Content uploaded by Richard S. Aquino
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard S. Aquino on Nov 01, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Tourism Social Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Community Development:
Review and Conceptual Framework
Richard S. Aquino*, Michael Lück, Heike A. Schänzel
School of Hospitality and Tourism, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New
Zealand
Abstract
Since tourism happens within, and utilises the resources of, various communities, these
localities have been at the forefront of tourism entrepreneurship and development initiatives.
However, these communities, particularly those located in underdeveloped countries, are
often faced with various social problems. There is also little indication that their participation
in tourism provides them with meaningful and sustainable outcomes. Tourism social
entrepreneurship (TSE) is suggested as a market-based strategy to address social challenges
whilst maximising the benefits that tourism may provide to local communities. This paper
aims to review and conceptualise TSE as a feasible strategy for sustainable community
development. By critically reviewing and analysing the literature, this paper situates TSE
within and for community development. A framework that incorporates concepts of
community development, TSE and community capitals is proposed. This conceptual paper
adds to the developing literature on TSE and may aid the actors in the TSE system as they
embark on new social enterprises.
Keywords: community development, conceptual framework, social entrepreneurship, social
enterprise, social entrepreneur, tourism
* Corresponding author
Email: raquino@aut.ac.nz
Note: This is a pre-publication copy. The full version of this paper was published in the Proceedings of the
Council for Australasian Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE) Conference 2018.
To cite: Aquino, R.S., Lück, M., & Schänzel, H.A. (2018). Tourism social entrepreneurship for sustainable
community development: Review and conceptual framework, In T. Young, P. Stolk, & G. McGinnis (Eds.),
CAUTHE 2018: Get Smart: Paradoxes and Possibilities in Tourism, Hospitality and Events Education and
Research (pp. 369-379). Newcastle, Australia: The University of Newcastle.
2
Introduction
Communities deliver the ‘local experiences’ that tourists seek, and construct the ‘spaces’ that
these individuals consume (Beeton, 2006; Richards & Hall, 2000). Developing communities
holistically and sustainably by providing regenerative economic and social wealth, including
environmental benefits through tourism, has been the goal in many localities (Sharpley,
2000). Tourism relies on businesses to accommodate the market and fuel the industry
(Solvoll, Alsos, & Bulanova, 2015). Tourism enterprises play a pivotal role in delivering
desired community development outcomes.
Yet, traditional tourism entrepreneurship tends to follow a capitalist approach, be highly
profit-oriented, and disregard the social aspects of doing business that may in turn produce
additional disadvantages to already disadvantaged communities (Brookes, Altinay, &
Ringham, 2014). Social entrepreneurship in tourism, referred to here as tourism social
entrepreneurship (TSE), is situated as a market-driven approach for addressing various social
problems through tourism entrepreneurship, while proactively minimising the negative
impacts and externalities that the industry may provide, for the sustainable development of
local communities.
An increase in the number of tourism social enterprises operating in the industry has been
observed in recent years (von der Weppen & Cochrane, 2012), but research on TSE is still at
an embryonic stage (Mottiar & Boluk, 2017). Many tourism social enterprises are found to be
based in local communities, given their geographical settings, the scale of their operations,
and the scope of their social missions (e.g. Kline, Shah, & Rubright, 2014; McGehee, Kline,
& Knollenberg, 2014), suggesting the potential of TSE as a catalyst for sustainable
community development. However, there is scant literature that locates TSE within the
community development discourse.
The purpose of this paper is to review and conceptualise TSE as a holistic strategy for
sustainable community development. This is achieved through a critical analysis of the
literature on social entrepreneurship to see how it fits within tourism and community
development. To illustrate how TSE can serve as a vehicle for the sustainable development of
communities, a conceptual framework integrating the concepts of community development,
TSE and community capitals is proposed. By addressing the lack of conceptual
understandings on TSE, this paper contributes to the developing literature on this topic.
3
Literature Review
Social Entrepreneurship and Tourism
In general, social entrepreneurship is defined as “the process of identifying, evaluating and
exploiting opportunities aiming at social value creation by means of commercial, market-
based activities and of the use of a wide range of resources” (Bacq & Janssen, 2011, p. 374).
These opportunities for social entrepreneurship include addressing social challenges such as
poverty, lack of education, human rights violations, poor sanitation and public health,
unemployment, environmental problems, and other societal needs that are unmet by the
public and private sectors (Austin, Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006; Bornstein & Davis,
2010). Here, social entrepreneurship is conceptualised as a market-driven strategy for
alleviating various societal problems.
Other definitions illustrate social entrepreneurship as a mechanism to counter market failures
related to the undesirable costs that traditional entrepreneurship brings to society. In this
light, social entrepreneurship is aimed at minimising the negative effects or externalities that
commercial businesses can have on producers (Newbert & Hill, 2014). This can be achieved
through social enterprises that are aimed at delivering social value whilst generating
economic gains. Through innovative business models, the goal of social enterprises is to
equally distribute social and economic wealth to individuals involved in their processes
(Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009).
Therefore, social entrepreneurship can be accepted as a form of social innovation and an
entrepreneurial strategy that places social value creation (alongside economic value creation)
at the core of its operation. It has the potential to deal with social problems with a high degree
of innovation whilst considering society’s adaptive capacity (Zeyen et al., 2013). Through
fair trade, it aims at countering the disparities that traditional entrepreneurship produces.
Primarily, these ideas explicate social entrepreneurship’s position in the tourism industry.
Tourism is promoted as a vehicle for development by different governments and development
agencies (Messerli, 2011). This demonstrates the overarching goal of social entrepreneurship
and tourism: eradicating societal problems through economic and social value creating
activities (Altinay, Sigala, & Waligo, 2016). It can be observed that the industry is led by
enterprises that can be found across the tourism value chain, which have the potential to
deliver economic and social benefits to various levels of society. However, there exists little
4
indication that the industry is achieving these goals sustainably (Dredge, 2017), even though
private tourism investments are geared towards meeting market failures not efficiently met by
public organisations.
This challenge is often rooted in the neoliberal approach adopted in tourism development,
which prompts investors from an external source market to exploit local resources for their
profit-driven activities, which may deprive the local populations access to these assets
(Boluk, 2011; Dredge, 2017). This orthodox tourism development strategy weakens the
envisioned multiplier effect of the industry, not to mention the negative social and
environmental implications that can be generated due to irresponsible tourism business and
entrepreneurial practices (Brookes et al., 2014; Sheldon, Pollock, & Daniele, 2017). Social
entrepreneurship can be perceived as a timely strategy for dealing with the injustices of
tourism and neutralising the neoliberal development paradigm (top-down) that most
governments adopt (von der Weppen & Cochrane, 2012), illustrating social entrepreneurship
as both a need and an opportunity (Pollock, 2015). By putting a greater emphasis on
increasing social wealth, social entrepreneurship highlights the potential of tourism to drive
social change, which may revolutionise the way in which the industry works for various
destinations (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2006; McCarthy, 2012).
A way to revolutionise the tourism system is through continuous innovation, which is an
integral aspect of social entrepreneurship. Innovation is imperative particularly for
destinations aiming to advance in the competition (Quandt, Ferraresi, Kudlawicz, Martins, &
Machado, 2017). Destinations aiming to generate competitive advantage, and financial and
social returns, may follow a social enterprise model that employs innovation strategies related
to product and services offerings, organisational structure, operational processes, logistics
and marketing (Tetzschner & Herlau, 2003).
In recent decades, innovative forms of and approaches to tourism have emerged. Some of
these have fully or partially adopted the principles and concepts of social entrepreneurship,
including ecotourism (Sakata & Prideaux, 2013), cultural heritage tourism (McCarthy, 2012),
social tourism (Hunter-Jones, 2011) and volunteer tourism (Coghlan & Noakes, 2012; Mdee
& Emmott, 2008). The initial emergence of these niche tourism forms are the result of
meeting the objective of fostering more responsible and sustainable tourism practices.
Moreover, the conception of these tourism innovation strategies is recognised as meeting
evolving tourist values and preferences. Nowadays, tourists search for more authentic and
5
specialised experiences that will provide them with opportunities to interact with locals and
make a positive impact on the destinations they visit (Pollock, 2015; Sheldon et al., 2017).
The proliferation of these niche tourism products through social enterprises generates the
positive impacts throughout the tourism value chain (Boukas & Chourides, 2016; von der
Weppen & Cochrane, 2012), allowing tourism social enterprises to deliver the social and
financial values they envision for the communities they serve.
Social Entrepreneurship in Tourism
The critical themes that depict the significance of social entrepreneurship in tourism include
economic and social value creation, social innovation and sustainability within destinations.
These themes are captured in Sheldon et al.’s (2017) definition of TSE:
a process that uses tourism to create innovative solutions to immediate social,
environmental and economic problems in destinations by mobilizing the ideas,
capacities, resources and social agreements, from within or outside the
destination, required for its sustainable social transformation. (Sheldon et al.,
2017, p. 7)
To analyse how social entrepreneurship in tourism manifests, a concise TSE typology
developed from the tourism social enterprises’ specific roles, functions, and product and
service offerings in the tourism value chain is proposed, namely the ‘suppliers’, ‘providers’,
and ‘intermediaries’ of the tourism experience (Day & Mody, 2017). These are found to
converge with the generic social entrepreneurship models based on social innovation
strategies developed by Alvord, Brown and Letts (2004). These convergences are depicted in
three categories, shown in Figure 1.
Firstly, ‘suppliers’ to the tourism experience are enterprises that provide destinations with the
food, souvenirs and other tangible products that can be sold to tourists (Day & Mody, 2017).
Suppliers may adopt the ‘package delivery’ social innovation model, which works by
transferring technical expertise to community beneficiaries and adapting this into ways that
may develop local skills and knowledge to produce such goods (Alvord et al., 2004). This is
evident in the case of Pila, a production enterprise in Spain that employs people with mental
disabilities as souvenir makers, giving these individuals opportunities to be employed (Alegre
& Berbegal-Mirabent, 2016).
6
Figure 1. Convergences of generic social entrepreneurship and TSE typologies. Adapted from Alvord
et al. (2004) and Day and Mody (2017)
The second category in the typology, the ‘providers’ of the tourism experience, have their
role in local ‘capacity building’ social innovation strategies. Providers develop and manage
the specific types of niche tourism experience (e.g. ecotourism) offered by a destination, with
a degree of community organisation and involvement. Here, tourism social enterprises are
required to identify community needs and develop local capacity to address these needs
through training and some form of community-based tourism (Alvord et al., 2004; Day &
Mody, 2017). This strategy has been adopted by Smokey Tours, a social enterprise in the
Philippines that operates ‘slum tours’ in Manila. In this case, residents from the slums are
employed and trained to conduct tours and facilitate the day-to-day operations of the
enterprise (Smokey Tours, 2017).
Thirdly, the ‘movement building’ social innovation approach complements the work of the
‘intermediaries’ of the tourism experience (e.g. tour operators). Movement building social
enterprises share some purposes that are similar to those of non-profit advocacy
organisations, influencing public views on social issues through their commercial activities
(Alvord et al., 2004). In this model, responsible forms of travel are promoted by tourism
intermediaries to the market, emphasising the need for sustainable tourism, the positive
change in tourists’ travel behaviour, and the social causes they aim to support, for the
7
respective destinations they ‘sell’. This is practiced by PEPY Tours, a tour operator that
designs and offers responsible tourism packages to Cambodia and Nepal, and supports
various community development projects in these areas (Ferrari & Lund-Durlacher, 2015).
These models show the multiplicity of ways in which TSE can be adopted. It is important to
note that tourism social enterprises are not limited to adopting exclusively one of these
models. Nevertheless, tourism social enterprises are observed to be primarily small to
medium-scale businesses (Dredge, 2017). Similarly, they are seen to target a specific
community or individuals within these localities, specifically those who are economically
disadvantaged or subject to social exclusion. In terms of geographic and socio-economic
contexts, TSE appears to operate within small and low-income communities, and aims to
improve community and individual well-being. Hence, it is vital to conceptualise TSE as a
strategy for sustainable community development.
TSE for Sustainable Community Development
For community development work to be realised, having an explicit definition of the concept
of ‘community’ is essential (Popple & Quinney, 2002). Theodori (2005) conceptualises
community as a “a place-oriented process of interrelated actions through which members of a
local population express a shared sense of identity while engaging in the common concerns of
life” (pp. 662–663). This is relevant in tourism, specifically within the notion of ‘destination
community’ which should not be limited to a geographical area, or the actors and resources in
that area, but rather be extended to how its members interact throughout the tourism process
(Jamal & Getz, 1995; Okazaki, 2008). Since, in general, social entrepreneurship is concerned
with improving society, the above definition fits within the goals of TSE.
Community development is not a new agenda in tourism. Given that the development of the
industry is observed to occur within community settings, alternative and community-centric
approaches to tourism development have long been advocated with the objective of having a
sustainable industry in various locations worldwide (Murphy, 1983; Okazaki, 2008). These
initiatives underscore the potential of TSE to induce social change and transformation at a
community level. This paper suggests TSE as ‘implementing mechanisms’ for sustainable
community development.
In a broader perspective, social entrepreneurship requires collective community action; this
locates the ‘community’ at the heart of the social entrepreneurship agenda (Defourny &
8
Nyssens, 2006). Mosedale and Voll (2017) postulate that community governance is pivotal in
the proliferation of TSE as an innovative approach to eradicating social problems. Also, TSE
has been indicated as part of the community development process together with community
consensus, interrupting dependency, and building capacity (Murphy, Teo, Murphy, & Liu,
2017). While these identify the importance of engaging communities in TSE, there is limited
understanding of how TSE can be holistically adopted as an approach to sustainable
community development. Therefore, a conceptual framework is proposed that illustrates
mechanisms through which TSE can be a feasible strategy for achieving this objective.
Conceptual Framework of TSE for Sustainable Community Development
The conceptual framework proposed in this paper is developed from the concepts of
community development, TSE, and community capitals perspectives (Figure 2). As proposed
by Pollock (2015), the tourism industry is dynamic and composed of different actors,
relationships, activities, and contextual factors that form a system; therefore, the development
and integration of these concepts in this framework follows a systems perspective.
Figure 2. Conceptual framework of TSE for sustainable community development
9
Bhattacharyya’s (2004) community development theory, which depicts community
development as a ‘solidarity’ and an ‘agency’-promoting activity, is incorporated in this
framework. Solidarity demonstrates communities as having specific social structures and
collective identities, while agency pertains to their autonomy over resources and the use of
these assets. These concepts inform the ‘grassroots’ (bottom-up) development paradigm
promoted in TSE that challenges neoliberal (top-down) approaches, wherein the authority to
establish development objectives lies in the hands of a few individuals (Popple & Quinney,
2002). Reinforcing solidarity and agency in TSE promotes the participation, involvement and
empowerment of communities in delineating and fulfilling community goals.
In this conceptual framework, the vital role of tourism social entrepreneurs is recognised.
Drawing on Dees’s (1998) formative description of social entrepreneurs, Sheldon et al.
(2017) describe tourism social entrepreneurs as ‘change agents’ who utilise their talents and
passion to impel the social transformation of destinations. By employing their entrepreneurial
skills alongside their philanthropic visions, these individuals act as the facilitating entities for
destinations to accomplish their tourism and wider community aspirations (Porter, Orams, &
Lück, 2017). They may do so by interacting and engaging with local communities and
institutions (e.g. local governments), which is often challenging. Nonetheless, encouraging
the latter’s participation, their involvement and cooperation, is important, for the reason that
the local communities provide the necessary resources for TSE, and that local governments
and their agencies create an institutional environment that supports tourism social enterprises
(Dredge, 2017). As with any other tourism development venture, the concerted effort of these
actors is imperative in TSE.
Several factors need to be considered. First, market opportunities for social enterprises, such
as social problems and industry-specific negative externalities, are important to identify
(Austin et al., 2006). These opportunities inform the innovation strategy applied in TSE. This
can be in form of social innovation, which refers to the practical tactics used to promote the
inclusion of marginalised individuals in the community development process and to eradicate
social problems. Coghlan and Noakes (2012) describe social innovation as a strategy for
creatively realising social goals, establishing new profit streams, or a combination of both.
Next, innovation strategies should influence tourism social enterprises’ market orientation,
which leads the two factors to have a mutually exclusive relationship. Market orientation
entails the tourism product offerings and income-generating activities that these enterprises
10
may offer and facilitate in exchange for consumer expenditures. This outlines tourism social
enterprises’ value proposition for tourists (guests), while innovation strategies dictate the
social value proposition of TSE for local communities (hosts). Last, local policies that should
act as ‘enablers’ of TSE activities should be examined and influenced by tourism social
entrepreneurs. Policy directions initiated from the local to the national governments should
advocate responsible tourism initiatives and business models (Brookes et al., 2014).
Irrespective of their socio-economic status, communities contain a mixture of assets for
potential development. To identify these assets, the Community Capitals Framework (Flora,
Flora, & Fey, 2004), an expanded sustainable livelihoods approach to community
development, is integrated in the conceptual framework of TSE. This suggests a number of
assets that need to be invested in and transformed into community capitals (Emery, Fey, &
Flora, 2006). The seven interrelated community capitals (Flora et al., 2004) are shown in
overlapping ellipses at centre of the TSE framework (Figure 2) and explained below based on
the way they are employed within the structure.
Natural capital pertains to the geography, natural environment and resources of a
place, including its landforms, plants and wildlife, which in many cases compose the
core tourist attractions at a destination.
Built capital refers to made physical structures such as buildings, roads and other
facilities that support the mobilisation of TSE.
Financial capital includes the monetary resources required to develop a community’s
infrastructure and capacity to fund TSE projects.
Political capital entails the power dynamics and relations between institutions within
a community, including tourism social entrepreneurs’ ability to influence local
decisions.
Social capital is based on social structures and networks within a community as well
as tourism social entrepreneurs’ networking abilities. Moreover, social capital can
develop in two forms: ‘bonding’ or the intact ties that make a coherent community;
and ‘bridging’ or the weak ties that establish and preserve ties between different
groups and institutions.
Cultural capital encompasses the totality of a community’s way of life including their
customs and traditions that impact their worldview and actions.
11
Human capital encapsulates the community’s talents, education and skills that will
enable them to utilise and improve their assets, outsource resources that are not
present in their locality, and perform specific roles in TSE.
Finally, located at the core of the framework is the aim of TSE to foster sustainable
community development. This involves producing sustainable economic, social and
environmental outcomes for the destination communities (de Lange & Dodds, 2017; Flora et
al., 2004). Likewise, although the goals of TSE should manifest within these aspects of
community life, it should ultimately create independent and empowered communities that can
manage and address their own problems and needs (El Ebrashi, 2013). This vision
encapsulates the real essence of community development that is based on community
solidarity and agency (Bhattacharyya, 2004), and reinforces the sustainability of outcomes
(e.g. economic, social and environmental) promoted in TSE. In sum, fostering sustainable
community development through TSE should be programmed based on solidarity and agency
of communities, led by tourism social entrepreneurs who influence the cooperation and
involvement of local communities and decision-makers, shaped by factors such as market
opportunities, innovation strategies, market orientation and local policies, and should utilise
community capitals and other outsourced resources.
Conclusions
The aim of this paper was to review and conceptualise TSE as a strategy for sustainable
community development. By balancing social and economic goals, social entrepreneurship
proposes to eradicate societal problems and the negative effects of commercial enterprises on
communities. In an age where more sustainable and innovative approaches to tourism are
continuously studied and developed, TSE is proposed as an alternative approach to tourism
entrepreneurship, and argued as a relevant tool for community development. Since the
industry is led by tourism enterprises and shaped by tourists’ desire for more authentic and
innovative experiences (Sheldon et al., 2017), tourism serves as a fertile ground for social
entrepreneurs.
Community-centric perspectives in tourism are also promoted with the vision of inducing
inclusive development. The practical TSE typology presented in this paper demonstrates the
importance of the involvement of and partnership with communities in this activity, and more
importantly the potential of TSE for sustainable community development. Thus, there is the
need for a TSE framework that incorporates the important actors, contextual factors and
12
activities, relevant community assets and the use of these resources, and the foundations of
community development.
The conceptual framework developed in this paper is not without limitations. This framework
strongly applies a ‘territory-based’ concept of community, making it relevant for social
entrepreneurs wanting to pursue community-centred TSE, such as the ‘provider-capacity
building’ and ‘intermediary-movement building’ models shown in Figure 1. However, the
notion of community as a social construct is evolving. This concept also captures individuals
sharing similar special interests or conditions, or people described based on their social
groupings, which engenders a ‘territory-free’ idea of community (Popple & Quinney, 2002;
Theodori, 2005). Further conceptualisations are required to explain how TSE can foster the
development of these territory-free communities and social groups.
In addition, community development promotes the participation, involvement and
empowerment of communities. In some respects, the ‘grassroots’ approach envisioned in
TSE is paradoxical, as Porter et al. (2017) recognise the processes and activities that social
entrepreneurship uphold are somehow associated with a capitalist (top-down) development
paradigm. Conversely, it was found that underdeveloped and low-income communities often
lack the skills and even the awareness of tourism, and argue that an ‘outsider’ perspective is
important in terms of identifying opportunities for social entrepreneurship and building
community tourism capacity (Porter et al., 2017). The idea presented in the conceptual
framework coincides with this argument, in terms of asserting the vital role that tourism
social entrepreneurs possess as ‘social capitalists’. Again, their leadership, innovative
thinking, and ability to influence and educate local actors and groups to induce meaningful
social transformation are crucial. Similarly, what TSE brings to community development is
the mindset that social entrepreneurs espouse in their activities; that is, being concerned for
the social or communal good rather than increasing personal wealth.
This paper responds to the lack of conceptual understanding of TSE (e.g. Dredge, 2017;
Mottiar & Boluk, 2017; Wang, Duan, & Yu, 2016). By conceptualising TSE within
community development, this paper addresses the call for how TSE can be a community-
centric form of social innovation (Mottiar & Boluk, 2017). This conceptual paper, then,
contributes to the developing knowledge on TSE. Practically, this framework can be applied
by various actors in the proliferation of TSE. Future research may also operationalise the
proposed framework empirically, in terms of investigating how TSE is adopted for
13
community development. Finally, future empirical research should analyse whether and how
TSE induces sustainable community development.
References
Alegre, I., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016). Social innovation success factors: Hospitality and
tourism social enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 28, 1155–1176.
Altinay, L., Sigala, M., & Waligo, V. (2016). Social value creation through tourism
enterprise. Tourism Management, 54, 404–417.
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal
transformation: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40,
260–282.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship:
Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of
definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 23, 373–403.
Beeton, S. (2006). Community development through tourism. Collingwood, Australia:
Landlinks.
Bhattacharyya, J. (2004). Theorizing community development. Journal of the Community
Development Society, 34(2), 5–34.
Boluk, K. (2011). Revealing the discourses: White entrepreneurial motivation in black South
Africa. Tourism Planning & Development, 8, 199–213.
Bornstein, D., & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: What everyone needs to know.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Boukas, N., & Chourides, P. (2016). Niche tourism in Cyprus: Conceptualising the
importance of social entrepreneurship for the sustainable development of islands.
International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 5(1), 26–43.
Brookes, M., Altinay, L., & Ringham, K. (2014). Successful implementation of responsible
business practice. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 6(1), 77–84.
Coghlan, A., & Noakes, S. (2012). Towards an understanding of the drivers of
commercialization in the volunteer tourism sector. Tourism Recreation Research,
37(2), 123–131.
Day, J., & Mody, M. (2017). Social entrepreneurship typologies and tourism: Conceptual
frameworks. In P. J. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and
tourism: Philosophy and practice (pp. 57–80). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of "social entrepreneurship". Kansas City, MO and Palo
Alto, CA: Kauffman Foundation and Stanford University. Retrieved from
http://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-
wealth.org/files/downloads/paper-dees.pdf
14
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2006). Defining social enterprise. In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social
enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and civil society (pp. 3–26).
Oxford, England: Routledge.
de Lange, D., & Dodds, R. (2017). Increasing sustainable tourism through social
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
29, 1977–2002.
Dredge, D. (2017). Institutional and policy support for tourism social entrepreneurship. In P.
J. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and tourism: Philosophy and
practice (pp. 35–55). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
El Ebrashi, R. (2013). Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact. Social
Responsibility Journal, 9, 188–209.
Emery, M., Fey, S., & Flora, C. (2006). Using community capitals to develop assets for
positive community change. Community Development Practice (13). Retrieved from
http://srdc.msstate.edu/fop/levelthree/trainarc/socialcapital/communitycapitalstodevel
opassets-emeryfeyflora2006.pdf
Ferrari, S., & Lund-Durlacher, D. (2015). The social enterprise as a vehicle to poverty
alleviation: Business models and earning strategies. In R. Hay (Ed.), Conference
Proceedings of BEST EN Think Tank XV (pp. 138–150). Townsville, Australia: James
Cook University.
Flora, C., Flora, J., & Fey, S. (2004). Rural communities: Legacy and change (2nd ed.).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Higgins-Desbiolles, F. (2006). More than an “industry”: The forgotten power of tourism as a
social force. Tourism Management, 27, 1192–1208.
Hunter-Jones, P. (2011). The role of charities in social tourism. Current Issues in Tourism,
14, 445–458. doi:10.1080/13683500.2011.568054
Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning.
Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186–204.
Kline, C., Shah, N., & Rubright, H. (2014). Applying the positive theory of social
entrepreneurship to understand food entrepreneurs and their operations. Tourism
Planning & Development, 11, 330–342.
McCarthy, B. (2012). From fishing and factories to cultural tourism: The role of social
entrepreneurs in the construction of a new institutional field. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 24, 259–282.
McGehee, N. G., Kline, C., & Knollenberg, W. (2014). Social movements and tourism-
related local action. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 140–155.
Mdee, A., & Emmott, R. (2008). Social enterprise with international impact: The case for
Fair Trade certification of volunteer tourism. Education, Knowledge and Economy,
2(3), 191–201.
Messerli, H. R. (2011). Transformation through tourism: Harnessing tourism as a
development tool for improved livelihoods. Tourism Planning & Development, 8,
335–337.
15
Mosedale, J., & Voll, F. (2017). Social innovations in tourism: Social practices contributing
to social development. In P. J. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship
and tourism: Philosophy and practice (pp. 101–115). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Mottiar, Z., & Boluk, K. (2017). Understanding how social entrepreneurs fit into the tourism
discourse. In P. J. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and tourism:
Philosophy and practice (pp. 117–132). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Murphy, J., Teo, A., Murphy, C., & Liu, E. (2017). The BEST Society: From charity to social
entrepreneurship. In P. J. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and
tourism: Philosophy and practice (pp. 237–249). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Murphy, P. (1983). Tourism as a community industry – an ecological model of tourism
development. Tourism Management, 4, 180–193.
Newbert, S. L., & Hill, R. P. (2014). Setting the stage for paradigm development: A ‘small-
tent’ approach to social entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(3),
243–269.
Okazaki, E. (2008). A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 16, 511–529.
Pollock, A. (2015). Social entrepreneurship in tourism: The conscious travel approach:
Tourism Innovation Partnership for Social Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from
http://www.tipse.org/conscious-tourism-pdf-download/
Popple, K., & Quinney, A. (2002). Theory and practice of community development: A case
study from the United Kingdom. Journal of the Community Development Society,
33(1), 71–85.
Porter, B. A., Orams, M. B., & Lück, M. (2017). Sustainable entrepreneurship tourism: An
alternative development approach for remote coastal communities where awareness of
tourism is low. Tourism Planning & Development, 1–17.
Quandt, C., Ferraresi, A., Kudlawicz, C., Martins, J., & Machado, A. (2017). Social
innovation practices in the regional tourism industry: Case study of a cooperative in
Brazil. Social Enterprise Journal, 13(1), 78–94.
Richards, G., & Hall, D. (2000). The community: A sustainable concept in tourism
development. In D. Hall & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and sustainable community
development (pp. 1–13). London, England: Routledge.
Sakata, H., & Prideaux, B. (2013). An alternative approach to community-based ecotourism:
A bottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 21, 880–899.
Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), 1–19.
Sheldon, P., Pollock, A., & Daniele, R. (2017). Social entrepreneurship and tourism: Setting
the stage. In P. J. Sheldon & R. Daniele (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and tourism:
Philosophy and practice (pp. 1–18). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
16
Smokey Tours. (2017). Social impact. Retrieved October 5, 2017, from
http://www.smokeytours.com/social-impact/
Solvoll, S., Alsos, G. A., & Bulanova, O. (2015). Tourism entrepreneurship – review and
future directions. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15(sup1), 120–
137.
Tetzschner, H., & Herlau, H. (2003). Innovation and social entrepreneurship in tourism: A
potential for local business development [Working Paper]. Esbjerg, Denmark:
Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern
Denmark. Retrieved from
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/83055/1/wp49.pdf
Theodori, G. L. (2005). Community and community development in resource-based areas:
Operational definitions rooted in an interactional perspective. Society & Natural
Resources, 18, 661–669.
von der Weppen, J., & Cochrane, J. (2012). Social enterprises in tourism: An exploratory
study of operational models and success factors. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20,
497–511.
Wang, C., Duan, Z., & Yu, L. (2016). From nonprofit organization to social enterprise: The
paths and future of a Chinese social enterprise in the tourism field. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28, 1287–1306.
Zahra, S., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social
entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business
Venturing, 24, 519–532.
Zeyen, A., Beckmann, M., Mueller, S., Dees, J. G., Khanin, D., Krueger, N., ... Zacharakis,
A. (2013). Social entrepreneurship and broader theories: Shedding new light on the
‘bigger picture’. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 88–107.
