Entrepreneurship in Tourism Studies in the 21st Century: A Bibliometric Study of Wos and Scopus

Abstract

Entrepreneurship and tourism are linked as relevant aspects of study due to their influence on the society’s development. In attempt to identify the main theoretical contributions in the 21st century, a bibliometric study was carried out, based on publications of tourism entrepreneurship in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. As a result, data from 268 documents were obtained and processed in VosViewer. The main findings place Haber, Altinay, and Hallak as the most cited authors; when analyzing co-authorship, co-citation, and bibliographic coupling by authors, the distribution changes in relation to the contribution. England, Australia, and United States are the main countries that originate publications on the subject and have an impact on their dissemination; and Tourism Management is the Journal with the highest number of citations. The topics were grouped into three clusters: (1) Sustainable Rural Tourism, (2) Small business and lifestyle, and (3) Social entrepreneurship, with a predominantly human and social focus over the economic vision. This study can be the basis for further studies about adjacent, related, or emerging topics to entrepreneurship in tourism, as well as to generate practical proposals for new or potential entrepreneurs.

Keywords

tourism entrepreneur bibliometric WOS VosViewer

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is constantly affected by social, cultural, and economic factors (Castaño et al., 2015) which makes it impossible not to associate it with another concept that is influenced by the same aspects: tourism. It is considered that today, tourism is no longer a luxury but a popular necessity; (Gómez et al., 2016) however, tourism is still being promoted that no longer fully complies with today’s requirements (Higgins, 2018).

Entrepreneurship has received increased attention among tourism researchers and despite its growth, the literature on the issue remains scattered. (Solvoll et al., 2015). In this sense, there are studies about tourism entrepreneurship in rural localities to diversify productive activities (Komppula, 2014); public policy regarding support for entrepreneurship in the tourism sector (Devkota et al., 2020; Işık et al., 2019); role of entrepreneurship of small and medium-sized enterprises in the tourism sector (Castaño et al., 2015; Ciochina et al., 2016); the competitiveness of a tourism destination in relation to the entrepreneurial capacity of tourism enterprises (Valeri & Fadlon, 2019); education in relation to entrepreneurship in the tourism activity (Cruz del Río-Rama et al., 2017); and creative tourism entrepreneurship in rural communities (Bakas et al., 2019; Ratten et al., 2019; Teixeira & Ferreira, 2019).

Research on entrepreneurship in tourism has led to new topics, such as: sustainable, community, institutional, and social entrepreneurship; been the last one the most popular (Daniele & Quezada, 2017; Solvoll et al., 2015; Zebryte & Jorquera, 2017). It is an emerging issue that is conceptualized as innovative actions that achieve both economic benefit and social wealth. (Lucas et al., 2019). In fact, linking tourism and social entrepreneurship makes a lot of sense, since combining both terms, it provides an opportunity for meaningful action that goes beyond what corporate social responsibility has been able to offer (Sheldon & Daniele, 2017).

Based on the above, this paper focuses on a documentary review with bibliometric analysis to identify theoretical contributions of the first 20 years of this century related to conceptual and empirical studies about entrepreneurship in tourism. To this end, the document is composed of five sections. The first is the introductory section, in which the study situation is described in general terms; followed by the theoretical and referential framework that supports the study; and the third section is the method, which describes how the study was conducted, as well as the databases and software used. Subsequently, section four includes the main findings shown in tables, graphs, and their wording; and finally the conclusion of the research in the last part.

Theoretical Framework

Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is a word that has become fashionable in recent years with the emergence of dot com companies, but in reality this word began to be used much earlier (Jolonch, 2014). In the mid 80’s, research on this topic began to be of interest, especially in the areas of management, economics, psychology, and sociology (Chepurenko, 2015). It consists in acting in a creative and innovative way, breaking existing structures (Zacca & Dayan, 2017). Entrepreneurship can generate new businesses, jobs, market coverage, and innovation (Pesántez et al., 2020).

There is no certainty that all the authors who research about this topic refer to the same thing (Mwatsika et al., 2018), since most of them visualize it as a methodology and not as a situation influenced by the environment (Acs et al., 2016). This is how entrepreneurship is directly related to the response to the environment in a creative and innovative way, and the actions that the entrepreneur commits to carry out at the moment of starting his company (Palanivelu & Manikandan, 2015; Rosero & Molina, 2008).

There is agreement among researchers analyzing the topic that entrepreneurship is a skill that the younger generations must obtain (Obschonka et al., 2017). In this sense, political and economic systems try to generate conditions to encourage more and more citizens to become entrepreneurs, with the only purpose of improving their living conditions and those of society as a whole (Torres, 2019). In addition, traditional incubators have increased by 292%, and intermediate technology incubators by 142%, which confirms the importance of social entrepreneurship within the economy (Valdez, 2015).

Tourism

Tourism is one of the most important economic activities in several countries since it impacts not only the economic aspect, but also the quality of life of a community, its development, and the conservation of natural resources (Julca, 2016; Ruiz, 2008). These economic impacts can be both positive and negative; the first ones are focused on the income generated, while the most significant negative impacts are insufficient infrastructure, public services, and housing, among others (Álvarez, 2007).

Due to the pandemic, tourism in 2020 generated a loss of income 10 times greater than the global economic crisis of 2009 (Organización Mundial del Turismo [OMT], 2020b). Evidently, the consequences of the pandemic for tourism businesses and the livelihoods of their workers are enormous. In Madeira, 45% of the working population was unemployed; in Hungary, 41,500 jobs were lost; and in Jamaica, an estimated 300,000 people lost their jobs (OMT, 2020a). Recovery will be gradual and medium-term; travel restrictions, gradual containment of the virus and low consumer confidence are some of the main limitations to achieve it (OMT, 2020b).

Bibliometrics

Bibliometrics background can be traced back as far as the 18th century, with the studies of Frömmichen (Cortés, 2007). It is a field of research that studies the literature using a quantitative method (Bonilla et al., 2015), also, with a multidisciplinary profile due to the contribution of Statistics, Sociology, and Computer Science (Solano et al., 2009). It provides an invaluable contribution to the existing research of a field (Ferreira et al., 2016), and is useful for a variety of projects, as it provides an overview of a research field and analysis of leading researchers (Bonilla et al., 2015).

By analyzing citations of academic publications, metrics have been generated to evaluate the impact of scientific journals, studies, and researchers (Akhavan et al., 2016; Ponce & Lozano, 2010). These bibliometric metrics or indicators emerged from the application of scientometric methods to the research evaluation (Glänzel & Moed, 2013). The number of citations is more significant than the number of articles as it measures the influence of a researcher; however, in many other studies, the preference is to use the total number of publications (Bonilla et al., 2015; Licea & Santillán, 2002).

Bibliometrics coverage tends to be high in the natural and life sciences, which give high priority to journal publications (Bornmann & Mutz, 2015); yet, it is gradually being extended to all disciplines (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). In addition, it has been shown that bibliometric evaluations have an impact, positive or negative, on the editorial activities of individuals (Wildgaard et al., 2014).

Bibliometrics in Tourism

In the field of tourism, there is a wide variety of bibliometric studies that show that publications on tourism, leisure, and accommodation have increased over the last 40 years (Mulet et al., 2019). In a research related to tourism and its economic impact, the processing of data through three software tools stands out: VOSviewer, Pajet y Sci2 Tool (Comerio & Strozzi, 2019).

Sustainable tourism emerged in the 1970’s as a new research approach. Since then, the body of literature on sustainable tourism has grown (Garrigos et al., 2018; Serrano & Sianes, 2019) to such an extent that in the last decade, it has had a considerable increase (Garrigos et al., 2019). The general aspect of sustainable tourism has been studied over a period of 25 years (Ruhanen et al., 2015), related to open innovation (Della Corte et al., 2019), as well as in sensitive areas (Sánchez et al., 2018). A bibliometric study of bibliometric research in tourism was also conducted, describing emerging themes and critical discussions for theory development and future research (Koseoglu et al., 2016).

As can be seen in the aforementioned articles, most of the bibliometric studies focus directly on the evolution of sustainable tourism, which has become a trend due to its impact on the current situation. Likewise, most of the mentioned studies use the Web Of Science (WoS) database to collect the information and its analysis in the VOSviewer software; nevertheless, in an interesting analysis of the first 15 years of this century in a tourism magazine, they collected the data using Publish or Perish software, later they were analyzed through SPSS and Excel (Strandberg et al., 2016).

Method

During the first days of January 2022, the Web of Science Core Collection was searched, consisting of: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science (CPCI-S), Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH), Book Citation Index—Science (BKCI-S), Book Citation Index—Social Sciences & Humanities (BKCI-SSH), and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). In the title and the keywords, it was written the words “Entrepreneurship” and “Tourism,” as well as synonyms and related words that broadened the search spectrum, using the following commands: (Tour* OR travel OR globetrotting OR journey OR trip OR traversing OR vacation) AND (entrepreneur* OR enterprise OR venture OR endeavor OR “business development” OR pioneerdom). The period of 2001 to 2020 was selected, which represents the first two decades of this century. The following Web of Science categories were identified: hospitality, leisure, sport tourism, business, management, and economics; furthermore, it was delimited by document types: articles, proceedings papers, book chapters, and books. A total of 471 documents were obtained from this search.

In the same period, a search was carried out in the Scopus database, using the same criteria and parameters. Only in the case of the thematic categories, due to the difference in the structure of the database and data presentation, the chosen subject areas were: (1) Business, Management, and Accounting and (2) Economics, Econometrics, and Finance. It generated 761 results.

An Excel document containing a total of 1,232 documents from Scopus and Wos was integrated in order to homologate the content, with the following items: Authors, Article Title, Source Title, Publication Year, Cited, Reference Count, DOI, Language, Document Type, Conference Title, ISSN, EISSN, and ISBN. Subsequently, the articles included in both databases were identified. As a result, 195 publications were identified in WoS, 485 in Scopus, and 276 in both. All abstracts were read and it was found that eight of them did not correspond to the subject of this study, so they were excluded, leaving 268 documents that are found in both databases and that are the subject of the analysis in this report. The latter are those considered for analysis in this study in .txt format and in VOSviewer (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010).

A list of words, authors, organizations, and countries was reviewed to standardize the terms used for a more accurate analysis. This was the result of a thesaurus file of 159 word definitions, 19 for authors, and 4 for organizations, which were used at the time of the above calculations.

In this software, network maps were created based on the previously mentioned database, with the stipulated types and units from Table 1. To study the subjects, the analysis of co-occurrence of words was used with key words, choosing those that were mentioned at least twice; for the normalization, the method of association strength, and clustering with the predetermined criteria was chosen.

Table 1.

Types of Analysis and Counting Method.

Type of analysis	Unit of analysis	Counting method
Co-authorship	Authors	Full counting
	Organizations
	Countries
Co-occurrence	All keywords	Full counting
Citation	Documents	Not applicable
	Sources
	Authors
	Organizations
	Countries
Bibliographic coupling	Authors	Full counting
	Organizations
	Countries
Co-citation	Cited sources	Full counting
Co-citation	Cited authors	Full counting

The graphs, as well as the tables showing the relationships between authors, sources, documents, organizations, and countries are presented, considering as the main data the number of citations, which are shown in the following section.

Results

The main findings of this study are initially presented with the chronological statistics of the publications made during the last 20 years. Figure 1 shows a disproportionately increasing trend in the number of publications related to entrepreneurship in tourism; although the first publication was in 2001, it was not until 2007 that there was an increase, although it was smaller with a clearer trend in the last 7 years. The documents are distributed according to their type in 235 journals, 12 books, and 12 conference proceedings. All written in English, with the exception of an interesting paper entitled: Entrepreneurship: Cuban perspective on the creation of family businesses (Silveira et al., 2016).

Figure 1.

Published documents by year in Wos/Scopus.

The 20 most cited documents are listed in Table 2, highlighting those with more than 100 citations. First, with 204 citations the article by Russell and Faulkner (2004). Two Australian destinations were studied through chaos and complexity theory in conjunction with the tourism life cycle model, finding that one of them gained a competitive advantage over the other.

Table 2.

R	Authors	Title	Cited	Abstract
1	Russell and Faulkner (2004)	Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism area lifecycle	204	Through the Chaos theory, complexity and life cycle modeling in tourism, two Australian destinations were studied, one of which gained a competitive advantage (Russell & Faulkner, 2004).
2	Sebele (2010)	Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana	176	It is concluded that community enterprises, efficiently managed, can promote the care of natural resources in a community in Botswana (Sebele, 2010).
3	Komppula (2014)	The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for a rural tourism destination—A case study	173	The main objective is to increase the understanding of the role of entrepreneurs in improving competitiveness in a rural tourism destination in Finland (Komppula, 2014).
4	Tew and Barbieri (2012)	The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective	170	The farm households in Missouri and the businesses derived from tourism activity were analyzed, highlighting a favorable perception to generate agrotourism ventures (Tew & Barbieri, 2012).
5	Haber and Reichel (2007)	The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: The contribution of human capital, planning and environment resources to small venture performance	140	The study shows the entrepreneurial process of small tourism businesses, known as “blifestyle businesses”(Haber & Reichel, 2007).
6	McGehee et al. (2007)	Gender and motivation for agri-tourism entrepreneurship	136	Gender was explored in the motivation for agrotourism entrepreneurship; it was found that the alternative agricultural objectives of men and women were similar (McGehee et al., 2007).
7	Lerner and Haber (2001)	Performance factors of small tourism ventures: The interface of tourism, entrepreneurship and the environment	122	The performance factors of Israeli small tourism enterprises were studied through four theoretical approaches: environmental setting, institutional support, entrepreneurial human capital, and the company’s service package (Lerner & Haber, 2001).
8	Zhao et al. (2011)	Social capital and tourism entrepreneurship	121	It is argued that social capital is positively related to both an individual’s capacity for entrepreneurship and the individual’s likelihood of establishing a tourism business (Zhao et al., 2011).
9	Carlisle et al. (2013)	Supporting innovation for tourism development through multi-stakeholder approaches: Experiences from Africa	118	Based on two case studies in Africa, it is concluded that it is of utmost importance to foster innovation and entrepreneurship in indigenous communities that are part of tourist destinations (Carlisle et al., 2013).
10	Gurel et al. (2010)	Tourism students’ entrepreneurial intentions	110	The relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics, sociocultural background and entrepreneurial intention of university students in the United Kingdom and Turkey was investigated (Gurel et al., 2010).
11	Hallak et al. (2012)	The place identity—Performance relationship among tourism entrepreneurs: A structural equation modelling analysis	107	This research examines how place identity, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and community support influence the entrepreneurial performance of small and medium-sized tourism business owners (Hallak et al., 2012).
12	Esfandiar et al. (2019)	Understanding entrepreneurial intentions: A developed integrated structural model approach	99	An integrated model of entrepreneurial intention was developed and the new model was empirically tested on tourism students at universities in Iran (Esfandiar et al., 2019).
13	Li (2008)	A review of entrepreneurship research published in the hospitality and tourism management journals	98	Research on entrepreneurship in the field of Hotel and Tourism Management is evaluated to achieve a better understanding of its progress and potential (Li, 2008).
14	Di Domenico and Miller (2012)	Farming and tourism enterprise: Experiential authenticity in the diversification of independent small-scale family farming	94	Study of farming families diversifying their activities with tourism ventures in the United Kingdom, with the theoretical vision of experiential authenticity (Di Domenico & Miller, 2012).
15	Matlay and Westhead (2005)	Virtual teams and the rise of e-entrepreneurship in Europe	91	Based on case studies from the tourism industry, the creation of virtual teams of e-entrepreneurs in Europe is analyzed (Matlay & Westhead, 2005).
16	Bosworth and Farrell (2011)	Tourism entrepreneurs in Northumberland	85	The role of immigrant owners of small tourism businesses in promoting entrepreneurship and developing competition in Northumberland’s tourism economy is explored (Bosworth & Farrell, 2011).
17	Mak et al. (2011)	Critical issues affecting the service quality and professionalism of the tour guides in Hong Kong and Macau	82	In the study of problems affecting the service and professionalism of tour guides in Hong Kong and Macau, it was identified that an expansion of the “entre-preneur role” decreases the commitment to fulfill other “core” roles (Mak et al., 2011).
18	Tervo (2008)	The operational and regional vulnerability of winter tourism to climate variability and change: The case of the finnish nature-based tourism entrepreneurs	76	The sensitivity of winter tourism activities to climatic events is evaluated in a Finnish context. According to the obtained results, the vulnerability of winter tourism to climate depends on both the activity and the region where they occur (Tervo, 2008).
19	Brouder and Eriksson (2013)	Staying Power: What Influences Micro-firm Survival in Tourism?	73	Through the economic geography approach, it is concluded that in the permanence of new tourism businesses in Sweden, previous work experience and the location of the founder play a preponderant role in the permanence of new tourism businesses (Brouder & Eriksson, 2013).
20	Bredvold and Skålén (2016)	Lifestyle entrepreneurs and their identity construction: A study of the tourism industry	66	Lifestyle entrepreneurs in Norway were studied, in particular the construction of their identity (Bredvold & Skålén, 2016).

Data Analysis by Author

The most cited authors are shown in Figure 2. Haber with three documents, totaling 314 citations, being number 1 in the ranking of cited authors. Following, is Altinay with three papers, who has 219 citations, Hallak with four publications has a total of 218 citations. In fourth and fifth place are Rusell and Faulkner, who are at or close to the top of the list, similar to Table 2, since with only one document they have a total of 204 citations. Mcgehee has four publications totaling just under 200 citations, placing the author in sixth place. Domenico and Miller are authors who have three published papers and an equal number of citations with 128. The next ones, with only one publication they have more than 100 citations: Sebele, Tew, Jennings, Kim, Lerner, Echtner, Ritchie, and Zhao y Carlisle.

Figure 2.

Most cited authors of the topic in Wos/Scopus.

When performing a temporal analysis of Figure 2, it can be seen that Haber, Rusell, and Faulkner, who occupy positions 1, 4, and 5 of the most cited authors, their publications on average correspond to the year 2004, being the oldest of the period considered for this paper. On the contrary, Altinay and Hallak, position 2 and 3 of the most cited authors respectively, are those who have the most recent publications with that level of citation, whose average are from the years 2015 and 2016.

To calculate the co-authorships, each author was chosen to have at least one document and at least one citation, with a total of 576 authors. The total link strength of the co-authorship was calculated and resulted in the largest connected element network of 16 elements whose data are shown in Table 3, and the graphic in Figure 3. Clearly, Köseoglu is the author with the highest number of citations with 61, as well as the second highest number of co-authorship citations (link) with 8 and 10 publications with co-authors (Total Link Strength). Followed by Okumus with 56 citations and relationship with 5 co-authors, and 6 publications; Fu with 53 citations, 6 co-authors, and 7 publications; Wu with 48 citations and 3 co-authorships in the same number of publications. It is worth highlighting Xu as the author with the highest number of relationships to other authors with 10 and the highest Total Link Strength with 13, despite not being the highest in the number of citations with 48.

Table 3.

Co-Authorship by Authors.

Rank	Author	Citations	Links	Total link strength
1	Köseoglu M.A.	61	8	10
2	Okumus F.	56	5	6
3	Fu H.	53	6	7
4	Wu K.	48	3	3
5	Xu H.	48	10	13
6	Sun X.	38	3	5
7	Wang C.	10	7	8
8	Jiao Y.	7	5	5
9	Liang Y.	7	5	5
10	Nazneen S.	7	5	5
11	Wu J.	7	5	5
12	Chen W.	5	4	4
13	Huang X.	5	4	4
14	Li M.	5	4	4
15	Chen J.L.	3	3	3
16	Li G.	3	3	3

Figure 3.

Top authors by coauthorship.

In a detailed review, Wang is the third highest link value with 7 and a total link strength with 8, however, he has only 8 citations of his publications. The rest of the authors from position 8 to 16 in Table 3 and Figure 3, who appear smaller in size in the periphery, their number of citations are similar to link and total link strength.

In relation to the co-citation analysis, the criterion for compliance was that the authors had 25 citations, and a network of 25 authors was generated, all of whom have been co-cited with most of the other authors. In Figure 4, it is shown that Getz, which is based on the relationships, has the highest total link strength of 891, and also the highest citation value with 112. Three more articles have over 100 citations: Carlisle, Kunc, Jones, and Tiffin with 118 citations, studied innovation and entrepreneurship in African Indian communities.

Figure 4.

Top authors by co-citation.

Considering the number of citations, Morrison is next with 91, and a total link strength of 791; and in third place, comes Hall with 515 times co-cited with other authors, with a total of 84 citations of his publications. Ateljevic, Thomas, and Shaw, in that order, complete the top places with the highest value in both citation and total link strength.

Table 4 shows the results of the bibliographic coupling by authors. Authors with at least one published paper and 100 or more citations were taken as a basis, resulting in a network of 28 authors. It can be observed that Hallak is the third author with the third highest number of citations, but the first in the relationship with other authors (26) in the use of cited references; also, it is the highest in total link strength with 677 cited references, similar to those used by the other authors with whom it has a similar relationship.

Table 4.

Bibliographic Coupling by Author.

Rank	Author	Citation	Link	Total link strength	Rank	Author	Citation	Link	Total link strength
1	Haber S.	314	25	514	15	Miller, G.	128	25	458
2	Altinay L.	219	24	281	16	Lerner M.	122	20	249
3	Hallak R.	218	26	677	17	Echtner C.M.	121	25	195
4	Faulkner B.	204	22	129	18	Ritchie J.R.B.	121	25	195
5	Russell R.	204	22	129	19	Zhao W.	121	25	195
6	Mcgehee N.G.	192	26	328	20	Carlisle, S	118	23	390
7	Reichel, A.	192	25	333	21	Jones, E	118	23	390
8	Komppula R.	188	18	55	22	Kunc, M	118	23	390
9	Sabele, L.S.	176	4	8	23	Tiffin, S	118	23	390
10	Barbieri, C.	173	16	115	24	Daniele R.	110	22	246
11	Tew, C.	170	15	97	25	Gurel E.	110	22	246
12	Jennings, G.R.	136	17	175	26	Brown, G	107	26	460
13	Kim K.	136	17	175	27	Lindsay, N	107	26	460
14	Di Domenico, M.	128	25	458	28	Jaafar, M	106	26	242

Despite being in the sixth position in relation to the number of citations received in his articles, Mcgehee is the second in link with 26, which is similar to the case of Brown and Lindsay who have the third highest value of both, total link strength with 460, and their link in the used references, which are 26 with other authors, but they only have just over 100 citations.

Finally, those who have the highest citation scores do not have the highest values of bibliographic linkage. Russell and Faulkner have a link score of 22 and total link strength of 129, Barbieri has a link score of 16 and total link strength of 115; Komppula, 18 and 55 respectively; and Sabele 4 and 8.

Data Analysis by Countries, Organizations, and Sources

Figure 5 shows the main countries according to their contribution in scientific indicators. England, Australia, and United States stand out. England is the leader in citations of publication, with 1,080 in total, and link co-authorship with 14, as well as in number of documents with 41; and second in link bibliographic coupling with 26. Australia is the country with the second highest number of citations with 996, third in documents with 30, and in link co-authorship with 10, as well as fourth in link bibliographic coupling with 22.

Figure 5.

Countries with the highest number of citations of the topic.

China with 529 citations and Canada with 404 are the fourth and fifth country in this indicator. A remarkable dispersion is identified since there are countries from four different continents in the first five places with the highest number of citations.

Table 5 shows the organizations to which the researchers belong and their contribution to the development and dissemination of the topic of entrepreneurship in tourism. The top 3 universities, according to the number of citations of the studies, carried out in them by researchers are: Griffith University (Australia), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Hong Kong), and University of Surrey (United Kingdom), with 370, 343, and 333, respectively.

Table 5.

Data by Organizations.

R	Organization	Cit	Doc	LC	LBC	R	Organization	Cit	Doc	LC	LBC
1	Griffith University, Australia	370	4	4	23	14	Umea University, Sweden	124	4	0	16
2	The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong	343	12	13	23	15	Tel-Aviv University, Israel	122	1	0	19
3	University of Surrey, United Kingdom	333	15	21	23	16	University of Calgary, Canada	121	1	0	22
4	Ben-Gurion University, Israel	314	3	0	22	17	Cardiff Metropolitan University, United Kingdom	118	1	0	23
5	Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom	219	3	6	21	18	Center For Science and Innovation Studies, United States	118	1	0	23
6	University of South Australia, Australia	205	3	0	22	19	University of Lincoln, United Kingdom	118	2	0	24
7	University of Eastern Finland, Finland	188	2	0	19	20	University Warwick, United Kingdom	118	1	0	23
8	University Missouri, United States	178	2	2	23	21	Sun Yat Sen University, China	117	8	11	23
9	University Botswana, Botswana	176	1	0	4	22	Bilkent University, Turkey	110	1	1	20
10	Virginia Polytechnic Institute, United States	148	2	3	21	23	The University of Adelaide, Australia	107	1	0	22
11	Mid Sweden University, Sweden	136	5	0	22	24	University Nottingham, United Kingdom	107	2	0	16
12	Southern Illinois University, United States	136	1	2	16	25	University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia	106	2	0	22
13	Edith Cowan University, Australia	130	2	5	18

Note. R = rank; Cit = citation; Doc = documents; LC = link coauthorship; LBC = link bibliographic coupling.

The University of Surrey, United Kingdom, stands out, since it has the highest rate of publications with 15, as well as of co-authorships with 21, in addition to the highest Link bibliographic coupling with 23. Likewise, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, has 12 documents, 13 link co-authorships, and 23 link bibliographic coupling. Sun Yat Sen University, China, ranks third in papers with 8, as well as in co-authorships with 11 and 23 link bibliographic coupling; however, it is in 21st position in terms of citations received for these publications.

The organizations that show the highest level of link bibliographic coupling, in addition to those mentioned above, are: University of Lincoln, United Kingdom with 24; University Missouri, United States; Cardiff Metropolitan University, United Kingdom; Center for Science & Innovation Studies, United States; University Warwick, United Kingdom; and Sun Yat Sen University, China, with 23, each one of them.

The following universities have more than 150 citations, ordered from the highest to lowest: Ben-Gurion University, Israel; Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom; University of South Australia, Australia; University of Eastern Finland, Finland; University Missouri, United States; and University Botswana, Botswana.

Figure 6 includes the main Journals, based on the number of citations and co-citation, being the top 5 the next ones in a descendant order: Tourism Management, Annals of Tourism Research, Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and Academy of Management Review.

Figure 6.

Tops journals by citations and co-citation.

Table 6 shows the top 20 journals according to citation and co-citation. The order of ranks from 1 to 4 is increasing in both indicators; however, Academy of Management Review, ranked fifth according to citations, has a co-citation total link strength of 3,240 times that journal has been co-cited with others, which is a lower number than the seventh and eighth places.

Table 6.

Sources by Citation and Co-Citation.

R	Source	Cit	CTLS
1	Tourism Management	784	13,250
2	Annals of Tourism Research	605	9,933
3	Journal of Business Venturing	351	7,644
4	Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice	267	5,799
5	Academy of Management Review	164	3,240
6	Journal of Sustainable Tourism	155	2,903
7	Journal of Small Business Management	148	3,352
8	International Journal of Hospitality Management	134	3,371
9	Journal of Sustainable Tourism	129	2,144
10	Journal of Travel Research	125	2,535
11	Strategic Management Journal	121	2,834
12	Entrepreneurship & Regional Development	118	2,064
13	Small Business Economics	115	2,589
14	Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism	105	1,997
15	Journal of Business Research	103	2,486
16	Current Issues In Tourism	100	2,028
17	International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research	96	1,709
18	Journal of Travel Research	96	1,816
19	Journal of Rural Studies	91	1,675
20	Tourism Planning & Development	87	1,569

Note. R = rank; Cit = citation; CTLS = co-citation total link strength.

Similarly, Strategic Management Journal ranked 11th, based on the number of citations, and it has a co-citation total link strength of 2,834, exceeding the value of this indicator from places 9th and 10th.

Among the Journals included in the Table, 11 of them have a specialized theme focus on tourism since their names explicitly include the words Tourism, Venture, Travel, Hospitality; only three alludes to Entrepreneurship, while the rest of the journals are about Management or Business in general.

Analysis of Words and Topic Clusters

Figure 7 shows the words most frequently mentioned in the documents, as well as the number of times that the word co-occurs with another word, in order from most to least important according to the values, and excluding the main theme of the work, which is entrepreneurship in tourism, are: rural tourism, sustainability, small business, innovation, social entrepreneurship, and lifestyle.

Figure 7.

Top words co-ocurrence.

There are other words, which, although they are among the most important, represent emerging topics that generate the possibility of broadening the study of these subjects in relation to the main topic: gender, networks, agritourism, identity, family business, female entrepreneurship, start-up, wine tourism, and Airbnb.

The analysis of co-occurrence of words, generated grouping in three topic clusters, which were named based on the main topics, as well as the relationship between them within the same group. Therefore, Cluster 1 (see Figure 8): was de-nominated as Sustainable Rural Tourism (26 elements and 29% of the total network) integrated by: innovation, performance, creativity, entrepreneurial orientation, knowledge management, regional development, tourism education, tourism SMES, culture, decision-making, entrepreneurial skills, entrepreneurship education, governance, immigrant, resource-based view, and wellness tourism. Highlights the study of the physical location of rural tourism businesses and their orientation to the market (Polo et al., 2015), about sustainable wine tourism (Duarte et al., 2020), tourism as a way of local development Post-apartheid in South Africa (Stoffelen et al., 2020), the attempted conversion of rural agricultural enterprises to tourism (Ryglová, 2007) and the role of women entrepreneurs in the development of sustainable tourism in marginalized rural areas (Martini et al., 2020).

Figure 8.

Topic cluster 1: sustainable rural tourism.

Cluster 2: Small business and lifestyle (26 elements and 29% of the total network), composed by: hospitality, motivation, economic growth, rural-development, entrepreneurial behavior, business performance, clusters, family business, place identity, self-efficacy, start-up, education, self-employment, and tourism-led growth (see Figure 9). Among the main investments is the focus on wellness as an opportunity for small business development in coastal tourism (Page et al., 2017) and in wine tourism regions (Dawson et al., 2011); lifestyle mobility is recognized as the one that blurs the line between leisure and work (Sun & Xu, 2017) and generates a desire for alternate living (Zhang et al., 2020). The important role of women in this type and size of companies is identified, however, their intention to make their companies grow is not achieved in most cases (Ali, 2018); but despite the stress generated by their multiple simultaneous roles, they do female entrepreneurial networking (Kankanamge, 2018)

Figure 9.

Topic cluster 2: small business and lifestyle.

Cluster 3: Social entrepreneurship (39 elements and 42% of the total network), mainly composed of: gender, nature-based tourism, networks, social capital, agritourism, tourism policy, community-based tourism, identity, indigenous, female entrepreneurship, rural entrepreneurship, and wine tourism (see Figure 10). The social approach to entrepreneurship is a phenomenon that has recently emerged with a conceptual framework on the subject and alternative ones (Aquino et al., 2018), which is explored in documentary form in its relationship with gastronomy (Celebi et al., 2020) and is even addressed using Max Weber’s typology of rationality (Mody et al., 2016). Some of the studies conducted are particularly noteworthy, like one research that was developed in Canada on social entrepreneurship in the hospitality industry and its relationship with sustainable tourism (de Lange & Dodds, 2017); in addition, social entrepreneurs of tourism in rural areas with benefits for all stakeholders (Peng & Lin, 2016); through business models with a balance between profit and social impact (Zebryte & Jorquera, 2017); and with a market approach (Sigala, 2016)

Figure 10.

Topic cluster 3: social entrepreneurship.

Conclusions

Entrepreneurship in tourism is an increasingly studied topic, and the last 7 years show a clear growing trend. In these contributions, authors with only one publication have an important impact on the main indicators of citation, co-authorship, co-citation, and bibliographic coupling; however, the first places of cited authors have more than one publication. In the analysis of co-authorship by author, there is a predominance of researchers from the Asian continent, which is not present in the other criteria mentioned.

England is the country with the highest number of citations in the field, since several authors from that country publish the highest number of papers. Australia and United States are the other two main countries that generate publications on the subject; three countries from three different continents. Regarding the journals, two thirds are specialized in tourism, and the rest on general aspects of management and business.

In this main subject of tourism entrepreneurship and through the results of co-occurrence of words, the subjects are located in three main groups: (1) Sustainable Rural Tourism, (2) Small business and lifestyle, and (3) Social entrepreneurship. Three thematic lines with their own characteristics can be observed, in which the first of them is the one that generates more relationships within its own themes that compose it, as well as with the other groups. This is due to the fact that they are part of a larger grouping with a strong interrelation among them, in such a way that common aspects that unite them stand out, such as: gender, the indigenous peoples, agritourism, innovation, wine tourism, performance, creativity, motivation, and nature-based tourism.

The concept of entrepreneurship can suggest an idea of management, business, firm, company, and in general, an economic vision of organizations. Although the results refer to business models, performance, economic growth, and market orientation, most of them are far from that. The topics with the greatest impact are related to aspects focused on the human and social aspects. The development of the communities, the role of women, the perception of the inhabitants and the repercussions of the conversion of primary activities to tourism, to mention the most important ones, are emphasized.

The main contribution of this document is circumscribed in the visualization of the tourism activity and the enterprises resulting from it, from a perspective that goes beyond the economic and managerial. Emphasizing the role of minorities and the underprivileged in rural, marginal, and indigenous areas as part of communities that through this activity can obtain a better quality of life.

This study was limited to WOS and Scopus publications from the first 20 years of the 21st century. This shows the most recent and high impact contributions, but excludes the history of the last century in relation to the subject. It is visualized that it was at the beginning of this century the first publications, it cannot be ruled out the previous existence of studies in that sense. In addition, when delimiting these publications that were included in both WOS and Scopus, those included in one or the other database were omitted.

The above reflection allows us to suggest subsequent studies in which the period of time is extended to add documents with greater coverage, a clearer image of the documentary and scientific historical reality. Likewise, it is recommended to integrate a database with the documents from both WOS and Scopus, in such a way that it is an input that privileges inclusion over exclusion.

This contribution can be a reference of what has been published, in order to deepen in the future, the study of adjacent, related or emerging topics of entrepreneurship in tourism, as well as to generate practical proposals for new or potential entrepreneurs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Program for Promotion and Support of Research (PROFAPI) of the Sonora Institute of Technology (ITSON).

ORCID iD

Sergio Ochoa Jiménez

References

Acs

Z. J.

Audretsch

D. B.

Lehmann

E. E.

Licht

(2016). National systems of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 46, 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol

Akhavan

Ebrahim

N. A.

Fetrati

M. A.

Pezeshkan

(2016). Major trends in knowledge management research: A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 107, 1249–1264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1938-x

Ali

R. S.

(2018). Determinants of female entrepreneurs growth intentions: A case of female-owned small businesses in Ghana’s tourism sector. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(3), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-02-2017-0057

Álvarez

C. U.

(2007). El turismo como politica central de desarrollo y sus repercuciones en el ambito local: algunas consideraciones referentes al desarrollo de enclaves turisticos en México. TURyDES, 1, 1–9.

Aquino

R. S.

Lück

Schänzel

H. A.

(2018). A conceptual framework of tourism social entrepreneurship for sustainable community development. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 37, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.09.001

Aria

Cuccurullo

(2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Bakas

F. E.

Duxbury

Vinagre

Castro

(2019). Creative tourism: Catalysing artisan entrepreneur networks in rural Portugal. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 25(4), 731–752. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2018-0177

Bonilla

C. A.

Merigó

J. M.

Torres-Abad

(2015). Economics in Latin America: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1239–1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1747-7

Bornmann

Mutz

(2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4578

10.

Bosworth

Farrell

(2011). Tourism entrepreneurs in Northumberland. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1474–1494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.015

11.

Bredvold

Skålén

(2016). Lifestyle entrepreneurs and their identity construction: A study of the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 56, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.023

12.

Brouder

Eriksson

R. H.

(2013). Staying power: What influences micro-firm survival in tourism? Tourism Geographies, 15(1), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2011.647326

13.

Carlisle

Kunc

Jones

Tiffin

(2013). Supporting innovation for tourism development through multi-stakeholder approaches: Experiences from Africa. Tourism Management, 35, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.05.010

14.

Castaño

M. S.

Méndez

M. T.

Galindo

M. Á.

(2015). The effect of social, cultural, and economic factors on entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1496–1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.040

15.

Celebi

Pirnar

Eris

E. D.

(2020). Bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship in gastronomy tourism. Tourism, 68(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.37741/T.68.1.5

16.

Chepurenko

(2015). Entrepreneurship theory: New challenges and future prospects. Foresight Russia, 9(2), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459X.2015.2.44.57

17.

Ciochina

Iordache

C. M.

Sîrbu

(2016). Entrepreneurship in the tourism and hospitality industry. Management Strategies Journal, 31(1), 264–275.

18.

Comerio

Strozzi

(2019). Tourism and its economic impact: A literature review using bibliometric tools. Tourism Economics, 25(1), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618793762

19.

Cortés

V. D.

(2007). Medir la producción científica de los investigadores universitarios: la bibliometría y sus límites. Revista de La Educación Superior, 36(142), 43–65.

20.

Cruz del Río-Rama

M. D.

Álvarez

G. J.

Rueda

A. C.

Peris

O. M

. (2017). Entrepreneurship by students in tourism degree program. A cross-cultural analysis. In Peris-Ortiz

Gómez

J. A.

Merigó-Lindahl

J. M.

Rueda-Armengot

(Eds.), Entrepreneurial universities: Exploring the academic and innovative dimensions of entrepreneurship in higher education (pp. 267–286). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47949-1_19

21.

Daniele

Quezada

(2017). Business models for social entrepreneurship in tourism. In Achleitner

Pollath

Stahl

(Eds.) Social entrepreneurship and tourism: Philosophy and practice (pp. 81–100). Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46518-0_5

22.

Dawson

Fountain

Cohen

D. A.

(2011). Seasonality and the lifestyle “conundrum”: An analysis of lifestyle entrepreneurship in wine tourism regions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.597580

23.

de Lange

Dodds

. (2017). Increasing sustainable tourism through social entrepreneurship. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(7), 1977–2002. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2016-0096

24.

Della Corte

Del Gaudio

Sepe

Sciarelli

. (2019). Sustainable tourism in the open innovation realm: A bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 11(21), 6114.

25.

Devkota

Raj

P. U.

Bhandari

(2020). Tourism entrepreneurs’ expectation from the provincial government in touristic city – Pokhara, Nepal. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 3(3), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhti-06-2019-0082

26.

Di Domenico

M. L.

Miller

. (2012). Farming and tourism enterprise: Experiential authenticity in the diversification of independent small-scale family farming. Tourism Management, 33(2), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.03.007

27.

Duarte

A. A.

Kok

O’Brien

(2020). Sustainable wine tourism development through the lens of dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial action: An exploratory four-region perspective. Tourism Recreation Research, 45(3), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2020.1745000

28.

Esfandiar

Sharifi

T. M.

Pratt

Altinay

(2019). Understanding entrepreneurial intentions: A developed integrated structural model approach. Journal of Business Research, 94, 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.045

29.

Ferreira

J. J. M.

Fernandes

C. I.

Ratten

(2016). A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research. Scientometrics, 109(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2008-0

30.

Garrigos

S. F. J.

Narangajavana

K. Y.

Lengua

L. I.

(2018). Tourism and sustainability: A bibliometric and visualization analysis. Sustainability, 10(6), 1976. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061976

31.

Garrigos

S. F. J.

Narangajavana

K. Y.

Narangajavana

(2019). Quality in tourism literature: A bibliometric review. Sustainability, 11(14), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143859

32.

Glänzel

Moed

H. F.

(2013). Opinion paper: Thoughts and facts on bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 96(1), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0898-z

33.

Gómez

Medina

F. X.

Puyuelo

(2016). New trends in tourism? From globalization to posmodernism. International Journal of Scientific Managment Tourism, 2(3), 417–433. http://www.ijosmt.com/index.php/ijosmt/article/view/147/154

34.

Gurel

Altinay

Daniele

(2010). Tourism students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 646–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.12.003

35.

Haber

Reichel

(2007). The cumulative nature of the entrepreneurial process: The contribution of human capital, planning and environment resources to small venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.005

36.

Hallak

Brown

Lindsay

N. J.

(2012). The place identity – Performance relationship among tourism entrepreneurs: A structural equation modelling analysis. Tourism Management, 33(1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.013

37.

Higgins

D. F.

(2018). Sustainable tourism: Sustaining tourism or something more? Tourism Management Perspectives, 25, 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.017

38.

Işık

Küçükaltanb

E. G.

Çelebic

S. K.

Çalkınd

Ö.

Ensere

İ.

Çelikf

(2019). Tourism and entrepreneurship: A literature review. Journal of Ekonomi, 1(1), 1–27.

39.

Jolonch

(2014). La importancia del emprendimiento para el desarrollo de una sociedad. In Tamayo Sánchez

C. A.

Zambrano Valdivieso

O. J.

(Eds.), Políticas Públicas para el desarrollo local y regional (1st ed., pp. 35–38). UNICIENCIA: Corporación Universitaria de Ciencia y Desarrollo.

40.

Julca

M. E. C.

(2016). Un Enfoque a La Importancia Del Turismo An approach to the importance of tourism. Turismo y Patrimonio, 10, 133–136.

41.

Kankanamge

N. S. S. H. A

. (2018). What influences the networking behaviours of female entrepreneurs? A case for the small business tourism sector in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-08-2017-0049

42.

Komppula

(2014). The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for a rural tourism destination – A case study. Tourism Management, 40, 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.07.007

43.

Koseoglu

M. A.

Rahimi

Okumus

Liu

(2016). Bibliometric studies in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.10.006

44.

Lerner

Haber

(2001). Performance factors of small tourism ventures: The interface of tourism, entrepreneurship and the environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(99)00038-5

45.

(2008). A review of entrepreneurship research published in the hospitality and tourism management journals. Tourism Management, 29(5), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.01.003

46.

Licea

Santillán

R. E.

(2002). Bibliometría ¿para qué? Biblioteca Universitaria Nueva Época, 5(1), 3–10.

47.

Lucas

M. C. A.

Salazar

O. G.

Loor

C. K.

(2019). El Emprendimiento Social en el Turismo Comunitario de la Provincia de Manabí, Ecuador. Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios En Ciencias Sociales, 21(3), 661–680. https://orcid.org/0000-

48.

Mak

A. H. N.

Wong

K. K. F.

Chang

R. C. Y.

(2011). Critical issues affecting the service quality and professionalism of the tour guides in Hong Kong and Macau. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1442–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.003

49.

Martini

Malacarne

Pederzolli Giovanazzi

Buffa

(2020). Sustainable tourism development in rural and marginal areas and opportunities for female entrepreneurship: Lessons from an exploratory study. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 12(4), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-05-2020-0023

50.

Matlay

Westhead

(2005). Virtual teams and the rise of e-entrepreneurship in Europe. International Small Business Journal, 23(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242605052074

51.

McGehee

N. G.

Kim

Jennings

G. R.

(2007). Gender and motivation for agri-tourism entrepreneurship. Tourism Management, 28(1), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.12.022

52.

Mody

Day

Sydnor

Jaffe

(2016). Examining the motivations for social entrepreneurship using Max Weber’s typology of rationality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1094–1114. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0238

53.

Mulet

F. C.

Genovart

B. J.

Mauleon

M. E.

Merigó

J. M.

(2019). A bibliometric research in the tourism, leisure and hospitality fields. Journal of Business Research, 101, 819–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.002

54.

Mwatsika

Kambewa

Chiwaula

(2018). Untangling the concept of entrepreneurship towards a common perspective. African Journal of Business Management, 12(14), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbm2018.8587

55.

Obschonka

Hakkarainen

Lonka

Salmela

A. K.

(2017). Entrepreneurship as a twenty-first century skill: Entrepreneurial alertness and intention in the transition to adulthood. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9798-6

56.

Organización Mundial del Turismo. (2020a). Covid – 19 y turismo: 2020 analisis del año (pp. 1–9). UNWTO. https://webunwto.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2021-01/2020_analisis_anual_0.pdf

57.

Organización Mundial del Turismo. (2020b). Informe de políticas: La COVID-19 y la transformación del turismo. Author. https://www.unwto.org/es/news/informe-de-politicas-sobre-el-turismo-y-la-covid-19

58.

Page

S. J.

Hartwell

Johns

Fyall

Ladkin

Hemingway

(2017). Case study: Wellness, tourism and small business development in a UK coastal resort: Public engagement in practice. Tourism Management, 60, 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.014

59.

Palanivelu

V. R.

Manikandan

(2015). Concept of Entrepreneurship. International Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(3), 7–13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344413751

60.

Peng

K. L.

Lin

P. M. C.

(2016). Social entrepreneurs: Innovating rural tourism through the activism of service science. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1225–1244. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2014-0611

61.

Pesántez

C. B. A.

Erazo

A. J. C.

Narváez

Z. C. I.

Moreno

V. P.

(2020). Estrategias de emprendimiento para el turismo comunitario. Revista Arbitrada Interdisciplinaria Koinonía, 5(10), 806. https://doi.org/10.35381/r.k.v5i10.717

62.

Polo

P. A. I.

Chica

O. J.

Frías

J. D. M.

Rodríguez

M. Á.

(2015). Market orientation adoption among rural tourism enterprises: The effect of the location and characteristics of the firm. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1966Market

63.

Ponce

F. A.

Lozano

A. M.

(2010). Highly cited works in neurosurgery. Part I: The 100 top-cited papers in neurosurgical journals: A review. Journal of Neurosurgery, 112(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.12.JNS091599

64.

Ratten

Costa

Bogers

(2019). Artisan, cultural and tourism entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 25(4), 582–591. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2018-0319

65.

Rosero

S. O. M.

Molina

S. L.

(2008). Sobre la investigación en emprendimiento. Informes Psicológicos, 10(10), 29–39.

66.

Ruhanen

Weiler

Moyle

B. D.

McLennan

C. L. J.

(2015). Trends and patterns in sustainable tourism research: A 25-year bibliometric analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(4), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.978790

67.

Ruiz

C. O.

(2008). Turismo: Factor de Desarrollo y Competitividad en México. Centro de Estudios Sociales y Opinión Pública, 46, 1–33.

68.

Russell

Faulkner

(2004). Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism area lifecycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 556–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.01.008

69.

Ryglová

(2007). Limiting factors in the field of business activities in rural tourism. Agricultural Economics, 53(9), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.17221/628-agricecon

70.

Sánchez

C. S. M.

Castillo

C. A. M.

Cabeza

R. L. J.

(2018). Sustainable tourism in sensitive areas: Bibliometric characterisation and content analysis of specialised literature. Sustainability, 10(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051525

71.

Sebele

L. S.

(2010). Community-based tourism ventures, benefits and challenges: Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Central District, Botswana. Tourism Management, 31(1), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.005

72.

Serrano

Sianes

(2019). Using bibliometric methods to shed light on the concept of sustainable tourism. Sustainability, 11(24), 6964.

73.

Sheldon

P. J.

Daniele

(Eds.). (2017). Tourism on the verge social entrepreneurship and tourism philosophy and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46518-0

74.

Sigala

(2016). Learning with the market: A market approach and framework for developing social entrepreneurship in tourism and hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(6), 1245–1286. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2014-0285

75.

Silveira

P. Y.

Cabeza

P. D.

Fernández

P. V.

(2016). Emprendimiento: Perspectiva cubana en la creación de empresas familiares. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 22(2), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedee.2015.10.008

76.

Solano

L. E.

Castellanos

Q. S. J.

López

R. M. M.

Hernández

F. J. I.

(2009). Bibliometry, an eficcient to assess the postgraduate scientific activity. Revista Electrónica de Las Ciencias Médicas En Cienfuegos, 7(4), 59–62.

77.

Solvoll

Alsos

G. A.

Bulanova

(2015). Tourism entrepreneurship – Review and future directions. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15(sup1), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2015.1065592

78.

Stoffelen

Adiyia

Vanneste

Kotze

(2020). Post-apartheid local sustainable development through tourism: An analysis of policy perceptions among ‘responsible’ tourism stakeholders around Pilanesberg National Park, South Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(3), 414–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1679821

79.

Strandberg

Nath

Hemmatdar

Jahwash

(2016). Tourism research in the new millennium: A bibliometric review of literature in tourism and hospitality research. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 18(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358416642010

80.

Sun

(2017). Lifestyle tourism entrepreneurs’ mobility motivations: A case study on Dali and Lijiang, China. Tourism Management Perspectives, 24, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.06.004

81.

Teixeira

S. J.

Ferreira

J. J. M.

(2019). Entrepreneurial artisan products as regional tourism competitiveness. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 25(4), 652–673. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-01-2018-0023

82.

Tervo

(2008). The operational and regional vulnerability of winter tourism to climate variability and change: The case of the finnish nature-based tourism entrepreneurs. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250802553696

83.

Tew

Barbieri

(2012). The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s perspective. Tourism Management, 33(1), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.005

84.

Torres

G. F.

(2019). Possunt: Cuadernos de Emprendimiento global ( Torres Granadillo

(ed.), Primera ed.). Possunt: Cuaderno Empresarial.

85.

Valdez

D. J. A.

(2015). Sintesis sobre las caracteristicas de los procesos de emprendimiento e incubación de negocios en México. Xihmai, 10(19), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.37646/xihmai.v10i19.253

86.

Valeri

Fadlon

(2019). Entrepreneurship and co-evolution in tourism. In Katsoni

Segarra-Oña

(Eds.), Smart tourism as a driver for culture and sustainability. Springer proceedings in business and economics (pp. 49–60). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03910-3_4

87.

Van Eck

N. J.

Waltman

. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

88.

Wildgaard

Schneider

J. W.

Larsen

(2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 101(1), 125–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1423-3

89.

Zacca

Dayan

(2017). Entrepreneurship: An evolving conceptual framework. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 21(2), 8–26.

90.

Zebryte

Jorquera

(2017). Chilean tourism sector “B Corporations”: Evidence of social entrepreneurship and innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 23(6), 866–879. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2017-0218

91.

Zhang

Tucker

Albrecht

J. N.

(2020). The reflexive self-project of “lifestyle entrepreneurial migrants.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 37(5), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1536016

92.

Zhao

Ritchie

J. R. B.

Echtner

C. M.

(2011). Social capital and tourism entrepreneurship. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(4), 1570–1593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.02.006