COLLABORATIVE POLICY-MAKING

The framework developed in the paper to assess local collaborative
tourism policy-making draws ideas from literature about inter-
organizational collaboration, {{communicative|| approaches to plan-
ning, and citizen participation. The review suggests that some recent
assessments of tourism policymaking draw on general theories of
interorganizational collaboration to explain how stakeholders may
collaborate to solve problems (Jamal and Getz 1995; Long 1997; Selin
and Beason 1991). In the field of interorganizational theory, Gray
suggests that collaboration occurs when the problem is complex and
a single organization cannot solve it on its own. It {{is a process in which
those parties with a stake in the problem actively seek a mutually
394 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

determined solution||, with stakeholders retaining their independence

in decision making despite agreeing to abide by shared rules among
the collaborating parties (1989:xviii). Getz and Jamal (1994) use
interorganizational theory to assess stakeholder collaboration in tour-
ism planning in Canada|s Canmore and Bow Corridor, while Jamal
and Getz (1997) employ the same theory to examine community-
based {{visioning|| for tourism development. Interorganizational col-
laboration theory also forms a basis for Selin and Chavez (1995) to
develop an evolutionary model of partnerships in destinations, and
for Selin and Myers (1998) to assess factors constraining or promoting
the effectiveness of such partnerships.
Reed reviews Jamal and Getz|s work on collaboration in destinations
and argues that {{While power relations are included within col-
laborative theory, it is frequently assumed that collaboration can
overcome power imbalances by involving all stakeholders in a process
that meets their needs|| (1997:567). She contends that such power
differences among stakeholders actually are so embedded in society
that they always affect the nature of the collaboration. A further
problem not highlighted by Reed is that collaboration theory might
suggest the inequitable proposition that participants may be excluded
from collaborative arrangements if they lack resources or capacity.
Hence, Jamal and Getz suggest that {{a stakeholder who is impacted
by the actions of other stakeholders has a right to become involved in
order to moderate those impacts, but must also have the resources
and skills (capacity) in order to participate|| (1995:194).
The literature on {{communicative|| approaches to planning
explores opportunities to enable relevant stakeholders to have a voice
in policymaking. For example, Healey (1997) contends that planning
should draw on the webs of relations found in local areas and build
the capacities of stakeholders so that they can have more direct
influence on their own lives. It is argued that it is important to promote
horizontal forms of collaboration, where stakeholders with legitimate
and often conflicting interests in a local area engage in discourse and
consensus-building. The challenge is seen as developing the capacity
of the diverse stakeholders who potentially could assert concern about
their locality (Bryson and Crosby 1992; Forester 1989; Innes 1995).
Healey (1997) emphasizes how systemic constraints, such as
power inequalities and institutional practices, can inhibit the influ-
ence of stakeholders on collaborative arrangements, but she also
moves beyond simply considering who controls the resource flows.
Attention is focused on the processes within collaboration through
which relations can be built up among relevant stakeholders, and
to the communicative forms through which their often conflicting
interests and views can be identified and consensus developed. Much
emphasis is placed on respectful {{speaking and listening|| among
stakeholders (Forester 1989). It is contended that forms of dialogue,
collective learning, and consensus-building are required which build
trust, confidence, and mutual understanding across the often deep
fractures which divide the stakeholders (Friedmann 1992). In such
ways {{Consensus-building practices have transformative potential,
changing the frameworks for thinking, and potentially changing the
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 395

content and modes of use of rules, and the way resources flow|| (Healey
1997:265).
In the literature on citizen participation in tourism policymaking
there is much discussion of the merits of specific techniques of involve-
ment (Marien and Pizam 1998; Ritchie 1985). However, the broader
processes of citizens and industry leaders {{crafting|| a vision for the
development of a destination are also examined (Ritchie 1993). Some
contributions suggest that there are differing degrees of intensity of
participation in the planning process, with Arnstein|s (1969) work
on citizen involvement in decision-making sometimes being cited
(Haywood 1988; Simmons 1994). Arnstein describes increasingly
intense citizen inputs on a continuum whose opposite poles are
manipulation and citizen control, and which distinguishes between
tokenism and citizen power.
This paper|s theoretical framework draws mutually compatible
ideas from literature in the above three fields. The framework ident-
ifies issues to consider when evaluating the extent to which a local
initiative in collaborative tourism policymaking is inclusionary and
promotes collective learning and consensus-building. Concern for the
important systemic constraints which affect a collaboration is inte-
grated with the need to identify whether there is evidence of more
democratic forms of policymaking. Three sets of issues are considered
in the framework, these being the scope of the collaboration, its
intensity, and the degree to which consensus emerges among par-
ticipants. Important issues not included in the framework surround
the implementation of the policies resulting from the collaboration.
Numbers assigned to each issue in the framework are also used in its
application to the Hope Valley and Edale case study.

Scope of the Collaboration

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

The extent to which the range of participating stakeholders is representative of

all relevant stakeholders (A1). A study of participants in a tourism and
outdoor recreation alliance in the United States found that they
frequently mentioned the diversity of the participating stakeholders
as a factor in the alliance|s effectiveness (Selin and Myers 1998). A
stakeholder is taken here to be {{any person, group, or organization
that is affected by the causes or consequences of an issue|| (Bryson
and Crosby 1992:65). This group may include those with fairly similar
tourism interests, which may apply to environmental groups, and
also those with heterogeneous interests, which often occurs with the
community living in the destination (Abbot 1996). There are also
government stakeholders involved in collaborative arrangements for
reasons such as to address concerns about {{public goods|| (Jamal and
Getz 1995) and to protect less active citizens (Murdoch and Abram
396 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

1998). It is difficult to assess what might be a representative balance

among the relevant stakeholder groups. For example, what balance
should there be between stakeholders with power and those with little
power, and between {{insider|| stakeholders who live in the destination
and are directly affected by tourism policies and {{outsiders|| who
have an interest in the area|s tourism but are less directly affected?
(Department of Environment 1994). Another key issue is that some
stakeholders seek to collaborate only with those who share compatible
goals and resources while others are ignored or marginalized (Stoker
1995). Hence, collaborative arrangements in destinations can become
conversations among local elites, rather than involving a rep-
resentative range of stakeholders.
The extent to which relevant stakeholders see there are positive benefits to entice
their participation (A2). For example, managers of tourism businesses
may be encouraged to collaborate if it offers them the prospect of
greater influence on decision-making, additional resources for their
objectives, or improvements to destination management (Jamal and
Getz 1995; Selin and Beason 1991; Waddock 1991). By contrast, some
stakeholders may remain outsiders as they are concerned either that
the collaboration will be coopted by dominant groups or that the policy
outcomes will be detrimental to the destination (Stoker 1995).

Whether the collaboration includes a facilitator and the stakeholders responsible

for implementation (A3). At least one stakeholder is required to initiate
and facilitate a collaboration, such as by inviting participants to join
and by organizing meetings. This facilitator may be from outside the
destination, with an {{outsider|| sometimes considered to have fewer
vested interests (Friedmann 1992). A facilitator may encourage par-
ticipation by all relevant stakeholders, but could favour some stake-
holders and marginalize others. A related issue is that collaborations
may be more successful if they include the stakeholders likely to be
responsible for policy implementation (Benveniste 1989). Hence, Gray
contends that {{Acceptance of any solution is enhanced when those
who must abide by it are included in designing the solution|| (1989:64).
If the implementers are not involved, then the collaboration may be
by-passed by other policy arenas (Reed 1997). In addition, the people
who will implement a policy often provide valuable information about
the likely practical issues of implementation.

The extent to which individuals representing a stakeholder group are fully

representative of that group (A4). For example, Shortall has commented
on {{the danger . . . of inferring community involvement on the basis
of the participation of a small number of people not necessarily rep-
resentative of wider local views||(1994:235). One related issue,
especially for public sector agencies, is that individuals participating
in a collaborative initiative because of their technical expertise or
local knowledge may not have decision-making authority for their
organization (Gray 1989). If an organization|s senior level personnel
are not involved, it is possible that policies subsequently will be for-
gotten or disavowed.
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 397

The number of stakeholders involved through the selected participation tech-

niques (A5). The selection of participation techniques will affect the
number of stakeholders involved in some way in a collaboration. A
questionnaire can, for example, help collect the general opinions of
many individuals, while a workshop can help reveal the more nuanced
views of a small group of individuals (Ritchie 1985). Much col-
laborative policymaking is made in working groups with a fairly small
number of individuals representing a range of interests and types of
experience (Brandon 1993). However, the use of working groups may
be supplemented by other techniques involving many individuals.

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

Intensity of the Collaboration

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

The degree to which participants accept that collaboration is likely to produce

qualitatively different outcomes and that they are likely to have to modify their
own approach (B1). Participants who are more likely to accept these
principles become more receptive to alternative ways of thinking and
new types of policy proposals. However, this acceptance may not be
forthcoming. For example, there may be little acceptance of these
principles among hegemonic elites when it is easy for them to secure
beneficial policies, or among elected representatives who consider
that stakeholder involvement in policymaking conflicts with their own
legitimacy as democratically elected representatives (Department of
Environment 1994). Hall argues that often {{the level of public involve-
398 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

ment in tourism planning can be more accurately described as a form

of tokenism in which decisions or the direction of decisions has already
been prescribed by government|| (1994:169).
When and how often the relevant stakeholders are involved (B2). Gunn
(1994), for example, suggests that citizens may be more thoroughly
engaged in developing a tourism plan if they participate from the
start of the planning process. It may also be the case that citizens
involved only at a late planning stage are more likely to construct
their concerns in adversarial terms and to adopt entrenched positions
(Haywood 1988; Healey 1998).
The extent to which stakeholder groups receive information and are consulted
about the activities of the collaboration (B3). Information dissemination
and consultation activities are likely to increase the accountability of
a collaborative initiative to relevant stakeholders. One issue to con-
sider is whether the representatives directly involved in attending
collaborative working group meetings, also consult with others in their
group and inform them about progress. Consideration should be given
to whether the collaborative practices are reducing accountability
in local policymaking, particularly if fewer decisions are made by
democratically elected politicians (Hastings 1996).

Whether the use of participation techniques only disseminates information or

also involves direct interaction among the stakeholders (B4). Some col-
laborative techniques involve information-giving or campaigning
(such as displays or newsletters), or else opinion-collecting (such as
interviews and questionnaires). These techniques are valuable, but
they do not provide participants with the opportunity for direct debate
and consensus-building with other stakeholders, as can occur with
focus and working groups (Marien and Pizam 1997). However, these
different techniques may be integrated within a broad strategy for
stakeholder involvement. Hence, Simmons contends that to promote
citizen involvement in tourism planning, {{No technique can fulfil
alone all the requirements of participation and a {staged approach|,
using a variety of techniques, will be required|| (1994:100).
The degree to which the dialogue among participants reflects openness, honesty,
tolerant and respectful speaking and listening, confidence, and trust (B5). The
character of the dialogue is likely to be a major influence on whether
there is mutual understanding and learning across the differences
among stakeholders (Forster 1993; Friedmann 1992; Innes 1995). In
Selin and Myers| (1998) study of members of a US tourism and outdoor
recreation alliance, the factor they identified most frequently as con-
tributing to the alliance|s effectiveness was the {{collaborative atmo-
sphere||. However, the styles of dialogue within a collaboration may
shut out the views of the less powerful (Joppe 1996).
The extent to which the participants understand, respect, and learn from each
others| different forms of argument (B6). The forms of argument will
reflect varying technical, moral, and expressive modes of under-
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 399

standing and reasoning. Healey contends that it is necessary to

appreciate different forms of argument in order to remove {{the
hegemonic communicative distortions through which powerful groups
have maintained their position in the past|| (1997:264).

The extent to which the participants come to understand, respect, and learn
from each others| different interests, forms of knowledge, systems of meaning,
values, and attitudes (B7). The policies developed by collaborative
alliances are likely to have more leverage if they arise out of the {{local
knowledge|| of the participants (Healey 1997). Without sustained
attention being paid to the interests, types of understanding, frames
of reference, values, and attitudes of all participants, this involvement
may be seen as a token gesture and the views of the powerful par-
ticipants may prevail (Arnstein 1969; Joppe 1996). Is government
involving the community simply to legitimise its policies? Are some
stakeholders involved only as a cynical exercise to secure additional
funding? Are the views of participants who do not contribute financial
resources to the exercise being ignored? Is the debate and the col-
laborative process being coopted by government institutions? (Has-
tings 1996). Do the representatives from professions consider that
their form of knowledge and technical expertise is always superior to
{{lay|| types of understanding (Smith and Blanc 1997)?

The extent to which the facilitator of the collaborative arrangements exerts

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

Degree to Which Consensus Emerges

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

Whether participants who are working to build a consensus also accept that
some participants will not agree or embrace enthusiastically all the resulting
policies (C1). Participants in collaborative arrangements may have
more realistic expectations of consensus-building if they are aware
and accept that it may be impossible to get the agreement of everyone
about every aspect of the resulting policies.

Extent to which there is consensus among the stakeholders about the issues, the
policies, the purposes of policies, and how the consequences of the policies are
assessed and reviewed (C2). Healey (1997) contends that reaching a
consensus in collaborative policymaking involves a discursive process
where the participants learn about and respect each other and their
400 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

differing points of view, come to reflect on their own point of view,

work together with this combined {{local knowledge|| to establish a
new discourse or story about the issues and the policy direction, and
come to value and respond to the new policy direction. Knowledge,
understanding and policies are produced through collaborative social
learning processes. Such processes will need to recognise the often
deep divisions among stakeholders, and the cultural, economic, and
political bases for these, and do so in ways which help the stakeholders
to understand each others| concerns and reach out across their dif-
ferences. The resulting new policy direction may cover agreed policies,
purposes of policies, and how the consequences of the policies will be
assessed and reviewed. If this process is successful, the stakeholders
{{are then likely to have some sense of {ownership||| of the resulting
policies (Healey 1997:279).
There will be differing degrees to which consensus-building is suc-
cessful. Stakeholders involved in collaboration may well not agree all
aspects of a new policy direction, and they may strive more prag-
matically to ensure that each receives some benefit from it, often
through an informal trading-off of benefits and costs. Based on an
assessment of collaborative alliances in tourism, Selin and Chavez
argue that {{It is highly unlikely that a partnership will be successful
unless there is a perception that partnership outcomes will result in
benefits to each partner|| (1995:849). There are several other reasons
why it may be more realistic to achieve only a {{partial consensus||.
For example, the overall policy direction established by consensus-
building might be considered reasonably acceptable to stakeholders
and be supported by them even if it is not their most preferred
outcome (Gray 1989). Bryson and Crosby also suggest that {{Coalition
members do not need to agree with every detail of the proposal, but
they must be able to agree to support the proposal|| (1992:245). People
may be prepared to accept that it is not necessary for everyone to agree
about everything in the policies developed through collaboration. In
addition, a supposed consensus may be based on a less thorough
examination of a potentially divisive issue or a continuing underlying
ambiguity, with these perhaps more likely when consensus-building
focuses on {{common ground|| rather than contentious issues (Smith
and Blanc 1997). Even when a pragmatic consensus is reached, it
might be expected that in communities with high levels of caution or
cynicism the stakeholders will only be fully convinced by actions rather
than aims (Department of Environment 1994).
Extent to which consensus and {{ownership|| emerges across the inequalities
between stakeholders or reflects these inequalities (C3). As Ritchie suggests:
{{Because of the number and diversity of the stakeholders involved in
the crafting of a destination vision for tourism, the value systems
brought to the process can be greatly different, even to the point of
being diametrically opposed. As such, the task of reaching a consensus
and obtaining endorsement of the destination vision is a challenging
and often delicate task|| (1993:381). Fundamental differences of
resources, interests, and opinions may mean that a consensus and
sense of shared ownership of the resulting policies will not emerge
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 401

among all the stakeholders. In relation to community involvement in

tourism planning, Prentice suggests that {{there is no guarantee that
differences in opinions can be resolved without dissension between
beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries|| (1993:226). Even when a con-
sensus is reached, it should be remembered that it still may reflect
the continuing hegemony of a local elite or other inequalities among
the stakeholders (Goodwin 1998; McArthur 1995).

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

Whether the stakeholders appear willing to implement the resulting policies

(C5). There is likely to be greater commitment to consensus-building
when participants appear committed to implement the policy out-
comes (Benveniste 1989). A key issue here is whether there is a
perception that sufficient resources are devoted to the collaboration
in order to ensure that progress is not interrupted by lack of resources
(Jamal and Getz 1995). One way for organizations to demonstrate
such commitment is for them to identify the resource implications
of policy implementation in their own internal budget and staffing
commitments. However, it may be difficult to expect participants
to be certain they can deliver on agreements when the purpose of
collaboration is to reach unknown compromises and when cir-
cumstances can change quickly. Similarly, local government officers
may find that the clear objectives with which they entered the par-
ticipation process may alter over time as new priorities are introduced
by senior officers, different departments, or elected politicians
(Department of Environment 1994).
The above A, B and C frameworks incorporate a range of issues to
consider when assessing whether local collaborative tourism pol-
icymaking is inclusionary and involves collective learning and con-
sensus-building. It is intended to promote concern for the multiple
issues involved in consensus-building and for the power relations and
institutional constraints which affect them. A selection of these issues
are illustrated now through a case study.

The Hope Valley and Study Methodology

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

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

around 2.5 million visitors (PTP 1994a). The proportion of visitors

staying overnight to day visitors is low, with crude estimates varying
between 5Ð30% depending on the time of year (PTP 1994b). This
study examines only the three parishes of Castleton, Edale, and Hope
within Hope Valley and Edale, which have a population of around
2,000. For simplicity the study area is called the Hope Valley. Here
tourism supports many local businesses and jobs, but there is much
concern among residents about the pressures it has brought, such as
from traffic congestion, parking problems, overcrowded village
centers, changes in local shop provision, and reduced privacy (CVAC
1993). Visitor pressures are particularly concentrated in summer
months, weekends, and public holidays.
Between 1993Ð95, 30 stakeholder representatives collaborated to
devise a visitor management plan for the three parishes. This col-
laboration was promoted by the Peak Tourism Partnership, a public-
private sector organization established to develop visitor management
and sustainable tourism in the Peak District (PTP 1993a, 1996). A
Hope Valley Visitor Management Plan Working Group was set up
involving a range of stakeholder representatives in joint working and
consensus-building in order to develop a local visitor management
plan. The present evaluation of tourism policymaking in the Hope
Valley considers developments between 1993Ð95, which was prior to
concerted attempts to implement the plan|s proposals.
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 403

The policymaking process is assessed through interviews with 17

members of the Hope Valley Visitor Management Plan Working
Group, who were working principally as representatives of community
interests (7), environmental interests (4), local government (4), rec-
reational interests (2), tourism interests (2), and other interests (2).
Several working group members also represented other stakeholder
entities, but these additional affiliations are identified here only for
four members who mentioned another group in their interview. The
interviewee sample represented a cross-section of stakeholder rep-
resentatives, with the interviews conducted between April and June
1995. Each interview was semi-structured, used non-directive ques-
tioning techniques, lasted at least one hour and was tape recorded
(Fowler and Mangione 1990). Additionally, local reports and other
documents were consulted.

Scope of the Collaboration

The first set of issues examined here which affected the scope of
the Hope Valley collaboration was the extent to which the range
of stakeholders who participated was representative of all relevant
stakeholders (A1). This is considered specifically for the stakeholder
representatives on the Hope Valley Visitor Management Plan Work-
ing Group, which met regularly to develop the visitor management
strategies. It was intended that the group of members was rep-
resentative but not so large it was unwieldy, with the members prin-
cipally representing community interests (13), environmental
interests (5), local government (5), recreational interests (3), tourism
interests (3) and other interests (5)(Table 1). Some members had
more than one affiliation, but this is identified only when mentioned
in an interview. One member commented that {{they went to a lot of
trouble to try to get representatives from as many organizations as
possible||.
The working group was chaired by a local farmer. Some members
represented national agencies and each of the three parishes was
represented by both a parish councillor and at least two residents. The
local community is particularly heterogeneous, so its representatives
could be regarded as distinct from other stakeholder members. This
diversity among the residents included groups employed in agric-
ulture, tourism, and at a large cement works, as well as there being
many comparatively wealthy retired people and commuters to nearby
cities. There was a substantial number of community representatives
among the participants, suggesting there was a genuine attempt to
involve residents. One parish representative commented that {{it has
been up to each village to arrange meetings and appoint the people
they think would be suitable as a village representative||. Another
parish member explained that {{the parish council insisted that local
representatives from the village were involved, not just elected parish
councillors||. While over half of the representatives lived and worked
in the Hope Valley, this still raises important questions about the
balance of {{insiders|| and {{outsiders|| and how much weight to give
404 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

Table 1. Principal Interests Represented on the Hope Valley Visitor Man-

agement Plan Working Group

Community interests (13):

Access Group (for disabled residents)
Castleton Parish Council
Castleton representatives×2
Hope with Aston Parish Council
Hope with Aston representatives×2
Edale Parish Council×2
Edale representatives×3
Peveril ward, High Peak Borough Council
Environmental interests (5) :
Council for the Protection of Rural England
Countryside Commission
English Heritage
English Nature
National Trust
Local government (5) :
Derbyshire County Council
High Peak Borough Council×2
Peak Park Joint Planning Board
Peak National Park Losehill Hall
Recreational interests (3) :
Hope Valley Riding Club
Ramblers Association
Youth Hostels Association/Outdoor Centres Association
Tourism interests :
East Midlands Tourist Board
Hope Valley Tourist Association
Speedwell Cavern
Other interests (5) :
Blue Circle Cement
Hope Valley Rail Users Group
National Farmers Union (Working Group Chair)
Peak Tourism Partnership
Rural Development Commission

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

to their views. While two members principally represented tourism

interests, and some others earned income from this business, the
working group was not dominated by tourism representatives. Some
recreational stakeholders were represented on the working group, but
the important car-borne day visitors were not represented, which
could reflect difficulties in selecting a representative or else the poli-
cies of the convening agency, the Peak Tourism Partnership. There
was also perhaps a relatively small involvement by local shopkeepers
or traders and a strong middle class representation.
Consideration is also given to the number of stakeholders involved
through the participation techniques (A5) used in developing the
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 405

Hope Valley visitor management plan. Figure 2 summarizes the main

participation techniques which were employed, including the working
group. Professional consultants in community involvement were
appointed early on by the Park Tourism Partnership, and they used a
community {{mapping|| technique to identify individual stakeholders
who were knowledgeable about the local social fabric, and they met a
selection of these people to discuss tourism issues. Based on the
{{mapping|| procedures, the 57 people {{judged to offer the greatest
networking potential|| were invited to attend a workshop on tourism
in the Hope Valley and on local ideas for a visitor management plan.
The workshop was also promoted in the local media, with 60 people
attending the event. The workshop focused on {{developing a com-
munity agenda for tourism based on local needs rather than tourism

Figure 2. Participation Techniques Used in the Hope Valley.

406 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

demands||, and there was information provision on community

involvement in visitor management plans as well as discussion in small
groups on the local benefits and costs of tourism and on potential
priorities for protection of the area and for tourism (PTP 1993b:7Ð8).
Following the workshop, the Peak Tourism Partnership invited
individuals representing a range of stakeholder groups to be members
of the working group to lead the development of the Hope Valley
visitor management plan. A second professional consultancy team,
which specializes in sustainable tourism, was appointed to draft the
plan under the direct guidance of the working group. Several tech-
niques were used so that the consultants and working group could
learn about the opinions of a large number of relevant people. For
instance, the consultants drew on findings of {{village appraisal|| sur-
veys of the views of Castleton and Edale residents about local issues,
and they also interviewed a range of relevant stakeholders. Their
interviews included discussion with representatives of local govern-
ment and such agencies as the Rural Development Commission about
what was feasible to implement. The consultants also reported on
progress and discussed ideas in the regular working group meetings
as well in a workshop organized at the half-way stage (PTP 1994b).
The parish representatives also explained ideas being developed for
the visitor management plan at parish council meetings and also at
occasional public meetings held in the three parishes, with these
representatives reporting back to the working group. Initial proposals
for the management plan were summarized in a newsletter sent to
every local household, which also listed the names of all community
and parish council representatives and encouraged people to contact
them about their views. While the consultations involved in devising
the plan were quite wide-ranging, there was no direct use of ques-
tionnaire surveys giving all residents opportunities to explain their
views on tourism and to respond to proposals. There was also scope
for more extensive use of newsletters to report on the development
of ideas for the plan.

Intensity of the Collaboration

Among the 17 working group interviewees there was some division
of opinion about the adequacy of the consultation with people living
in the Hope Valley to develop the visitor management plan. Eight
considered the consultation was generally adequate, six held some
mixed views about its adequacy, and three considered it generally
inadequate.
The respondents generally considered that in the working group
meetings the dialogue between participants reflected openness and
respectful speaking and listening (B5). Several working group mem-
bers commented on the vigorous but useful debate which took place
in the meetings. One described how they {{had some heated debates||,
but that they were constructive and allowed people to express their
views openly and discuss them at considerable length. Care had been
taken to create conditions for open discussion in both the community
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 407

workshop and working group meetings. For instance, the community

workshop was held in a local school as a neutral venue which was
central to community activities, and the working group met in a room
in a local pub as it was an informal setting which was not intimidating
or associated with any one particular organization (PTP 1993b). More
generally, it should be stated that a wide range of stakeholder rep-
resentatives attended the regular working group meetings, with one
environmental group representative commenting that they had {{pro-
duced as many meetings as possible for a small body||. In drafting the
visitor management plan for subsequent consultation, the consultants
tried hard to ensure the report was not full of jargon, was succinct,
and was {{easy to read and of practical use|| (PTP 1994b:1). However,
the respondents mentioned other aspects of the consultation process
to develop the plan where there had been difficulties.
Some of the difficulties related to when and how often the relevant
stakeholders were involved (B2). Several respondents concluded that
there should have been more consultation with the Castleton com-
munity prior to sending out the draft visitor management plan for
comment and amendment. A tourism representative argued that
{{people felt not consulted until the very late stages when the parish
council representatives, for example, had a document in their hands
and could call a village meeting with something concrete and say
{What do you think about this?|, by which time I think it was too late
to start changing and taking people|s views into it||. However, some
working group members considered that such views arose because
Castleton shopkeepers and traders objected strongly to certain pro-
posals in the draft plan. One working group member living in Cas-
tleton observed that {{it was the traders of the village who were very
much in arms, saying they weren|t consulted. And that wasn|t true at
all. Notices had been put around in our village, for example, and the
interest was very small . . . local people are never interested in it until
it hits them personally||. It was also commented that the Castleton
representatives on the working group, including one who became vice-
chair of the Castleton Chamber of Trade, had not objected to the
proposals prior to the adverse reaction of the traders.
Another difficulty identified in the interviews arose from the extent
to which stakeholder groups were consulted about the activities of the
collaboration (B3). Specifically, it was suggested that some working
group members failed to consult adequately with the stakeholders
they represented. One community representative explained that
{{people get on the committee and don|t have the opportunity for
going back to consult and disseminate||, and another working group
member suggested that {{if we ever did try it again, it ought to be
explained to them that they had a duty to consult their members and
seek views of their members rather than their own opinions. Now I|m
not sure they did that as well as they could||.
Further, two respondents suggested that it had not been the case
that the participants came to understand, respect and learn from each
others| different interests and attitudes (B7) within the working group
meetings. They complained specifically that there had been con-
straints on the freedom of the working group to consider all views
408 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

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

Degree to which Consensus Emerged

The visitor management plan was the focus for the collaboration,
so a key issue for the case study is the extent to which there was
consensus among the stakeholders about the policies and the purposes
of policies (C2) contained in the plan. According to the plan, the broad
intention was to balance {{increasing concern about the impact of
tourism|| with {{a recognition that visitors make an important con-
tribution to the local economy||(PTP 1994b:1). The specific policy
objectives were to prevent an increase in visitor numbers on peak
days, to reduce the number of cars on peaks days, to lessen visitor
pressure on the most sensitive locations, to improve the quality of life
for local residents, to increase the benefits that tourism brings to
the local community, and to enhance the visitors| experience and
appreciation of the area|s special character. Numerous practical pro-
jects are outlined in the plan to help secure these objectives. These
included new car parking arrangements, promotion activity for local
tourism accommodation, a park-and-ride service, and a scheme
enabling visitors to contribute money for environmental conservation
(PTP 1994b). The plan claims that {{these projects have emerged and
evolved as a result of extensive consultation and discussion and we
believe that this process has helped build a strong consensus and
support for the overall programme|| (PTP 1994b:17). Occasionally,
the plan notes that a consensus was not reached on a project proposal.
For example, in relation to a proposed visitor center it was explained
that {{we favour the Castleton option but emphasize that there is
some resistance to this locally . . . Given the contentious nature of
this proposal it cannot proceed without detailed consultation|| (PTP
1994b:project blueprint 17).
In the interviews with working group members, about half were
largely in favor of the visitor management plan proposals, with the
others expressing some reservations. Typical more enthusiastic
responses were that {{they came to a reasonable consensus . . . they
have tried to strike a reasonable balance of opinions||, and {{they have
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 409

come to a consensus and it|s reasonable||. One respondent considered

that the collaboration {{has been a good thing in my book as it has
made people think beyond their narrow sectional interests and at
overall management questions . . . now we|ve actually got a series of
proposals I think we can work on, with a large measure of support||.
A typical response with some reservations about the proposals was
{{Some I agree with, and some I don|t||. Similarly, a national agency
representative concluded that the proposals were reasonable and
acceptable, while he regretted that the broad ideas of sustainable
tourism had been reduced by local people to a focus on traffic man-
agement.
However, some respondents had clear reservations about the pro-
posal in the plan for on-street car parking charges in Castleton village,
with the scheme intended to reduce problems of inconsiderate parking
and traffic congestion (PEP 1994b). There were two reasons for their
reservations. First, some considered it unfair that this scheme
included proposals to charge Castleton residents for on-street parking
permits, with some interpreting this charge as yet another cost of
tourism to fall on local residents. However, as many as 88% of Cas-
tleton residents who responded in an earlier {{village appraisal|| survey
had favored parking areas reserved for exclusive use by residents
(CVAC 1993). The visitor management plan had suggested that
{{there does not appear to be support for such a scheme amongst
residents||, but had added that it {{could only be implemented after
extensive local consultation|| (PTP 1994b:project blueprint 1).
Second, some interviewees had regrets that the proposed on-street
car parking charges had annoyed shopkeepers and traders in the
village (because it might reduce the number of visitors) and had
created local ill feeling. One respondent stated that {{once the traders
suddenly felt that the Park Tourism Partnership was going to restrict
the number of visitors, they were absolutely aghast and up-in-arms||.
The perceived threat to tourism businesses led to Castleton Chamber
of Trade being formed, and this organization protested strongly about
the car parking proposals and drew up its own scheme for Castleton
which differed from that favored by the working group and also by
Castleton Parish Council. As one respondent explained in relation to
the working group {{they had parish councillors*two or three of them
on this committee*and I was at meetings where they certainly voiced
their opinions very forcibly . . . but still there was a breakaway group
from the Chamber of Trade from Castleton whose views were not in
accordance with the views of the parish council even||.
The spread of approval and reservations about the plan proposals
is perhaps unsurprising as the consensus-building involved the par-
ticipants in discussion across significant differences of interest and
outlook. For example, when the working group members were asked
in the interviews for their opinion about the general balance of advan-
tages and disadvantages that tourism had brought to the Hope Valley,
six said it had brought a balance of advantages and disadvantages,
four said it had brought more disadvantages, four said it had brought
more advantages, and three did not consider it possible to simplify
such a complex issue in this manner. Indeed, it might be claimed that
410 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

after such consensus-building it is common still to have tensions and

even some dissension. Nevertheless, the majority of interviewees did
broadly support the visitor management plan, even when it did not
match their preferred outcome.
It could also be argued that the visitor management plan did not
examine in detail the potentially divisive question of the area|s overall
tourism carrying capacity, and that this left an ambiguity in the plan
which meant it might appeal to a wide range of stakeholders. The
proposals which most directly relate to the area|s carrying capacity
are intended to prevent an increase in visitor numbers and cars on
peak days and to lessen pressure on the most sensitive areas. These
proposals may well appeal to stakeholders wanting to restrict tourism,
but they also offer scope for interests to increase tourism in the Hope
Valley at less busy times and in less sensitive places. This ambiguity,
whether intentional or not, might have helped widen the appeal of
the plan to multiple stakeholders.
Observations can also be made about the extent to which consensus
emerged across the inequalities between stakeholders or reflected
these inequalities (C3). Several interviewees commented that the
collaboration had successfully overcome many of their early
suspicions, which often related to considerable distrust of one stake-
holder organization, the Peak Park Joint Planning Board, which is
the local planning authority. The extent to which agreements were
reached around the visitor management plan is notable in the context
of this antipathy to the local planning authority. However, a few
concerns were expressed that some stakeholders had gained more
than others from the plan proposals. One parish councillor com-
mented that {{too much consideration is given to visitors as against
residents, particularly in relation to parking||, and another community
representative suggested that the proposals {{are all in favor of the
tourists, they did not seem to help the local population||. In contrast,
a tourism member argued that {{there are sections of the plan which,
particularly from a tourism economy point of view, need very, very
careful consideration, probably even re-consideration||.
Some respondents also expressed concerns about whether the public
sector organizations which were participating in the collaboration and
might have relevant funding actually did intend to implement the
resulting policies (C5). The concerns focused on whether there would
be a transfer of the {{ownership|| of the policies and proposals to these
key public sector organizations, as well as on there being a potential
shortage of funding available to these bodies. Because the implemen-
tation of the proposals then might be hampered, there was also con-
cern that local people|s expectations could have been raised
unrealistically. The working group itself lacked resources to
implement the proposals, and it was highly dependent on the rep-
resentatives of local government and the Peak Park Joint Planning
Board ensuring that the plan|s practical projects were included in the
expenditure commitments of their organizations. Some working group
members were concerned that this did not appear to happen quickly,
if at all, and that delays in implementation were creating disil-
lusionment. One working group member stated that the delays had
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 411

meant that people had {{got a bit frustrated||. While implementation

issues are not the focus of this paper, it should be noted that delays
continued after the period when the interviews were conducted,
although by early 1996 funding had been secured for several traffic
management proposals and a few other initiatives (PTP 1996).

CONCLUSION
The paper began with an analytical framework intended to assist
researchers and destination managers dealing with local collaborative
tourism policymaking. The framework encourages a wide-ranging
analysis of collaboration, based on assessment of its scope, its intensity,
and the degree to which consensus emerges among participants. It
examines whether collaborative arrangements are inclusionary and
involve collective learning and consensus-building. Unlike some
recent uses of collaboration theory, the framework questions the
extent to which power imbalances among stakeholders may be
reduced, if at all, within a collaboration. Particular attention is paid
to the concepts of consensus and {{partial consensus||. While the
framework discusses many issues in collaborative tourism policy-
making, there are others which could have been included. It would
also be possible to extend the framework to include a fourth broad
set of issues relating to policy implementation. With this theoretical
framework in place, its application was discussed with the intent of
assessing stakeholder collaboration to develop a visitor management
plan for the Hope Valley. In this case study attention was paid to a
limited selection of issues within each of the three sets of issues in
the analytical framework. Some overall conclusions can be made about
the extent to which this collaboration was successful in being
inclusionary.
Several aspects of the Hope Valley collaboration were quite suc-
cessful in being inclusionary. For example, the working group which
developed the visitor management plan included representatives of
many relevant stakeholder groups, and varied participation tech-
niques were used so that the working group was informed about the
opinions of numerous relevant people. The regular working group
meetings also promoted open dialogue and helped overcome sus-
picions among the stakeholders. Another relatively successful feature
was the extent to which many members broadly supported the visitor
management plan which emerged from the collaboration. Stake-
holders with varied interests and attitudes had worked together to
discuss the issues and possible courses of action, and they had reached
much agreement across their differences about a plan which {{made
sense|| in terms of the collective discussions and what was oper-
ationally feasible. The plan had not been determined largely by the
convening organization, the Peak Tourism Partnership, or any other
stakeholder group. The collaborative process gave the plan legitimacy,
and it had further credibility as it provided a reasonably coherent and
strategic {{vision|| for tourism (Jamal and Getz 1977). Many proposals
in the plan drew on ideas that had been discussed by organizations
for several years. But based on interview responses, the collaborative
412 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

process meant these proposals had been developed further and had
gained greater coherence and support. These successes are notable
as the process had required a great deal of time, energy and organ-
izational ability.
However, other aspects of the Hope Valley collaboration were less
successful in being inclusionary. For example, there might have been
scope for greater consultation among working group members and
the stakeholder groups they represented, including local residents. If
the group had made greater use of questionnaire surveys and news-
letters then more local people would have been aware of its activities
and been given more opportunities to influence its decisions. Unfor-
tunately, the working group lacked the resources needed for more
extensive use of participation techniques, which highlights the import-
ance of the resources which are available to such collaborative
arrangements. While the convening organization, the Peak Tourism
Partnership, had assisted in consultation work, it too lacked the
resources to provide further assistance and it was keen also for the
group to take the lead in undertaking its own work.
While many members broadly supported the visitor management
plan, this was only a {{partial consensus||. Many had reservations
about specific proposals, and two proposals had created some division
between tourism and other interests in Castleton and also in the
working group. Further, the plan did not examine sufficiently the
potentially divisive question of the area|s overall tourism carrying
capacity, and the resulting ambiguity might have helped widen the
plan|s appeal to more stakeholders. In addition, several working group
members were more interested in actions than words, and there were
signs that delays in the year since the plan|s preparation were causing
disillusionment.
It may also be suggested that unequal power relations remained
among the stakeholders, with the distribution of power weighted
towards the authorities rather than the residents. For example, the
Peak Tourism Partnership exercised an important influence on the
general scope of the collaboration, such as in establishing its focus on
sustainable tourism and in suggesting working group members. More
generally, the plan itself failed to give detailed consideration to how
the costs and benefits resulting from implementation would affect
different stakeholders and how these distributional outcomes would
be assessed.
A key issue is that the working group depended on implementation
being carried out by its members through their own organizations.
Without this transfer in {{ownership|| to other resource allocation
arenas, the plan would be marginalized. This highlights the dilemma
for some collaborative initiatives that they need to retain their inde-
pendence in developing policies, while also depending on the stake-
holders with relevant resources adopting the policies and funding the
related actions. In this way, the stakeholders with these resources
have considerable power. At the same time, it can be argued that
collaborative initiatives ought to be linked to the long-established
channels of representative democracy of local and central government,
and in particular to the accountability which is encouraged through
the electoral system. Ž
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 413

Acknowledgments*The authors thank Chris Lewis (former project Manager, Peak

Tourism Partnership) for advice on organizing the interviews and for constructive
comments on an early draft of the paper. Helpful comments on the same draft were
also provided by Richard Denman (consultant with The Tourism Company, who
helped develop the visitor management plan for the Hope Valley), Phil Long and
Lindemberg Medeiros de Araujo (Sheffield Hallam University), and Bernard Lane
(University of Bristol). Thanks are due to the interviewees for giving up their time.
Some of the initial ideas for this paper were presented at the 1997 ATLAS Conference
held in Viana do Castelo, Portugal.

REFERENCES
Abbott, J.
1996 Sharing the City. Community Participation in Urban Management. London:
Earthscan.
Arnstein, S.R.
1969 A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 35:216Ð224.
Benveniste, G.
1989 Mastering the Politics of Planning: Crafting Credible Plans and Policies that
Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bramwell, B., and G. Broom
1989 Tourism Development Action Programmes: An Approach to Local Tourism
Initiatives. Insights A6:11-17.
Brandon, K.
1993 Basic Steps toward Encouraging Local Participation in Nature Tourism
Projects. In Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers, K. Lindberg and
D.E. Hawkins, eds., pp. 134Ð151. North Bennington: The Ecotourism Society.
Bryson, J.M., and B.C. Crosby
1992 Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-
Power World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
CVAC
1993 Castleton Village Appraisal. Castleton: Castleton Village Appraisal Commit-
tee.
Department of Environment
1994 Community Involvement in Planning and Development Processes. London:
HMSO.
Forester, J.
1989 Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
1993 Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Fowler, F.J., and T.W. Mangione
1990 Standardized Survey Interviewing. Applied Social Science Research Methods
Series, Vol. 18. London: Sage.
Freeman, C., S. Littlewood, and D. Whitney
1996 Local Government and Emerging Models of Participation in the Local Agenda
21 Process. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39:65Ð78.
Friedmann, J.
1992 Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Oxford: Blackwell.
Getz, D., and T.B. Jamal
1994 The Environment-Community Symbiosis: A Case for Collaborative Tourism
Planning. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2:152Ð173.
Goodwin, M.
1998 The Governance of Rural Areas: Some Emerging Research Issues and Agen-
das. Journal of Rural Studies 14:5Ð12.
Gray, B.
1989 Collaborating. Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gunn, C.A.
1994 Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts and Cases. Washington: Taylor and
Francis.
414 COLLABORATION IN TOURISM

Hall, C.M.
1994 Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Chichester: Wiley.
Hastings, A.
1996 Unravelling the Process of {{Partnership|| in Urban Regeneration Policy.
Urban Studies 33:253Ð268.
Haywood, K.M.
1988 Responsible and Responsive Tourism Planning in the Community. Tourism
Management 9:105Ð118.
Healey, P.
1997 Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London:
Macmillan.
1998 Collaborative Planning in a Stakeholder Society. Town Planning Review 69:1Ð
21.
Innes, J.
1995 Planning Theory|s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Inter-
active Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14:183Ð90.
Jamal, T.B., and D. Getz
1995 Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism
Research 22:186Ð204.
1997 {{Visioning|| for Sustainable Tourism Development: Community-Based Col-
laborations. In Quality Management in Urban Tourism, P.E. Murphy, ed., pp.
199Ð220. Chichester: Wiley.
Johnson, W.C.
1984 Citizen Participation in Local Planning in the UK and USA: A Comparative
Study. Progress in Planning 21:149Ð221.
Joppe, M.
1996 Sustainable Community Tourism Development Revisited. Tourism Man-
agement 17:475Ð479.
Lane, B.
1994 Sustainable Rural Tourism Strategies: A Tool for Development and Con-
servation. In Rural Tourism and Sustainable Rural Development, B. Bramwell
and B. Lane, eds., pp. 102Ð111. Clevedon: Channel View.
Long, P.E.
1997 Researching Tourism Partnership Organizations: From Practice to Theory to
Methodology. In Quality Management in Urban Tourism, P.E. Murphy, ed., pp.
235Ð251. Chichester: Wiley.
McArthur, A.
1995 The Active Involvement of Local Residents in Strategic Community Part-
nerships. Policy and Politics 23:61Ð71.
Marien, C., and A. Pizam
1997 Implementing Sustainable Tourism Development Through Citizen Par-
ticipation in the Planning Process. In Tourism, Development and Growth. The
Challenge of Sustainability, S. Wahab and J.J. Pigram, eds., pp. 164Ð178. London:
Routledge.
Murdoch, J., and S. Abram
1998 Defining the Limits of Community Governance. Journal of Rural Studies
14:41Ð50.
Prentice, R.
1993 Community-Driven Tourism Planning and Residents| Preferences. Tourism
Management 14:218Ð227.
PTP
1993a Peak Tourism Partnership Newsletter (Winter).
1993b Community Involvement in Tourism Management: A Pilot Scheme to Estab-
lish a Visitor Management Plan for Castleton, Hope and Edale. Hope: Peak
Tourism Partnership.
1994a CastletonÐEdaleÐHope Local Interpretive Plan: Draft for Consultation.
Hope: Peak Tourism Partnership.
1994b A Visitor Management Plan for Castleton, Hope and Edale. Hope: Peak
Tourism Partnership.
1996 Peak Tourism Partnership Final Report, August 1992ÐOctober 1995. Hope:
Peak Tourism Partnership.
 BRAMWELL AND SHARMAN 415

Reed, M.G.
1997 Power Relations and Community-Based Tourism Planning. Annals of Tourism
Research 24:566Ð591.
Ritchie, J.R.B.
1985 The Nominal Group Technique: An Approach to Consensus Policy For-
mulation in Tourism. Tourism Management 6:82Ð94.
1993 Crafting a Destination Vision. Putting the Concept of Resident-Responsive
Tourism into Practice. Tourism Management 14:379Ð389.
Roberts, N.C., and R.T. Bradley
1991 Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Study of Public Policy Initiation
at the State Level. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27:209Ð227.
Robinson, G.M.
1997 Community-Based Planning: Canada|s Atlantic Coastal Action Program.
Geographical Journal 163:25Ð37.
Selin, S., and K. Beason
1991 Interorganizational Relations in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
18:639Ð652.
Selin, S., and D. Chavez
1995 Developing an Evolutionary Tourism Partnership Model. Annals of Tourism
Research 22:844Ð856.
Selin, S., and N.A. Myers
1998 Tourism Marketing Alliances: Member Satisfaction and Effectiveness Attri-
butes of a Regional Initiative. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 7:79Ð
94.
Shortall, S.
1994 The Irish Rural Development Paradigm: An Exploratory Analysis. Economic
and Social Review 25:233Ð60.
Simmons, D.G.
1994 Community Participation in Tourism Planning. Tourism Management 15:98Ð
108.
Smith, D.M., and M. Blanc
1997 Grass-Roots Democracy and Participation: A New Analytical and Practical
Approach. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15:281Ð303.
Stoker, G.
1995 Regime Theory and Urban Politics. In Theories of Urban Politics, D. Judge,
G. Stoker and H. Wolman, eds., pp. 54Ð71. London: Sage.
Susskind, L. and M. Elliot, eds.
1983 Paternalism, Conflict and Co-Production: Learning from Citizen Action and
Citizen Participation in Western Europe. New York: Plenum.
Waddock, S.A.
1991 A Typology of Social Partnership Organizations. Administration and Society
22:480Ð515.
Submitted 6 February 1998
Resubmitted 9 July 1998
Accepted 15 July 1998
Referred anonymously
Coordinating Editor: Salah E.A. Wahab