Exploring the Potential for Rural Entrepreneurship through Integrated Community-based Intervention Strategies

Abstract

This article intends to the validate measurement model for integrated community intervention strategies (ICIS) and explore the entrepreneurial orientation of community members in ecotourism destinations through ICIS. The study adopted the exploratory sequential method. The study employed focused groups, interviews and structured questionnaires for primary data collection. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and percentage analysis were conducted for testing the hypothesis. Data were gathered from four protected area based ecotourism destinations of Kerala, India, namely, Thenmala, Periyar, Parambikulam and Wayanad. The result indicates that there are three latent constructs for ICIS that is governance intervention strategies, eco-development intervention strategies and commercial intervention strategies. As far as entrepreneurial orientation is concerned, local community members are able to orient themselves in three levels of entrepreneurial requirements positively, namely, exploration, initiation and sustenance. The study gives a pragmatic model of community intervention in tourism and entrepreneurial orientation resulting from such interventions, which can be further explored to establish a standard model to enhance more inclusive and sustainable resource management practices through enterprise development. Accordingly, the results of the study can influence policymakers, stakeholders and tourism practioners.

Keywords

Integrated Community Intervention Strategies Rural Entrepreneurship Exploratory Sequential Method Confirmatory Factor Analysis Protected Area Ecotourism Sustainable Resource Management

Introduction

Community is a comprehensive term pivoting around ‘sharing’; it includes shared experience, values, culture, religion or a way of living of the people of a particular locality or sharing a common interest or identity in the context of a particular locality. The word intervention has evolved from the Latin word intervenire, meaning ‘to come between or interrupt’. In general parlance, the word ‘intervention’ is used in a positive context, to denote the involvement intended to bring some positive changes or improve the situation. According to Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary,¹ intervention means to involve intentionally in a difficult situation in order to improve such situations. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionaries² defines intervention as a process of ‘taking part’ in something so as to prevent or alter a result or the course of events. Some variations are found in these definitions; Fritz (2014) defined intervention as a process of taking action in an existing situation and that situation may, or may not, be defined by one or all involved as something that is problematic. According to him, there are seven levels of interventions, global, international, national, local community, organizational, small group and individual level interventions and each have their own importance (Fritz, 2014). Tourism is an emerging industry which flourishes on community intervention to a substantial extent.

According to Vinodan, Manalel, and Meera (2017), organized and unorganized interventions are two different means of community interventions in the context of tourism. Different forms of unorganized interventions may exist; which include the voluntary involvement of the local community to provide various tourism and related services/commodities without proper guidelines or modus operandi in terms of resource appropriation. According to them, the practice of unorganized intervention may be through community member(s’) involvement in the appropriation of their own resources for meeting visitors’ needs and/or involvement of community member(s) in appropriation of common property resources, mostly owned by the state with or without permission for creating and delivering tourism and related services. In case if such intervention is with permission, most often, such appropriation is based on local specific norms or legislations (e.g., Provisions of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers [Recognition of Forest Rights] Act, 2006, of Government of India) or traditions. This form of intervention focuses on livelihood, particularly in generating income and employment among identified communities. Organized intervention is more holistic and addresses all dimensions of sustainability. These include economic, political, sociocultural and ecological dimensions in order to address the multifaceted issues of society and ecology from an anthropocentric perspective. In the organized intervention scenario, the institutional approach is imperative to strengthen the conservation and livelihood efforts of the community members, particularly by focusing on economic sustainability parameters, without which other dimensions may not attract people to participate in sustainability programmes. In this direction, the intervention for economic sustainability gains momentum in ecotourism, by exploring entrepreneurial possibilities in ecotourism destinations. Against this backdrop, the current study has attempted to examine multifarious domains of integrated community-based intervention strategies (ICIS) in ecotourism destinations, leading to rural entrepreneurship possibilities.

Integrated Community-based Strategies of Intervention in Ecotourism Enterprise Development

Ecotourism extends the scope of community intervention and is considered as one of the most appropriate strategies to encash endemic endowment and environmental privileges. In other words, as the local communities are the major stakeholders of most of the ecotourism resources, there have been increased demands to comprehend ecotourism from the perspective of local communities in terms of their direct participation and involvement (Vinodan et al., 2017). The term community-based ecotourism (CBE) is construed as a form of ecotourism where the local community exercises substantial control and involvement in the development and management of ecotourism resources and activities. According to Cater (1994), local community involvement in planning and managing ecotourism, especially in the context of developing countries, is imperative as it can bring more synergy to the local-level resource appropriation as participation incorporates greater levels of collaboration in the decision-making processes through which ecotourism planning and management take place. According to Timothy and White (1999), community-based intervention initiatives in developing countries ought to be conceptualized and operationalized at a very small scale, intending to improve the lives of residents, providing enjoyment for tourists and ensuring the protection of natural and cultural environments with local control.

According to Sproule (1996), community-based strategies of intervention gained a lot of importance in recent years as they are expected to cater to the conservation and development requirements. According to Haroon (1999), the local community is the backbone of ecotourism and also functions as a tool for sustainable development in their respective localities/destination. According to Flores and Sipaseuth (2002), empowered communities are required for ensuring self-determined development along with community stewardship of resources to guard the gains from CBE. Community linkage with other stakeholders of destinations or tourism is thus inevitable for the successful operation of CBE. According to Bunly (2011), the enhancement of living standards and quality of life of the community along with the protection of indigenous resources is possible, if control over resource management is vested with the community, encouraging them to participate in decision-making about control over resources and tourism development. According to Okazaki (2008), the essential features of a successful CBE project include participation, empowerment and collaboration.

Examining the possibilities of community-level entrepreneurship in ecotourism through ICIS assumes importance. Kasalak, Akinci, and Yurcu (2016) had mentioned that ecotourism creates an opportunity for local communities including women in rural areas by presenting local products with the value addition of local endemics and socio-cultural elements. Accordingly, entrepreneurship at the local level becomes a catalyst to regional as well as national development. As the creation of entrepreneurship is a challenging task for communities who are vulnerable in many aspects, the problems they face need to be analysed, especially with reference to ecotourism, as ecotourism is meant for community. In this direction, Mena (2012) studied the major challenges of community-level ecotourism businesses. Situmoranga and Mirzantia (2012) studied the importance of local community empowerment to explore the entrepreneurial opportunities in ecotourism through education, social entrepreneurship and cultural preservation programmes. The study also found relevance in promoting the ideas of social entrepreneurship and argued that through social entrepreneurship improvement in people’s lives and ecosystems, welfare can be ensured.

Chirozva (2015) studies the importance of networking for the development of and promotion of local resources for entrepreneurship in ecotourism particularly natural as well as cultural resources. Swan and Morgan (2016) studied the merit of eco-enterprises in detail. They maintain that eco-enterprises are generally organized as small scale, low impact and are found as consistent with identified eco-values to meet financial and designated operating environments within the resource appropriation constraints.

The above observation clearly indicates that ICIS has operationalized at the grassroots levels. However, whether such intervention is creating an entrepreneurial orientation among community members is yet to be explored. In order to convert the benefit of intervention for meeting livelihood objectives particularly by projecting community endowments through tourism, the assessment of entrepreneurial orientation in this domain gains significance. In this juncture, the present study sets its objective to examine the entrepreneurial orientation among community members of ecotourism destinations through their ICIS.

Probing deeper into the previous study (Vinodan et al., 2017), on the identification of the factorial structure of community intervention strategies, the finalization of the objectives of the present study was done.

Results of the Previous Study

On the basis of literature review related to Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM; Agrawal & Chhatre, 2006; Danielsen et al., 2009) followed by focus group discussions (FGDs) and the recommendations of the experts, 16 variables were identified under various ICIS. Table 1 indicates the final lists of latent variables, operational definitions and their corresponding indicators.

Table 1.

Lists of Community Intervention Areas in the Context of Tourism and Its Corresponding Variables

Constructs	Operational Definition	Indicator Variables
Governance intervention (GI)	Community involvement focuses on formulation and implementation of policy decisions, which include, representation, resource sharing, skill development, an action for a social cause etc. for the better administration of local level norms and practices.	Democratic representation, capacity building, linkage with other sectors, consultant, programme for social wellbeing, decision-making and benefit sharing and intermediary
Commercial intervention (CI)	Community initiatives to satisfy visitors need by appropriating local resources both natural as well as cultural through commercial appropriation, meant for sale. This is beyond the general sustenance activities of local communities to meet their own needs.	Development and organization of tourism activities/products, promotional activities, enterprise development, guiding, interpretation and escorting and product diversification
Eco-development intervention (EI)	Community involvement for the development at regional and local levels, consistent with the potentials of the area involved, with attention given to the adequate and rational use of natural resources, technological styles and organizational forms that respect the natural ecosystems and local social and cultural patterns adapted from United Nations (1997)	Conservation of natural resources, monitoring of resources, financing for conservation, and environmental education and awareness programmes

Source: The authors.

Common methods variance: Three distinct factors with an Eigenvalue above 1 emerged, consequent upon exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of ICIS constructs with all variables (indicators), considered for the study. All three factors together accounted for 60.23 per cent of the total variance while the first factor accounted for 21.6 per cent of the variance. Common method variance (CMV) could not be identified in the present study. Varimax rotation was performed to identify the number of factors with maximum explanations for 16 scale items considered for the study, to extract ICIS. EFA identified three latent constructs, that is, governance intervention (GI), eco-development intervention (EI) and commercial intervention (CI) from the ICIS construct.

Objectives of the Present Study

The present study aims to:

provide a confirmatory factorial model of ICIS in ecotourism in India and

to understand entrepreneurial orientation among community members in ecotourism destinations through ICIS.

The confirmatory factor model of ICIS is relevant as identification of ICIS helps in the evaluation of effectiveness of intervention, and exploring entrepreneurial intention among community members is an indicator of effectiveness of ICIS.

Research Questions

The study tried to investigate answers to the following questions as these are relevant for the study: Are there different latent dimensions of intervention strategies of local/ destination communities in Indian ecotourism destinations? Can these integrated community-based initiatives leading to rural tourism entrepreneurial orientation?

Hypothesis

ICIS encourages entrepreneurial orientation among local community members in ecotourism destinations.

Scope of the Study

As inclusive and sustainable development is emphasized in developing countries, this study assumes significance as it attempts to examine various ICIS practised in Indian ecotourism destinations; revealing the destination-specific community-based intervention strategies facilitating rural entrepreneurship possibilities in CBE destinations. The study enables policymakers, tourism service providers and other community groups to gain a better understanding of the present strategies, design, alter or strengthen the existing practices to attract communities into the fore of entrepreneurial development, thereby reducing inequalities, equity in resource sharing based on local-specific norms and practices on the one hand and reducing guest-host conflicts on the other hand.

Study Background

The present study has selected four protected area (PA)-based ecotourism destinations. These are spatially located in Kerala, the southernmost provincial state of India, Thenmala, Periyar, Parambikulam and Wayanad. These four destinations have operationalized ecotourism activities through community support; most of the destination community members were found to be, in one way or other, engaged in ecotourism and related activities of these PAs.

Methodology

The present study is a deeper probe in the previous study. Vinodan et al., 2017, conducted a study to explore the factorial structure of community intervention strategies by adopting one of the sequential mixed methods, that is, the exploratory sequential method, under which the quantitative stage is consequent upon the qualitative stage (Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003). For the present study, the rationale for adopting the sequential mixed method is justifiable on more than one ground as the objective of the study was to identify certain factors which are unknown and explore its dimensional orientation which was not explored in prior studies, and second, by employing mixed methods, more authenticity is ensured especially in the context of certain factors which are dynamic. In the initial exploratory stages of the study, FGDs, in-depth expert interviews (IEIs) and questionnaire-based surveys were adopted for quantitative analysis.

Reliability and validity of qualitative measurement: The Trochim (2006) criterion was adopted to assess the reliability and validity of the qualitative part of the present study. These are credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability. All these parameters are met through the evaluation of a set of criteria and informal conversations (credibility), the potential for replicability in similar or identical community-based tourism cases (transferability), methodological consistency (dependability) and, as all respondents are from similar settings, conformity.

Descriptive Stage

According to Ethridge (2004), in descriptive research, issues and problems are analysed through data collection from authentic sources to describe the situations more effectively. In this study, a descriptive study was planned on the basis of primary knowledge of subject matter obtained from the exploratory study. In descriptive research, the survey is also one of the major methods of data collection (Jick, 1983).

Scale development: The scale was developed based on Churchill’s (1979) guidelines, and content validity was ensured on the basis of the C-OAR-SE procedure (Rossiter, 2002). The questionnaire was developed for exploring ICIS and entrepreneurial orientation among community members. Questions pertained to three dimensions that is exploration (three questions), initiation (three questions) and sustenance (two questions), intending to elicit the extent of entrepreneurial orientation among community members that was administered. The respondents had provided their responses on a five-point Likert scale, which varied from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ for ICIS, and categorical questions (yes/no) were used to extract entrepreneurial orientation based on a review of literature in the domain of entrepreneurship in ecotourism. A short and simplified questionnaire consisting of items which had been pretested with advice of expert officials of Department of Forest and Wildlife has been used for the study.

Sampling design: In this study, the local community members of ecotourism destinations in Kerala, South India, that is, Thenmala, Periyar, Parambikulam and Wayanad, were considered as the population for the study. These selections were made on the basis of purposive sampling.

Sampling technique: In this study, convenience sampling was used to select the sample units. Respondent criteria were fixed for selecting the sample units according to which all respondents must gain membership in tourism eco- development committees (TEDCs) and adequate experience in ecotourism activities

Data Collection

Respondents were met personally in each destination. The structured questionnaires were distributed among respondents and the main purpose of the study was explained. Data were collected from four PAs: Thenmala, Periyar, Parambikulam and Wayanad and PA-based ecotourism destinations of Kerala. A total of 355 samples were collected and after verification 350 out of 355 were identified for analysis. As there is no specific method to determine the sample size required for CFA, certain threshold limits were followed in statistical analysis. Although the threshold ratio recommended range is within 4:1 to 10:1 (Flynn & Pearcy, 2001), the present study had an item ratio of 21:1, which indicated a very high acceptance ratio.

Data quality assessment: Various procedures are adopted for assessing data quality:

Identification of missing values: A frequency test was done to identify missing variables. There were five missing responses among community members’ responses. After removing these missing responses, 350 usable responses were finalized.

Identification of outliers was followed by Grubbs’ test to address univariate outliers.

Analysis of Normality: In order to correct non- normality of the data, the present study used maximum likelihood estimation with Bollen-Stine bootstrap (with 1,000 samples). Based on the above procedure, data were collected for the study from community members to identify entrepreneurial orientation among community members.

Analysis of validity and reliability: In this study, reflective measures were used. The reliability of reflective constructs was ascertained using Cronbach’s alpha criterion. According to Field (2005), Cronbach’s α values between 0.7 and 0.8 are acceptable values of consistency.

Tools of Analysis

The measurement model of individual dimensions is to be verified before drawing a structural model of construct. This may give more clarity to the various dimensions of constructs under study.

The study further investigated how far ICIS creates entrepreneurial orientation among local community members in ecotourism destinations through a questionnaire survey.

Analysis

In order to meet the study objectives, the analysis of the study is presented in two parts. The first part is to provide a confirmatory factorial model of ICIS in ecotourism in India and the second part is to indicate the entrepreneurial orientation of community members in ecotourism destinations through ICIS.

Measurement models of various dimensions of ICIS and its appropriateness in finalizing a structural model are as follows:

Measurement model for governance intervention: The GI dimension, a six-indicator variable model, was found to be a poorly fitting model in the initial estimate, as the normed data, RMSEA and CFI (parameters considered for estimating the same) were above permissible levels. Consequently, verification of modification indices was done and a one-factor variable, that is, ‘social well-being’, was showed cross loading to other variables and hence was removed. The resultant model with five indicators was found to be a good fitting model which is illustrated in Figure 1. All the paths shown in the model were significant as critical ratios (CRs) were above 1.96. Table 2 shows the fit indices of GI.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Measurement model for eco-development intervention: The EI dimension, a five-indicator variable model, was found to be an over-identified model (the number of estimable parameters is less than the number of data points) in the first estimates and the normed data. RMSEA and CFI were within the permissible limits. CRs were above 1.96 so all the paths shown in the model were significant.

CFA showed an acceptable overall model fit and hence, the theorized model was found to fit well with the observed data. It is therefore concluded that the hypothesized five-factor CFA model fits the sample data very well as illustrated in Figure 2. Table 2 shows the fit indices of EI.

Measurement model for commercial intervention: The CI dimension, a four-indicator variable model, was also an over-identified model in the first estimates. However the normed data, RMSEA and CFI were within the permissible limits. So the identified model was found to be a right fitting model with four indicators as illustrated in Figure 3. As CRs were above 1.96, all the paths shown in the model were significant. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the hypothesized four-factor model fits the sample data very well. Table 2 shows the fit indices of CI.

Structural model for ICIS: The statistical significance of the relationships among ICIS and its identified and extracted dimensions such as GI, EI and CI were second-order constructs in the context of this study. The identified measurement models of ICIS dimensions such as GI, EI and CI were all considered together to form the structural model of ICIS, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

Figure 3.

Source: The authors.

In order to test the statistical significance using Amos output, CR and standard residual covariance are to be verified (Byrne, 2010). In the first model developed for ICIS, standard residual covariance between some of the variables was above the threshold limit that is 2.58. In such cases, re-specification is required for finalizing a good fitting model by considering empirical reasoning as well as the appropriateness of the model. Accordingly, model re-specification was done on the basis of modification indices. Through re-specification one variable pertaining to EI (resource protection: F1.6) of ICIS has been removed. The re-specified model thus showed a better fit as shown in Table 2. Finally, the ICIS construct had 13 indicator variables.

Figure 4.

Source: The authors.

Table 3 shows the details of the first-order constructs with 13 indicators of the ICIS scale which was finally developed for CBE in PAs of Kerala, India. Overall reliability scale was 0.838 for ICIS. The model fit summary and estimates are given in Table 3.

Table 2.

Fit Indices of Measurement and the Structural Model

Fit Measures	Indicators	Value Obtained				Acceptable Value
Fit Measures	Indicators	GI	EI	CI	ICIS	Acceptable Value
Absolute fit measures	1. CMIN/DF	2.970	1.773	2.477	2.240	<3
	2. RMSEA	0.075	0.047	0.065	0.060	<0.08
	3. Goodness of fit index (GFI)	0.983	0.990	0.993	0.945	>.90
Incremental fit measures	4. Non normal fit index (NFI)	0.976	0.990	0.990	0.934	>.90
Incremental fit measures	5. Comparative fit index (CFI)	0.984	0.996	0.994	0.962	>.90
Parsimony fit measures	6. Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)	0.952	0.971	0.966	0.919	.05–1

Source: The authors.

Table 3.

Variables After CFA

Construct	Variables	No. of Indicators	Cronbach’s Alpha
GI	Democratic selection, capacity building, intermediary, consultant and benefit sharing	5	0.826
EI	Engage as watchers, environmental reporting, financial support and eco-guiding	4	0.866
CI	Production of local products, tourism activities, promotional activities and enterprise development	4	0.823

Source: The authors.

Table 4.

Composite Reliability and Variance Extracted by Each Construct

S. No.	Construct	Composite Reliability	Variance Extracted
1.	GI	0.880	0.597
2.	EI	0.912	0.721
3.	CI	0.884	0.656

Source: The authors.

Validation of ICIS

Convergent validity: In the present study, CR of all of the measurement items was more than 1.96; hence, convergent validity is satisfied (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). According to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006), the standardized regression weights must be greater than 0.5. In this study, the factor loadings of ICIS are more than 0.5, establishing convergent validity (Hair et al., 2006).

Convergent validity assessment is an important validating tool consisting of a measure of construct reliability and average variance (AVE) extracted.

The construct reliability and variance extracted by each of the dimensions used for ICIS are given in Table 4.

Discriminant validity: In the present study, none of the correlations among variables was above 0.85. This result indicates an adequate discriminant validity of the measurement as the correlation among the construct in structural equation modelling must be less than 0.85.

In order to confirm discriminant validity, squared inter-construct correlations (SICs) were also calculated and compared with the AVE. All variances extracted given in Table 4 indicate higher values than the SIC estimates.

Nomological validity: All the covariances among the constructs of ICIS were positive and significant in this study, thereby confirming nomological validity.

Thus, on the basis of this analysis, it can be concluded that the scale developed for measuring ICIS ecotourism programmes of PAs in Kerala has adequate psychometric soundness.

Analysis of Entrepreneurial Orientation Among Community Members

Figure 5 indicates the results of the analysis.

As mentioned above, questions focusing on three dimensions, namely exploration, initiation and sustenance, pertaining to entrepreneurial orientation among community members of ecotourism destinations, were administered (ICIS created a favourable environment for exploring entrepreneurial options indicating three questions, ICIS enable community members to commence enterprises indicating three questions and ICIS supported enterprises of community members indicating two questions). In the exploration dimension, it was found that nearly 83 per cent of the respondents agreed that ICIS created a favourable environment for exploring entrepreneurial options in ecotourism destinations. Similarly, for the initiation dimension, nearly 88 per cent of the respondents agreed that ICIS enables community members to commence tourism-related enterprises in their destinations. As far as the sustenance dimension is concerned, almost 83 per cent of the response from community members shows that ICIS supports existing enterprises of community members. In this direction, the study, by and large, agreed that ICIS has a significant influence on entrepreneurial orientation among community members in ecotourism destinations.

Figure 5.

Source: The authors.

Discussion

The discussion has been presented on the basis of:

the results of CFA model and

the role of ICIS in the creation of entrepreneurial orientation.

Communities play a crucial role in ecotourism destinations in India, with respect to management and administration, particularly in PA-based ecotourism destinations for meeting the twin objectives of PA management, that is, conservation and livelihood. The study was conducted to identify various integrated intervention strategies of community and entrepreneurial orientation among community members.

The result of CFA shows that each first-order construct under study finalized with specific appropriate indicators is based on scientific reasoning and technical specifications. GI has five well-defined indicators that is democratic selection, capacity building, intermediary, consultant and benefit sharing. While finalizing five indicators for GI, the indicator ‘social well-being’ was removed by researchers during the measurement stage. The programme for ‘social well-being’ is found to be a combination of many other initiatives, so such a variable is technically found to be interlinked with other variables.

The other indicators of GI are found to be more flexible in operation as it is based on democratic principles of PA-based ecotourism destinations and their management.This is in tune with the observations of Folke, Hahn, Olsson, and Norberg (2005), Gunderson and Light (2006) that the governance structure should always be flexible to meet the changing needs of the society. The ‘capacity building variable’ in the governance dimension of ICIS construct should pave the way for improving local organizing behaviour through collaborative learning, networking and so on (Baggio, 2008; Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004). Ensuring local control (Garrod, 2003; Mitchell & Reid, 2001) and joint decision-making (Berkes, 2009; Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2004) is also justified in the study as an important outcome of GI.

As far as EI is concerned, engagement as watchers, environmental reporting, financial support and eco-guiding were finalized and ‘resource protection’ was removed during model specification stage. All identified variables are found to be consistent with studies of similar CBNRM practices (Agrawal & Chhatre, 2006; Danielsen et al., 2009).

In the case of CI, four indicators consist of the production of local products, tourism activities, promotional activities and enterprise development. These were retained without further modification. This further reiterates the arguments of Buckley (2009) that the commercial opportunities in ecotourism go beyond direct employment, which include production and distribution of goods and services. The involvement in tourism activities and enterprise development opportunities for communities also confirms the understanding that the creators and beneficiaries of ecotourism operations are the members of the community concerned (Robert, 2001). The second objective of the study can be confirmed on the basis of the above discussion pertaining to the measurement model and structural model.

The results of the study help to fill the gap identified by Weaver (2008) which is considered as a reason for the failure of CBE destinations. The variables confirmed in GI helps in the identification of community concerned, which is the stockholder of ecotourism resources at a given destination. They are engaged in capacity building for leadership and skill development, ensuring access to resource appropriation and decision-making through representation in community-based institutions and improved participation. The variables identified under GI extend to meet the socio-political sustainability of the ecotourism destinations. The EI parameters gave emphasizes on quality assurance in development and delivery of ecotourism products, thereby moving towards ecological sustainability of the destinations. Finally, the measurement indicators of CI of ICIS provide the means of bringing economic sustainability to the destinations.

In order to fulfil the second objective and to test the hypothesis of the study to understand the entrepreneurial orientation of communities in ecotourism destinations through ICIS, the study adopted questionnaire survey with eight questions encompassing three dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation. The community members agreed that ICIS could create a favourable environment for exploring entrepreneurial options which is imperative for strengthening their social cohesion in the local settings and for initiating enterprises to meet tourists’ needs.

This study on the nature of intervention of community in tourism has significance in bringing more inclusive and sustainable resource management practices which can, in turn, support policymaking at state or regional levels and implementation of the same at the destination level.

Conclusion

The objective of the present study was to understand various community intervention strategies in the context of destination communities. Further, the study tried to examine the variations in the operational aspects of various ICIS through the testing of hypothesis. The statistical analysis showed that there are 13 indicators of ICIS in PA-based ecotourism destinations, which is quite holistic. These indicators are found to be more objective, thus extending a scientific measure or scale for similar destinations, which in turn supports PA managers, ecotourism operators in PA, forest and wildlife departments and other interested groups, who consider ecotourism as a strategy for conservation and livelihood and in protected areas in terms of policymaking or managerial decision-making. The present study has evaluated ICIS and it is found that this has contributed towards the creation of entrepreneurial orientation.

Further, community-based tourism entrepreneurship is a robust model of rural entrepreneurship which reflects on the potential of integrated intervention. Tourism rural entrepreneurship will provide benefits to the community and for destination development, enhancing the economic benefits of tourism. Rural entrepreneurship is effective in combating the unemployment backlog caused by seasonality phenomena especially in the case of ecotourism destinations.

Various activities such as baseline survey, capacity building, awareness and orientation programmes play an important role in exploring avenues in tourism. Similarly, community guidelines, resource-sharing strategies and supporting infrastructure through community bonding enable community members to commence enterprises in ecotourism destinations. Mobilization of technical/financial support and marketing/promotion is found to be useful for supporting enterprises of community members in ecotourism destinations.

While examining the result, it can also be observed that the existence of CI and GI intervention strategies may have directly as well as indirectly supported entrepreneurial options in ecotourism destinations, particularly, the strategies like capacity building, linkage with other sectors, consultant, development and Organization of tourism activities/products, promotional activities, enterprise development and product diversification.

Managerial Implications

PA authorities and policymakers can give the emphasis of ICIS in promoting destinations through economic opportunity identification and operationalization. The study indicates the existence of CI which is found to be unique in the context of ecotourism, where ecology and conservation gain more importance than the commercial appropriation of resources, either natural or cultural.

Destination managers or PA authorities can strengthen GI strategies through the local community and such interventions can be easily converted into a business model for marginalized sections of the society, which are part and parcel of the PA management system.

Rural entrepreneurship potential may be identified at ecotourism destinations and linkage may be developed and promoted with facilitation factors like finance, networking and so on, and destination planners and managers can work to optimize the destination development from a sustainability paradigm.

Policymakers can formulate policies encouraging the positive intervention of community members, thus maximizing the positive economic impacts through the multiplier effects.

Such community intervention models can be replicated in both rural and urban settings, having community endowments and common property resources to harness entrepreneurship potential among the youth.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Agrawal

, & Chhatre

(2006). Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Development, 34(1), 149–166.

Anderson

, & Gerbing

(1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended a two-stage approach. Psychological Bulletin, 27(1), 5–24.

Baggio

(2008). Symptoms of complexity in a tourism system. Tourism Analysis, 13, 1–20.

Berkes

(2009). Evolution of co-management: The role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations, and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692–1702.

Buckley

R. C.

(2009). Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: A framework, first assessment and future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(6), 643–672.

Bunly

(2011). Community-based ecotourism and empowerment of indigenous people: The case of Yeak Laom community development, Cambodia (Master’s thesis). Lincoln University. Retrieved 2 October 2013, from http://hdl.handle.net/10182/3865

Byrne

(2010). Impact of climate change stressors on marine invertebrate life histories with a focus on the Mollusca and Echinodermata. In Yu

& Henderson-Sellers

(Eds.), Climate alert: Climate change monitoring and strategy (pp. 142–185). Sydney: University of Sydney Press.

Cater

(1994). Ecotourism in the Third World problems and prospects for sustainability. In Cater

& Lowman

(Eds.), Ecotourism: A sustainable option? (pp. 69–86). Chichester: Wiley.

Chirozva

(2015). Community agency and entrepreneurship in ecotourism planning and development in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area. Journal of Ecotourism, 14(2–3), 185–203.

10.

Churchill

G. A.

(1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(2), 64–73.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

, Plano Clark

V. L.

, Gutmann

M. L.

, & Hanson

W. E.

(2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Tashakkori

& Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

12.

Danielsen

, Burgess

N. D.

, Balmford

, Donald

P. F.

, Funder

, … Yonten

(2009). Local participation in natural resource monitoring: A characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology, 23(1), 31–42.

13.

Ethridge

D. E.

(2004). Research methodology in applied economics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Field

(2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

15.

Flores, & Sipaseuth (2002). Summary report on the 2002 International Year of Ecotourism Preparatory Meeting for the Southeast Asia Region for the World Ecotourism Summit. Retrieved 22 May 2013, from www.ecotourism.org/iye/docs/southeast_asia_statement.doc

16.

Flynn

L. R.

, & Pearcy

(2001). Four subtle sins in scale development: Some suggestions for strengthening the current paradigm. International Journal of Market Research, 43(4), 409–423.

17.

Folke

, Hahn

, Olsson

, & Norberg

(2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 15(30), 441–473.

18.

Fritz

J. M.

(2014). Essentials of community intervention. In Fritz

J. M.

& Rhéaume

(Eds.), Community intervention: Clinical sociology perspectives (pp. 15–29). New York, NY: Springer.

19.

Garrod

(2003). Local participation in the planning and management of ecotourism: A revised model approach. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(1), 33–53.

20.

Gunderson

, & Light

S. S.

(2006). Adaptive management and adaptive governance in theeverglades ecosystem. Policy Sciences, 39(4), 323–334.

21.

Hair

, Black

, Babin

, Anderson

, & Tatham

(2006). Multivariate statistics: London: Pearson.

22.

Haroon

A. I.

(1999). Role of communities in ecotourism. Ecotourism Society Pakistan, Mountain Forum. Retrieved 12 May 2011, from http://lib.icimod.org/record/10518/files/397.pdf

23.

Jick

T. D.

(1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. In Van Maanen

(Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 135–148). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

24.

Kasalak

M. A.

, Akinci

, & Yurcu

(2016). Ecotourism entrepreneurship, the features of ecotourism entrepreneurship, problems and solutions. In Avcikurt

, Dinu

M. S.

, Hacioglu

, Efe

, Soykan

, & Tetik

(Eds.), Global issues and trends in tourism (pp. 596–601). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315841346_Ecotourism_Entrepreneurship_the_Features_of_Ecotourism_Entrepreneurship_Problems_and_Solutions

25.

Mena

M. M.

(2012). Grassroots ecotourism entrepreneurs in the Philippines. International Journal of Agricultural Travel and Tourism, 3(1), 100–111.

26.

Mitchell

R. E.

, & Reid

D. G.

(2001). Community integration: Island tourism in Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 113–139.

27.

Okazaki

(2008). A community-based tourism model: Its conception and use. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 511–529.

28.

Olsson

, Folke

, & Berkes

(2004). Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75–90.

29.

Plummer

, & FitzGibbon

(2004). Some observations on the terminology in cooperative environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 70(1), 63–72.

30.

Robert

J. W.

(2001). Subsistence food production and distribution in Alaska: Social organization, management, and development issues. INUSSUK—Arctic Research Journal, 1(2), 213–231.

31.

Rossiter

J. R.

(2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(2), 305–335.

32.

Situmoranga

D. B. M.

, & Mirzantia

I. R.

(2012). Social entrepreneurship to develop ecotourism. Procedia Economics and Finance, 4, 398–405.

33.

Sproule

K. W.

(1996). Community based ecotourism development: Identifying partners in the process (Bulletin series, 99, pp. 233–250). New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University.

34.

Swan

C. D.

, & Morgan

(2016). Who wants to be an eco-entrepreneur? Identifying entrepreneurial types and practices in ecotourism businesses. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(2), 120–132.

35.

Timothy

D. J.

, & White

(1999). Community-based ecotourism development on the periphery of Belize. Current Issues in Tourism, 2(2–3), 226–242.

36.

Trochim

W. M. K.

(2006). Introduction to validity. Social research methods. Retrieved from www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php

37.

United Nations (1997). Glossary of environment statistics, studies in methods (Series F, No. 67). New York, NY: United Nations.

38.

Vinodan

, Manalel

, & Meera

(2017). Factorial structure of community intervention strategies in ecotourism. Journal of Environment Management and Tourism, VIII 3(19), 590–605.

39.

Wever

(2008). Ecotourism (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.