Case Study

Participatory place branding through design: The case of Dunga beach in Kisumu, Kenya Received (in revised form): 12th November 2014

Eva Maria Jernsand is PhD student in Business Administration at the Centre for Tourism, School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg. Her research interests include place branding, destination development, community-based tourism, and participatory design.

Helena Kraff is PhD student in Design at the School of Design and Crafts at University of Gothenburg. Her research interests include social design, participatory design, community participation and place branding.

ABSTRACT For place branding to reach long-term commitment and legitimacy a large number of stakeholders needs to be involved. This calls for innovative ways of approaching the process itself, permitting it to be participatory and changeable. In this article, the purpose is to describe, in detail, how a place branding process can take place in practice, and illustrate how an integration of design can act as a mean to reach community participation. The example is a tourism development case in Kisumu, Kenya where the authors were actively involved in destination branding. The findings show how the empathic and intuitive process of design allows each activity to lead to the other in an evolutionary way, and how visual tools can strengthen communication between participants as well as stimulate idea generation. The implication is that place branding should be viewed as consisting of several ongoing processes with multiple stakeholders. With the introduction of evolutionary and visual elements to these processes, they become more participatory, changeable and sustainable.

Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2015) 11, 226–242. doi:10.1057/pb.2014.34; published online 18 February 2015 Keywords: place branding process; participatory design; community participation; design process; evolutionary place branding; participatory place branding

INTRODUCTION Correspondence: Eva Maria Jernsand, Department of Business Administration, Centre for Tourism, School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg, PO Box 610, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden E-mail: eva.maria.jernsand@ handels.gu.se

An increasing attention in place branding literature is devoted to the importance of stakeholder involvement (for example, Warnaby, 2009; Aitken and Campelo, 2011; Hanna and Rowley, 2011; Kavaratzis, 2012; Lucarelli, 2012). It is proposed that since places affect and concern a large number of

stakeholders, they should have the right to participate in the process. A place brand without the engagement of various groups of stakeholders will lack authenticity and thereby jeopardise the long-term sustainability of the brand (Aitken and Campelo, 2011). According to Pike (2005) destination brand implementation is likely to

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242 www.palgrave-journals.com/pb/

The case of Dunga beach in Kisumu, Kenya

fail with its top-down approach, and Zenker and Beckmann (2013) found that place brand strategies often deal with only one target audience, instead of a large number of stakeholders with different interests and perspectives. Braun et al (2013, pp. 24–25) see the need for place branding to be ‘resident orientated’, thereby demanding a shift ‘from the communication-dominant approach to a participation-dominant approach’. It is suggested that in order to successfully include various stakeholders and perspectives the process itself needs to be considered as evolutionary. It means a continuous process, rather than viewing it as a ‘once and for all project’ (Hanna and Rowley, 2011, p. 472). It also means open to changes; that new angles and ideas are allowed and that the reflection of each activity may lead to reformulations. To be able to ensure a process that has these characteristics, it also means that new methods and tools are needed (Kavaratzis, 2012; Braun et al, 2013). With this background, we argue that there are several motives for exploring the integration of design in place branding theory and practice. The involvement of stakeholders in the design process has been practiced since the early 1970s with the emergence of the concept of participatory design (Ehn, 1993). There is a democratic reasoning; users are entitled to participate in the design process of products and services that will have an impact on their lives (Cross, 1981; Sanders and Dandavate, 1999; Westerlund, 2009). It is not only about asking for approval or advice but about letting the users be actively involved in the designing, viewing them as partners in the process. The focus on user participation has set design in a social context, aiming to design for needs of societal character, such as health care, community development and urban planning. This ‘larger scope of enquiry’ (Sanders and Stappers, 2008, p. 10) that design is now approaching will ‘change what we design, how we design, and who designs’ (ibid., p. 11), and it gives implications for the integration of design in place branding. Further, the use of visualisation as a communication and idea-generating tool is at the core of the design process, and is seen as a means to enhance

participation. Visualisation enables sharing of tacit knowledge in a group by making people’s thoughts visible to others, thereby making it easier to build on each other’s ideas and findings. These tools are referred to as ‘what if tools’ (Lawson, 2005), where open-ended questions are posed and explored in action, and where the reflections of each action may lead to reformulations of the process. This gives the design process an openended and non-linear structure, which goes in line with the evolutionary aspects that place branding scholars are asking for. The purpose of this article is to describe, in detail, how a place branding process can take place, and to illustrate how an integration of design can act as a means to reach community participation. In the place branding literature, there are few examples that others can learn from that take into account achievements and mistakes that may occur along the way; that provide detail on how the process was implemented, what methods were used, or how the process evolved and who were part of it. This is not uncommon in the design literature though, as a way to explore what works and what does not, and to spread knowledge of methods and tools. The contribution is therefore a set of implications on how an evolutionary process that is open for community participation may take place in practice. Practitioners may find ‘hands-on’ inspiration on how participatory place branding can be performed, including what methods and tools can be used, what type of actors can be involved and aspects that may be problematic. Managers and scholars may find the description of the case to resonate with their requests for participatory and evolutionary place branding. The article is structured as follows. In the theoretical framework the emerging discussion regarding the need for stakeholder involvement in place branding is reviewed with implications on how scholars wish to see it evolve. This is linked to the characteristics of the design process, in particular participatory design that are relevant for a merge between the fields. An illustration of a process where the fields have been integrated is given in the empirical example of the ecotourism

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

227

Jernsand and Kraff

development of Dunga beach, in Kenya. Finally findings are concluded and discussed.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Stakeholder participation in place branding An emerging view in place branding literature has been recognised towards embracement of stakeholder involvement. It has its origin in the fact that places affect and concern a large number of stakeholders, which all have to be considered, such as government officials, politicians, business, residents and visitors (Moilanen and Rainisto, 2009; Fan, 2010). Moreover, the academic and practical fields that place branding covers are broad, including, for example, urban planning, geography, urban studies, marketing, public administration and sociology (Warnaby, 2009) as well as domains, such as tourism, retailing, cultural activities and sports (Hankinson, 2004). This complexity is different from other branding contexts, which is why it is argued that place branding needs to be approached differently (Hanna and Rowley, 2011; Kavaratzis, 2012). The perspectives of local stakeholders should be considered in the process according to Baker (2007), and their roles are of crucial importance in the brand building process according to Hanna and Rowley (2011). Kavaratzis (2012) sees an urgent need to rethink stakeholders’ roles towards participation and involvement. If they are seen as partners they will support and sustain the brand (Hanna and Rowley, 2011), and as Braun et al (2013, p. 21) anticipate ‘the involvement of residents will lead to increased ownership of the brand and therefore more sense of responsibility for its development, management and external reputation’. Alternatively, returning to Hanna and Rowley (2011, p. 466), ‘stakeholders may actively resist branding initiatives if they are viewed as artificial or lacking credibility’. Furthermore, Aitken and Campelo (2011, p. 918) argue that if residents are left aside, the brand will not promote ‘authenticity, recognition, acceptance and commitment by the local community’, which might threaten the long-term sustainability of the brand.

228

An area of inadequacy in place branding theory and practice connected to the need for place branding to involve multiple stakeholder has been pointed out by, for example, Kavaratzis (2012, p. 10); place branding is too often ‘a linear process of managerial decision making’ where pre-decided steps are taken in turn. An opinion is emerging, which argues that the process needs rather to be seen as interactive, evolutionary (Hanna and Rowley, 2011), fluid and open (Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013). Kavaratzis (2012, p. 10) suggests that it ‘should not be understood as a linear process of necessary steps but as a complex web of intertwined processes’. The argumentation goes in line with the view that places are not static constructs and that they do not have one single identity that is easy to form and project (Massey, 1994; Kalandides, 2011; Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013). The changing and multiple nature of a place need to be considered, since as Massey (1994, p. 118) points out: ‘one crucial element of what “geography” is all about is difference and specificity’. Despite this there is a common view that identity is something fixed, to be ‘tapped, defined, and manipulated’ (Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013, p. 6), and branding the attempt to communicate that identity (Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2009). Kapferer (2012) states that since the product itself is often left out, the brand will contain of added perceptions and brand management will only be dealing with communication. This limits the way branding is understood and carried out (Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2009; Kavaratzis, 2012; Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013) and the risk is that it leads to a ‘sameness’ of places, with the same physical forms and the same communication efforts forced upon people (Kavaratzis, 2012, p. 11).

Design as a participatory and evolutionary process Stakeholder participation in design is not new. In the proceedings of the Design Research Society’s Conference in Manchester in 1971, Cross (1972) saw an urgent need for methods that include citizen participation and decision making in order to ‘survive the future’ (p. 11). In about the same

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

The case of Dunga beach in Kisumu, Kenya

time in Scandinavia, research projects were introduced where industrial workers were involved in company development (Ehn, 1993; Gedenryd, 1998; Björgvinsson et al, 2010). Since then the participatory design practice has grown. It has been mostly applied for the design of products and new technologies, but has also found its way to other areas since as Sanders and Stappers (2008, p. 6) put it ‘we are no longer simply designing products for users. We are designing for the future experiences for people, communities and cultures …’. This has called for a shift towards a broader scope for design as theory and practice. Burns et al (2006, p. 9) recognise that designers today work with social and economic issues and that the design process is suitable to tackle such issues, since it puts the user ‘at the heart of a solution’. As a result there are new disciplines emerging, such as interaction design (1980s), service design and transformation design (2000s) (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). For example, transformation design focuses on social and economic issues in public organisations, with an aim to hand over tools and skills to the involved stakeholders so that the project can proceed even after the designers have left (Burns et al, 2006). In the design process the problem setting is seen as unique, without predetermined solutions. According to Schön (1983) it is characterised by ‘uncertainty, disorder and indeterminacy’ (p. 16), and the understanding is reached through planning, actions, reframing and critical reflection. The enquiry is emergent (Cooper et al, 2009), and evolves through the posing of open questions of ‘what might be, could be, and should be’ (Lawson, 2005, p. 125). The consideration of local contexts and situations is vital, meaning that actions are ‘highly influenced by the specificity of the situation’ (Sangiorgi, 2009, p. 417), and grounded in ‘situated knowledge, experience and human contexts’ (Akama, 2009, p. 4).

Visualisation in design The intuitive and evolutionary aspect of the design process is highly connected to the act of visualisation, which is a core tool in design. It enables you to go through a reflection-in-action

process, a type of communication with oneself where intangible aspects become tangible (Schön, 1983). For example, when you draw, a reflection over what is drawn generates new ideas for the next pencil move. Visualisation is also suitable for participatory actions since it enables needs, knowledge, ideas and findings to be shared in a group. It makes one person’s thoughts visible to the other participants, helping them to communicate and build on each other’s ideas. Thereby it is also an end in itself to strengthen participation. The tacit knowledge that is hard to express verbally (Schön, 1983) can be reached through visualisation, since it provides ‘more natural representations than representations in people’s heads’ (Segelström and Blomkvist, 2013, p. 11). Further, visualisation enables a creation of stories that give life to insights. Seeing something visually gives a sense of empathy of the description and makes it easier to keep this empathy over time (Segelström, 2009; Bailey, 2013; Segelström and Blomkvist, 2013). Prototyping is a form of visualisation where knowledge and ideas are created in action. It may start with simple small-scale prototypes in paper, moving to full scale, testing different materials, eventually coming to a ‘works like’ stage where the functionality is tested (British Design Council, 2014). During a participatory workshop, possible futures and new ideas are generated by the experimentation and building of prototypes. Westerlund (2009) states that participants are often proud of the outcome when prototyping, seeing it as meaningful since they solve an existing and sometimes personal problem. Furthermore, a workshop does not stop at a discussion level as prototypes make the result tangible. Buchenau and Suri (2000) argue that to fully understand something you need to experience it with your mind and body. This personal experience, ‘exploring by doing’ or ‘experience prototyping’, is used to understand existing experiences and context, but also to explore and evaluate new design ideas, as well as to communicate ideas to an audience (ibid., p. 425). As compared with a passive act such as being told about or seeing someone else demonstrating something, a personal experience is ‘more vivid and engaging’ (ibid., p. 425). It also provides empathy for the users,

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

229

Jernsand and Kraff

enabling you to see their needs and detect problematic aspects and possibilities of both practical and emotional nature. Buchenau and Suri (2000, p. 425) appropriately quote the philosopher Lao Tse, saying: ‘What I hear, I forget. What I see, I remember. What I do, I understand!’. A similar example is being your user. When conducting this, the designers put themselves in the shoes of the users, do what they would do, in places where they would do it. For instance, by wearing tinted glasses while carrying out everyday tasks, you get insight to the life of a person with impaired eyesight (British Design Council, 2014).

Challenges with community participation Participation is often promoted in positive terms because of its focus on empowerment and democratic and people-led processes (Hickey and Mohan, 2004). However, there are challenges inherent in the concept that need to be acknowledged. The goals of participation may be easy to justify in theory, however, in practice, arriving at socially, environmentally and economically feasible processes and results is a complex matter (Wall and Mathieson, 2006). If participation is practiced without caution or even with the wrong intentions, it will lead to the opposite of empowerment, even becoming manipulative. To illustrate this, Arnstein (1969, p. 217) introduced the ladder of participation, with different degrees of participation: manipulation and therapy at the bottom, different ‘degrees of tokenism’ where power holders ‘allow the havenots to hear and to have a voice’ in the middle, and delegated power and citizen control at the top. It should be acknowledged that in the middle of the ladder, where participants are asked for advice or inform, their voices are heard but they do not have the power to ensure that their opinions will be followed, and thus the status quo is maintained.

METHODOLOGY In order to get an in-depth understanding about if and how design can enable an evolutionary and participatory place branding process the authors

230

saw the need to move beyond observations and interviews, into an active exploration of such an approach in a real setting. The small destination of Dunga beach in Kenya was chosen. Dunga is situated about 5 km from Kisumu, on the shore of Lake Victoria. The majority of the community rely on the lake for their income, working as fishermen, fishmongers, boat builders and related jobs. However, the state of the lake is a cause for major concern, and the fish stock is decreasing because of overfishing, pollution and the infestation of water hyacinths. In addition to making efforts for the lake’s environment, it is crucial to find new livelihoods, and ecotourism is seen as an alternative. In Dunga beach there is the local tour guide group Dectta, offering activities such as short boat rides and ecological courses for students. Other organisations involved in tourism activities are the community-elected Beach Management Unit (BMU) and the NGO (nongovernmental organisation) Ecofinder Kenya. These local organisations as well as residents of Dunga were involved in a place branding process with the authors. Also involved were PhD students from Maseno and Jooust universities in Kisumu and Gothenburg University in Sweden. The fieldwork was carried out over a period of 15 months, spending 12 weeks in Kisumu spread over four occasions. Nine participatory workshops, four public presentations and two test tours were organised. These were combined with comparative studies, interviews, observations and questionnaires, as well as pronounced design methods, such as being your user, available project space and participant diaries. For an overview of project activities, see Table 1. In action-oriented research, it is often difficult to separate practical work and research work, and not all of the activities mentioned can be viewed as research methods although they are necessary for the practical work. In this article, observations, reflections-in-action, diaries from participants in the two test tours and interviews with those who participated are seen as qualitative research methods. The main funder of the project, Mistra Urban Futures (MUF), has established a local interaction platform in Kisumu (KLIP). MUF emphasises

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

The case of Dunga beach in Kisumu, Kenya

Table 1: Project activities in the place branding process of Dunga beach Number Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Participants

Contents

Being your user/experience The authors, PhD colleagues prototyping Stakeholder mapping workshop The authors, PhD colleagues, residents, local organisations Identity workshop The authors, PhD colleagues, residents, local organisations Interviews The authors, domestic and international tourists Open presentation PhD colleagues, Dunga residents, local organisations Beach workshop The authors, PhD colleagues, residents, local organisations Good example workshop The authors, tour guides in Dunga (day 1 of 3) Walking workshop (day 2 of 3) The authors, tour guides in Dunga

10

Packaging workshop (day 3 of 3) Open presentation

11

Meeting and workshop

12

Infrastructure workshop

13 14 15

Crafts workshop Tour layout workshop: A day in Dunga Test tour, national

16 17

Debriefing meeting Test tour, international

18

Debriefing meeting

19

Interviews

20

Open presentation

The authors, tour guides in Dunga The authors, PhD colleagues The authors, PhD colleagues, tour guides in Dunga The authors, tour guides in Dunga The authors, tour guides in Dunga The authors, tour guides in Dunga The authors, tour guides, two families from Kisumu The authors, tour guides in Dunga The authors, tour guides, eight adults from Sweden The authors, supervisor, PhD colleagues, tour guides in Dunga The authors, tour guides, residents The authors, PhD colleagues, residents, local organisations

transdisciplinarity, thereby focusing on research that aims to accomplish both academic and practical results, which is an aspect that has been important for the process. From the practitioners’ side, the involvement and empowerment of the community as well as the ownership of the process were seen as key. As the founder of Ecofinder Kenya expressed it: … you are not only coming to squeeze information from the community and turn away, but I see you involving the community in a process; in a process whereby you get information, but also in a process where the community owns that information and they are empowered …

Experience the tourist perceptions of Dunga and its environs Visualisation of stakeholders in Dunga SWOT analysis, who is Dunga? Past, present and future Dunga, song production Semi-structured interviews with tourists on the beach (31 interviews) Open presentation of findings in community hall Hopes and fears of Dunga’s future tourism development Good examples. Relate Dunga to examples Walking workshop. Pinpointing challenges and opportunities Idea generation for tourism packages Open presentation of findings in community hall Presentations on current state and possible continuations. Group workshop Sketching on waste management system and signage system Sketching on labels, products and activities Paper prototype on guided tour with focus on interactions and activities Testing a prototype tour with a target group Summary and reflection meeting in Dunga Testing a prototype tour with a target group Summary and reflection meeting in Dunga Open interviews with tour guides and residents of Dunga (19 interviews) Open presentation of findings in community hall

The empirical material was analysed and reflected upon with an emphasis on areas and points in time where design contributed to an evolutionary process and where the visual aspects came forth as tools for communication and idea generation between participants.

THE CASE: DUNGA BEACH An important task, before the actual process in Dunga started, was to gain insight of the specific context, in order to reach an understanding of the situation at hand, as well as to gain an understanding on possible and suitable actions to come. This was especially important since neither

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

231

Jernsand and Kraff

of the authors had been to Kenya before and the context was therefore somewhat unfamiliar. Before and during the first visits to Kenya and Kisumu the roles as international tourists were taken on, a type of experience prototyping (Buchenau and Suri, 2000), and being your user (British Design Council, 2014). It provided a first-hand experience and thereby an understanding of the place and its users, which may have been less informative if secondary data or conventional empirical methods had been used alone (Buchenau and Suri, 2000). The reading of guide books and Internet searches coloured the first perception and created expectations. For example, in a guide book (Ham et al, 2012, p. 137) a sentence gave an image of Kisumu as a city that ‘sits with its back to the water’. By visiting other tourism destinations in the region around Kisumu, Nairobi and Rift valley, a deeper understanding of the Kenyan culture, as well as a sense of the state of tourism offerings were gained. On an acting tourist day in Dunga, the authors sensed a deep connection that people in Dunga have to each other and the place: a sense of community and authenticity. The guides chatted with local fishermen on the boat tour, and on the beach fishmongers were scaling and frying freshly caught tilapia fish while laughing and talking to each other. The day also showed problematic aspects, for example it was hard to identify the tour guides since they did not wear uniforms, and the beach was untidy, with litter lying on the ground. (Figure 1)

Figure 1:

232

Local fishermen.

However, important to note is that the experience of acting tourist is highly subjective (Buchenau and Suri, 2000), and does not give a full understanding of how other people experience it. To capture a broader view of Dunga’s visitors, 2 days were spent on the beach interviewing 31 tourists about their experience. They appreciated experiencing the lake, seeing the fishmonger activities and 90 per cent would recommend Dunga to a friend. Yet, none of them spent money on souvenirs and some saw it as being untidy or they did not know if the tour guides were professionals.

Planning through visualisation Having a first insight of the context, an internal process between the authors started where visualisation was used as a tool to understand the situation, to generate ideas and to come forward with the planning. For example, actions that involved the community were always prototyped in order to test their suitability to the context. When prototyping a workshop, large sheets of paper were placed on a table and sticky notes were used to draw and write ideas on that were then organised on the papers. This visual overview enabled an internal process of ‘reflective conversation’ (Schön, 1983), and made the authors’ respective ideas visible, enabled a shared understanding and a building on each other’s ideas. You could have a discussion on details, and at the same time keep a visual overview of the whole workshop. When a new idea arose you could see if and where it fitted in, or if it should replace something else. (Figure 2)

Figure 2:

Prototyping a workshop.

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

The case of Dunga beach in Kisumu, Kenya

In the initial stages, the local organisations in Dunga were invited to an idea-generating and planning session with the aim to co-create coming workshops and to get their view on appropriate ways to involve the community. This was done in collaboration with the authors’ PhD colleagues. As an example, the authors proposed value words to describe Dunga, however, this was seen as too abstract by the local participants. Describing what colour, food, plant or type of music is typical for Dunga was seen to be more appropriate.

Participatory actions Insight of local stakeholders The first larger workshop for the community of Dunga had the purpose of identifying stakeholders in Dunga, how they are placed spatially, the relationships between them, if current relationships could be improved or new relationships could be initiated. The 75 participants were divided into groups and asked to draw maps of Dunga on large sheets of paper before they put up stakeholders and relationships. An important result came up when interviewing one of the local boat builders. He said that when placing each boat builder on the map, they could see that they were spread out geographically. After the workshop they got together and asked the BMU for a piece of land to enable them to work together as a group. Now they have a common station by the beach, making it possible for people to come by, giving an opportunity to find new

Figure 3:

Drawing the map of Dunga.

customers and also providing an interesting spot for tourists (Figure 3).

Reflection leading to changes in subsequent actions During the first workshop, it became evident that there were many more participants than originally expected and the venue for workshops became an issue. The experience led to changes for the second workshop. It was divided into stations, all with different topics, meaning that ideas and information on several topics came up in a different setup to the first workshop. Some of the stations were outside, which provided a better working climate. New groups were started as more people arrived; hence newcomers did not disturb the other groups. The workshop aimed to get a grasp of Dunga’s identity from the perspective of the community. The stations included; swot analysis with big paper sheets on the wall, who is Dunga?, where the participants drew images that they felt represented Dunga, and past present and future where they discussed what should be kept or not and what could be developed for the future. Further, referring to the rich music tradition in Kisumu with local instruments like ohangla and nyatiti, and local dances and rumba, one group was asked to express how they felt about Dunga in a song, which resulted in the song Dunga Be. Except for the song, the results of the workshop included, for example, suggestions on the image of a tilapia fish representing Dunga, and the colours of green and yellow representing papyrus and local flowers. The number of facilitators had to be several in the first two workshops, so there was a need to rethink again. In discussions with stakeholders from the local organisations, a proposal was made of reducing the number of participants to 50, to make it more manageable. The stakeholders pointed out that it was important that everyone was invited, and ‘the whole community is not 50 people!’ They also had concerns that the workshops took up a lot of time, and that many people therefore could not attend. A new idea was formulated there and then. What about an open workshop held on the beach for a full day, where

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

233

Jernsand and Kraff

people could come by when they had the time? The stakeholders found the idea more suitable since it would allow more people to participate, and it would only take a few minutes of their time. In the workshop on the beach, the aim was to find out how the community felt about ecotourism development, if they had fears as well as hopes. The participants wrote or drew hopes and fears on coloured paper symbols and put them in a suggestion box, which is a common way in Kenya for sharing thoughts. A reflection from the previous workshops was that everybody had not seemed comfortable in group discussions. This new approach allowed them to be anonymous and to sit by themselves for a while, without a group waiting for a contribution. A large number of people participated, including children, who had been underrepresented in the previous workshops. The creative approach of coloured paper symbols and pens, together with the familiar suggestion box could have contributed to the interest.

Taking ideas forward After three open community workshops, there was a need to take some of the ideas that had come up forward. A closer collaboration with a smaller group was suggested, and since the members in the local tour guide organisation had shown a great interest, it led to a 3-day workshop with this group, consisting of 16 members from the community. The first day focused on inspiration, the second on insight of their current offer, and the third and last day on packaging ideas. The first day started by showing good examples of tourism packaging. The plan was first to do this through a traditional slideshow presentation, where the authors stood and talked, and the participants sat and listened. However the aim was to reach a creative discussion, so the slides were printed on A4 paper. This enabled the group to sit around a table, and by having the slides in a physical form the discussion could easily go back and forth. The good examples were highly visual, and dealt with, for example, how you can develop packages around local history and culture. The participants developed ideas on how they could use the local Luo culture and the genuine fishing

234

village as bases for developing tourism services and products (Figure 4). The second part was a walking workshop (experience prototyping, Buchenau and Suri, 2000), with the aim of a shared understanding and a co-creation of ideas. It followed the tourist route, discussing strengths and weaknesses. The fact that the walk was on site made it easy to connect to the physical surroundings by pointing out things for discussion. For example, the bad state of the gate, which is the first thing tourists see when arriving to the beach, or the litter. Could there be litterbins and signs saying something positive instead of ‘do not litter’? Yes, one of the participants said enthusiastically, like ‘go green’! The first two days each included five participants, however the workshop was appreciated, so on the third day it was open for the whole tour guide group. The aim was to go one step further and develop concepts for tourism packages. The participants were divided into three groups, working with a theme each; the lake, the local (Luo) culture and events. One tour guide had previously mentioned that the good examples from the first day were good, but to develop something of the same size would demand resources that they do not have. Continuing that thought the participants were asked to develop one short-term concept, not demanding large resources and that could be implemented by the group quite easily, and one long-term concept. They came up with ideas and concepts quite fast, which could be because some of them had been in the mindset of developing ideas for the last two days. As examples, the event group created a lake day and the lake group a lake package; a 2–5 day boat trip where the tourists can go fishing, cook their own food, camp on beautiful beaches and end with a festive evening in Dunga with traditional Luo music and dances (Figure 5). During the workshop the issue of uniforms for the guides was discussed. The guides later bought shirts in green and yellow, relating to what had been discussed in the identity workshop as representing the green papyrus in Dunga wetlands, and the yellow flowers on the beach. Printed on the t-shirts was a symbol of a tilapia fish, and on the back the text tour guide was printed in a large

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

The case of Dunga beach in Kisumu, Kenya

Figure 4: creation.

Workshop Visual examples are used for idea Figure 6:

Figure 5:

Workshop with the tour guide group.

font and on the front it said – Dunga fishing village. The guides later mentioned that the shirts had made them more recognised and they now felt more like a group with a profession, belonging together.

Collaborative prototyping During the fourth trip to Kisumu the collaboration with the tourguide group strengthened further. One of the authors’ supervisors had proposed a tour with Swedish tourists to test a tourism package in Dunga, working as a motivator for the tour guide group and the community. In discussion with the guides it was decided to prototype such a package and test it in action. It was also decided to prototype a tour for national tourists since the guides and the other local organisation saw it as important to focus on national tourism.

Sketching for signage system.

In a preparatory meeting for the test tours the guides presented what had been done so far in the process, challenges met and ideas for possible continuations. The guides emphasised that they considered it to be important to integrate local craft in tourism activities. Another aspect that had come up in previous workshops was the need for improvements in infrastructure on the beach. This led to the formulation of three groups; one working with craft integration in tourism, one with infrastructure and one with the overall layout of the tours. Each group then worked with handson prototyping of products, services and packages. Besides the guides, members of the community engaged in the prototyping, for example a local artist joined the craft group. The infrastructure group worked with the physical surroundings. Doing sketches together in a group made it possible to build on each other’s ideas, discussing around a sketch and continuing on it, or bringing about more ideas for other types of solutions. As a continuation of the workshop, full size prototypes of a recycling collection point and a signage system were worked further on by the guides in collaboration with local carpenters (Figures 6 and 7). The craft group worked on ideas on how to enhance co-creation between people (the guides, the tourists and the members of the community), educate people in eco-related issues and use recycled or natural material in products. For example, it was discussed how the tourists could make paper, ropes and jewellery out of water hyacinths. The group also sketched on labels and

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

235

Jernsand and Kraff

aprons where the symbol of the tilapia fish was incorporated. The group that worked with the overall layout of the tours summed up activities that had come up earlier, developed new ideas and put it all together in paper prototypes. The prototype consisted of a map of Dunga with the wetlands, the village, the beach, the lake and specific points of interest such as trees or viewpoints. The participants drew the map on a large sheet of paper and put small folded cardboard characters on it representing guides, tourists and community members. At each point where an interaction may occur, the characters were put in with speaking bubbles that they filled in with what the person could say. The activities were then connected with red dotted lines and arrows, as the path to follow. One of the participants said that they will use the tool in the future for developing tours, because of its simple but very visual construct (Figures 8 and 9): … using the manila paper and drawing the tourist, placing the guide, writing on the manila

Figure 7:

236

Finished sign.

Figure 8:

Visual tool for prototyping guided tours.

Figure 9:

Close-up: tool for visualising the guided tour.

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

The case of Dunga beach in Kisumu, Kenya

paper, I think it was very good, and it makes somebody see how something will happen, just by looking at the manila paper. It shows you everything from the beginning how the visitor will move, it is very good. I think it is the best so far, I’ve never seen something like that. Very interesting. Every man can see how the movement of the tourist will be.

Prototyping through test tours Taking stance from the ideas from the workshops, the tours consisted of a full day in Dunga including a tour on the beach and lake, fishing, cooking local dishes, stories of the local culture and craft production (Figures 10 and 11). The observations made on the first tour (the national) were discussed upon and resulted in improvements for the second tour. As examples, the reception was improved, the arrival to the beach was earlier so that the tourists could see the fish coming in, and a lead guide was added who was in charge of the tour and introduced each other guide. Also after the second tour (the international), a debriefing meeting was held with the tour guides, the authors and the supervisor who had been participating. The role of a tour guide was discussed, as well as specific experiences and incidents from the tour such as time issues, the possibilities and problems with cooking together, and different food preferences. Further, the participants of the test tours had been asked in advance to write down perceptions and recommendations. All of them were very

Figure 10:

Tourists interacting during test tour.

happy about the activities they had been involved in, however they raised concerns about environmental issues such as how to conserve the wildlife if more tourists will be coming, and social issues about walking around in people’s properties. They wanted to know about how the money earned from tourism was spread among the community members, especially among women and children. Furthermore, in interviews with the tour guides and community members conducted after the test tours there were discussions and reflections on the process that contributed to a continuation. The concern for peoples welfare was commented by a guide, who said that they now need to work further with arranging public meetings about who wants to participate in village tours, for example inviting tourists to their homes or being involved in matters such as crafts production or cooking, so that only the ones who want to be involved are participating, whereas the ones who wish not to be involved will not be disturbed by the activities.

Figure 11:

Tourist weaving basket during test tour.

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

237

Jernsand and Kraff

Communication through visualisation The material collected from workshops, observations, discussions, test tours and questionnaires were regularly presented for local residents in the community hall and put together in three reports: Dunga identity and image, Dunga ecotourism development – Emerging ideas and possible continuation and A day in Dunga – Reflections and ideas from test tours. This was a way to show that Dunga has potential, a strong culture and identity to build on, but that there is a need for improvements. The aim was to give the community something to work on and implement ideas from in future, as well as to give information to external stakeholders of what had been going on in Dunga, as inspiration and networking possibilities. Both the reports and the presentations were highly visual, with good-quality photographs and examples, depicting potential aspects in Dunga. In interviews, this sharing and visualisation of the results came up as an important part of the process, since it made it inclusive and transparent. As some of the guides expressed it: … I see my picture, now that will come up in my mind and tell me that ah, what I was doing was something that was worth to be mentioned and was going to make a change somewhere.(Tour guide 1) I think it is very important, because having been here for two weeks or three weeks back, you need to show the community what yourself has done ….(Tour guide 2) I think it (the public presentations) enlightens the community about the whole process. And so it’s a way showing how transparent the process is, cause it brings all the stakeholders together and present their views and then wait for their reactions and feelings. And they feel part of this project ….(Tour guide 3)

However, even though the workshops and presentations had many participants, not everybody could attend. Since it is important that those who want to get a chance to participate in the process, an available project place was arranged at a public space where information about the project could be

238

found, and where thoughts, concerns and ideas could be shared in a suggestion box. Some of the ideas that had come up were visualised by the authors, as a way to make them more realistic. For example, it had been discussed that ‘you get lost on your way to Dunga’, and that there is nothing indicating that there is an ecotourism site and beach further down the road. A tour guide had mentioned that he had seen a sign at a tourism site, carved as a fish. To show how you could direct visitors to Dunga, an illustration was made of a wooden sign leading to Dunga in the shape of a tilapia fish.

Process ownership During the process a Facebook group was started, with people from the stakeholder organisations, the authors and their PhD colleagues. A couple of weeks after the tour guide workshop, an event was announced in conjunction with the world environmental day; Dunga cleaning day, where the community cleaned the beach. Photos of the event were shared in the Facebook group. Also without the authors’ involvement, a fish night was held 2 months later, with around 1000 visitors enjoying fresh fish and local foods, as well as traditional songs and music. This can be seen as prototyping for coming events, such as a lake day. Further, a collection of local stories started as well as sketching on a new gate that incorporates local material, a traditional thatched roof and signs in the shape of tilapias. This indicates that the community are continuing the process, and they have started to implement thoughts and ideas that came up. It also turned out that the local stakeholders took it upon themselves to spread the word to those who were not able to attend the public presentations. One of the tour guides said: ‘… I’m also going to the village doing some of the things by myself to the community, telling them what you have been telling us’. Some of the BMU members read and endorsed the reports, as well as the NGO. The BMU holds regular assembly meetings with the community where the content from the reports has been presented and discussed, and according to the founder of the NGO, the

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

The case of Dunga beach in Kisumu, Kenya

information from the reports has been used in applications for funding, referring to what has come out from workshops and interviews about people’s wants and needs. After working closer in collaboration with the tour guide organisation for some time the authors’ roles as facilitators changed towards working as a team with the group. One of the tour guides sees it as them owning the process: ‘We feel more engaged in this than you, because you are just animators, but we are the reactors’. Also some comments came up about the BMU becoming more aware of the tourism business. One tour guide said: Then it has also enlightened the BMU. They know this place is not just about buying and selling of fish. You’ve opened up those potentials. They now look beyond just fishing, buying and selling of fish or just taking visitors for a boat tour. There is so much they can do even without getting into the boats …

The vice chairman of BMU was also well-aware of the need for the ownership of the process to be assigned to a local. He said: ‘… as a community development conscious person I know the ownership must lie on us. Because if you own it, then when you leave, everything will go down’. Moreover, it seems as though other sites are now looking at Dunga with curiosity. One of the tour guides who is also a member of the BMU said: I’ve been called and invited by those that are also doing these activities … they wish to invite us, most of the beaches …They have also tried to ask me that, can they invite us so that we can take them through all this process. Because they are feeling that we are some miles away from them. Actually it is possible, because we learn about the steps (…). Even I was there in a certain beach and tried to share with them about the things that we do …

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION For some time now, scholars have acknowledged the importance of stakeholder involvement in place branding. However, there are few examples

in the place branding literature that take into account the details of stakeholder involvement. Even though positive aspects of participation might be easily justified in theory, the complexity of arriving at a socially, environmentally and economically feasible process in practice is overlooked (Wall and Mathieson, 2006). There is also a risk that projects are highlighted as participatory even though the involvement per se might be at the bottom end of the ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969), where people take part in something that might never be realised, or that the result of the participation is used for other purposes than those understood by the participants. To reach the other end of the ladder, it is important to highlight, not only in abstract terms, the benefits of participation but also the details that occur on the way: How participatory processes are initiated and evolves? Who takes part? What methods are used? And what are the positive and problematic aspects? With the example of the case in Dunga, the purpose is to describe, in detail, how a place branding process can take place, and to illustrate how an integration of design can act as a means to reach community participation. In design, and especially participatory design, stakeholders who will be affected by the outcome of the design process are seen as vital participants. The aim is not only to involve stakeholders but also to hand over participatory tools and skills to them so that the project can proceed in the long term (Burns et al, 2006). Furthermore, the practicality of the process is often described in detail in the design literature, as a way to explore what works and what does not, and to spread knowledge of methods and tools. Further, in place branding theory the need for evolutionary processes has been acknowledged. In the design process, the problem setting is allowed to be constantly reframed, through loops of planning, action and critical reflection (Schön, 1983) where actions are influenced by the specific situation (Sangiorgi, 2009) and human contexts (Akama, 2009). The process of developing Dunga as an ecotourism site was intuitive, empathic and held open and changeable, and the conceptual framework was continuously tested. The process

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

239

Jernsand and Kraff

was highly connected to the context and situation in Dunga, and it was the situated knowledge, that is, the place, people, timing and local circumstances that indicated what actions to take. As the examples from the community workshops show, the second workshop was modified to accommodate the large number of participants by dividing the workshop in flexible stations and by placing stations outside. The third workshop was moved to the beach to make it more accessible, entailing that those who might not be comfortable with group work could sit by themselves. Visualisation is at the core of the design process, and can strengthen collaboration since it enables communication and sharing of knowledge (Bailey, 2013; Segelström and Blomkvist, 2013). It also helps to communicate research findings. In presentations and reports for the community in Dunga, high quality photos and examples from the area were used, which was a way of connecting to the place and the people. In a workshop setting the visualisations made ideas observable to all participants, acted as an aid to keep the discussion focused and made it possible to build on each other’s ideas. Prototyping was commonly used throughout, in particular in the preparation for the test tours. For example, new waste collection and signage systems were prototyped, starting with simple sketches and ending with finished products. One of the most appreciated tools, which will be used in the continuation of tour development in Dunga, was highly visual, consisting of a map that the participants drew themselves and paper figures and speaking bubbles representing people and sayings. The tool resulted in a first prototype for a tour that was later tested on tourists, evaluated and refined, prototyped again and tested. However, when dealing with participation we need to understand the complex nature of participatory processes. A process that starts with someone from outside runs the risk of fading out as soon as the outsider leaves. It was therefore important to connect to a development that had already started internally in Dunga, namely that of ecotourism. By keeping the process transparent, by informing and involving, and by finding local stakeholders to collaborate with, a shared ownership could develop. It was the community’s

240

own ideas that were taken forward, which possibly made it easier for them to accept and implement them. The tour guide group saw the importance of viewing aspects as interlinked, such as tours, products, guide performance, cleanliness of the beach and signage. They also saw it as a participatory process, with a shared ownership, commitment and acceptance from the residents in Dunga. For example, they acknowledged the need to discuss matters of who wants to be involved in village tours, recognising that everybody might not want to be involved. It was not the list of methods and tools that was the main contribution in the project, but the way of thinking and the openness to change, the participatory approach and visualisation as a way to communicate. This has implications for how place branding can be carried out in the future, namely that the integration of participatory design can lead to community participation and commitment, open up for the community to take charge of the process, as well as place brand authenticity and long-term sustainability. This implies that place branding needs to be considered as evolutionary not only in the sense that it is continuous but that it is open to changes and reformulations along the way. Participation is not only about getting feedback or advice from stakeholders but it also concerns involving them during the whole process, in smaller as well as bigger issues. The implication is that place branding should be viewed as consisting of several ongoing processes with multiple stakeholders, where tourism development at a single site such as Dunga beach is one. As Kavaratzis (2012, p. 10) suggests, place branding is ‘a complex web of intertwined processes’. By the introduction of evolutionary and visual elements to these intertwined processes, place branding has the potential to become more participatory, changeable and sustainable. This case also gives implications for further research on place branding, participatory design and community involvement since it opens up for connections between the fields. In the Dunga case, working in a transdisciplinary manner between academic fields as well as between academia and practice resulted in a process that would not have been possible otherwise.

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

The case of Dunga beach in Kisumu, Kenya

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We want to give our thanks to the main funders of the project, Mistra Urban Futures, which is a centre for sustainable urban development with headquarters in Gothenburg, Sweden, and their Local Interaction Platform in Kisumu (KLIP). We would also like to thank all the people in Dunga who have participated. Thanks also to the two reviewers for their comments and suggestions on structure and contents of the article.

REFERENCES Aitken, R. and Campelo, A. (2011) The four Rs of place branding. Journal of Marketing Management 28(9–10): 913–933. Akama, Y. (2009) Warts-and-all: The real practice of service design. In: J.V. Nisula, S. Clatworthy and S. Holmlid (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st service design and service innovation conference ServDes.2009; DeThinking Service; ReThinking Design; 24-26 November, Oslo, Norway. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press, pp. 1–11. Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A ladder of participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216–224. Ashworth, G.J. and Kavaratzis, M. (2009) Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities. Journal of Brand Management 16(8): 520–531. Bailey, S. (2013) Exploring where designers and non-designers meet within the service organisation: Considering the value designers bring to the service design process. Paper presented at the 10th European Academy of Design Conference Crafting the Future; 17–19 April, Gothenburg, Sweden. Baker, B. (ed.) (2007) Destination Branding for Small Cities: The Essentials for Successful Place Branding. Portland, OR: Creative Leap Books. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P. and Hillgren, P.-A. (2010) Participatory Design and ‘Democratizing Innovation’. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, New York: ACM, pp. 41–50. Braun, E., Kavaratzis, M. and Zenker, S. (2013) My city – My brand: The different roles of residents in place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development 6(1): 18–28. British Design Council. (2014) Introducing design methods, http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/introducing-design-methods, accessed 23 December 2014. Buchenau, M. and Suri, J.F. (2000) Experience Prototyping. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New York, pp. 424–433. Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C. and Winhall, J. (2006) Transformation Design. Red Paper 02, London, British Design Council. Cooper, R., Sabine, J. and Lockwood, T. (2009) Design thinking and design management: A research and practice perspective. Design Management Review 20(2): 46–55. Cross, N. (ed.) (1972) Design Participation. Proceedings of the Design Research Society’s Conference, Manchester, UK, September 1971. London: Academy editions.

Cross, N. (1981) The coming of post-industrial design. Design Studies 2(1): 3–7. Ehn, P. (1993) Scandinavian design: on participation and skill. In: D. Schuler and A. Namioka (eds.) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, pp. 41–77. Fan, Y. (2010) Branding the nation: Towards a better understanding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6(2): 97–103. Gedenryd, H. (1998) How designers work: Making sense of authentic cognitive activities. Dissertation, Lund University, Lund: Jabe Offset AB. Ham, A., Butler, S. and Starnes, D. (2012) Kenya. 8th edn. Footscray, Victoria: Lonely Planet. Hankinson, G. (2004) Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10(2): 109–121. Hanna, S. and Rowley, J. (2011) Towards a strategic place brand-management model. Journal of Marketing Management 27(5/6): 458–476. Hickey, S. and Mohan, G. (eds.) (2004) Towards participation as transformation: Critical themes and challenges. In: Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? : Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development. London: ZED Books, pp. 3–24. Kalandides, A. (2011) The problem with spatial identity: Revisiting the ‘sense of place’. Journal of Place Management and Development 4(1): 28–39. Kapferer, J.N. (2012) The New Strategic Brand Management : Advanced Insights and Strategic Thinking. 5th edn. London: Kogan Page. Kavaratzis, M. (2012) From ‘necessary evil’ to necessity: Stakeholders involvement in place branding. Journal of Place Management and development 5(1): 7–19. Kavaratzis, M. and Hatch, M.J. (2013) The dynamics of place brands: An identity-based approach to place branding theory. Marketing Theory 13(1): 69–86. Lawson, B. (2005) How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. 4th edn. Oxford: Architectural Press. Lucarelli, A. (2012) Unraveling the complexity of ‘city brand equity’: A three-dimensional framework. Journal of Place Management and Development 5(3): 231–252. Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place and Gender. Oxford: Polity Press. Moilanen, T. and Rainisto, S.K. (2009) How to Brand Nations, Cities and Destinations: A Planning Book for Place Branding. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Pike, S. (2005) Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product & Brand Management 14(4): 258–259. Sanders, E. B.-N. and Dandavate, U. (1999) Design for experiencing: New tools. In: C.J. Overbeeke and P. Hekkert (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design and Emotion. Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, pp. 87–92. Sanders, E.B. and Stappers, P.J. (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 4(1): 5–18. Sangiorgi, D. (2009) Building up a Framework for Service Design Research. 8th European Academy of Design Conference, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner – How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Segelström, F. (2009) Communication through visualizations: Service designers on visualizing user research. In: J.V. Nisula, S. Clatworthy and S. Holmlid (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242

241

Jernsand and Kraff

service design and service innovation conference ServDes.2009; DeThinking Service; ReThinking Design; 24-26 November, Oslo, Norway. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press, pp. 175–185. Segelström, F. and Blomkvist, J. (2013) External representations in service design: A distributed cognition perspective. Paper presented at the 10th European Academy of Design Conference Crafting the Future; 17–19 April, Gothenburg, Sweden. Wall, G. and Mathieson, A. (2006) Tourism: Changes, Impacts, and Opportunities. 2nd edn. Harlow, UK: Pearson Prentice Hall.

242

Warnaby, G. (2009) Towards a service-dominant place marketing logic. Marketing Theory 9(4): 403–423. Westerlund, B. (2009) Design space exploration: Co-operative creation of proposals for desired interactions with future artefacts. Dissertation Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth: diva-11210, accessed 1 September 2012. Zenker, S. and Beckmann, S.C. (2013) My place is not your place – Different place brand knowledge by different target groups. Journal of Place Management and Development 6(1): 6–17.

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 11, 3, 226–242