ESPECIMEN Y REFRENTADO

It is possible that the potential in STBs’ relationship with their LC vary. The literature suggests that STBs interact with different actors in their LC and beyond, implying differences in the potential of their ties (see 3.3). In particular, STBs have been observed to maintain ties with businesses in the tourism sector and other industry sectors, industry and trade organisations, governmental bodies, environmental groups,

51

LC members and community groups (see Figure 3.1). The literature indicates that STBs’ ties are typically informal and that relationships tend to take the form of recommendations to and from other businesses, the provision of complementary services, and overflow referrals (Costa et al., 2008; Mottiar, 2007). These works suggest that STBs have multiple means for accessing and contributing to SC in their LC.

Figure 3.1. Stakeholders in tourism networks.

Source: Chell and Baines, 2000; Costa et al., 2008; Halme and Fadeeva, 2000; Keen, 2004; Kokkranikal and Morrison, 2011; Komppula, 2004; Mottiar and Ryan, 2007; Pavlovich, 2001, 2003, 2004; Tinsley and Lynch, 2008).

At the same time, research implies differences regarding the types of actors that STBs interact with. Findings from King et al. (2012) infer that some STBs have informal relationships with other businesses, and interact with their local and non-local tourism business-community, whereas other STBs might engage in more formal co-operation and interact more with their local non-tourism business-community. Differences between STBs are also implicit in other studies. For instance, Curran et al. (2001) observe that small businesses in their study were particularly disconnected from the

52

local social and political – as opposed to economic – environment, irrespective of the sector they operated in. Likewise, Mottiar (2007) found that STBs tended to interact only with the local business community. In contrast, Paniagua (2002) observes that tourism business owners in rural Spain also tend to have links to their local non- business community, and finds that these are usually related to the owners’ personal connection to the community. In accordance with this, Keen (2004) explores STB OMs’ ties with the local non-business community and observes that tourism business owners maintained personal relationships with it. Bosworth and Farrell (2011) make similar observations and find that STBs tend to have ties with their local non-business community. These studies are an indication that STBs’ relationship with the LC differs, regarding both the actual and the potential relationship.

Equally possible is that the nature of STBs’ relationship with the LC differs. For instance, research by Lynch (2000) identified differences in density of STBs’ economic ties. While some OMs were part of dense tourism networks, others were part of less dense networks, and some did not seem to participate at all. Similarly, Chell and Baines (2000) found variations in the quantity of ties small businesses had, and the frequency of their interactions. Another study by Sweeney and Lynch (2009) found variations in STBs’ relationship with their local business community. Specifically, they observe that some OMs had a more competitive relation with their local business community than others, while another group appeared to work closely with their LC. These works lend additional support to the argument that STBs might differ in their potential to contribute to SS through their relationship with their LC.

This argument is further supported by studies that identify differences in STB OMs’ motivations to interact with the LC. More specifically, STB OMs’ appear to be driven by different motives to engage with their business’ LC. For instance, O’Donnell and Cummins (1999) observe that STBs network with other businesses to achieve a tangible economic benefit. Similarly, Mottiar (2007) and Costa et al. (2008) identify expectations of economic benefit as an influence on STBs’ economic ties. Costa et al.

53

(2008) find that business owners described the main advantages of their economic relations as including credibility and representativeness, and access to training and support (formal relationships to tourism associations), as well as opportunities for strategic partnerships, informal networking, and legal support (affiliations with organisations in their respective sector). Likewise, studies by Chell and Baines (2000), Hallak et al. (2012), Mottiar (2007) and King et al. (2012) suggest that STBs’ relationship with their LC is driven by an interest in economic benefits. In contrast, Fuller and Tian (2006) observe that tourism SMEs’ interaction with other businesses related to their owners’ non-economic motivations. Furthermore, they find that when SME owners’ behaviour is informed by a sense of responsibility towards others, it results in stronger ties than when driven by a concern with commercial benefits. Another study by Hallak et al. (2012) notes that tourism SMEs’ relationship with their local business community is related to their OMs’ understandings of their ability to pursue lifestyle goals in it. It follows from these studies that STB OMs might have different reasons for engaging with their business’ LC.

Similarly, studies regarding in-migrant tourism business owners indicate that STBs might differ in their relationship with the LC. In his study on migrant tourism business owners in rural Spain, Paniagua (2002) identifies that differences among in-migrant tourism entrepreneurs to successfully integrate into their local non-business communities related to their personal relationship with it. Specifically, the author finds that, while all owners integrate to a certain extent, those who had links with the area in the past or chose the area strategically to run their business were more successful. Paniagua’s (2002) work is complemented by Akgün et al. (2011), who observe in their systematic literature review that tourism entrepreneurs’ interaction with their local business and non-business community is related to their personal relationship with it. Those entrepreneurs who had in-migrated to the LC were less likely to interact with the local business and non-business community than those who originated from the community. This echoes research by Carlsen et al. (2001), who found differences regarding the behaviour of STB OMs who were born in the community and those who

54

had immigrated. Together, these studies emphasise the need to consider possible differences in STBs’ relationship with their LC.

It is possible that differences in STBs’ interaction with their LC relate to local economic and tourism development. Drawing on theories of reasoned action and business strategy frameworks, Dewhurst and Thomas (2003) developed a framework to analyse STB engagement in environmental sustainability practices, and identify external factors, including political, economic and social forces, as well as the more immediate geographical and sectoral environment including competitors and suppliers, as influences on STB behaviour. Additionally, Doxey’s Irridex model from 1975 (see Fletcher 2005) proposes that resident attitudes towards tourists deteriorate with increasing tourism development, going through several stages: euphoria, apathy, irritation, antagonism and final, the latter of which indicates tourists’ move toward other tourist destinations. Allen et al. (1993) find that the level of local economic activity also plays a role. In particular, the authors (Allen et al., 1993) observe among rural communities in Colorado, USA, that communities with high levels of economic activity and low levels of tourism development, as well as those with low economic activity and high levels of tourism development both demonstrate more negative attitudes towards tourism. This, they argue, is related to the communities’ lack of interest in tourism development; because of perceived sufficient economic activity in the case of the former and unfulfilled economic expectations of tourism development in the case of the latter. In contrast, they found that communities where expectations of tourism were fulfilled (high economic activity and high level of tourism development), or where tourism was perceived as a potentially valuable source of economic income in future (low economic activity and low tourism development), attitudes towards tourism were favourable. These observations are further supported by Getz (1994), who found that resident attitudes towards tourism are likely to be influenced by the performance of the industry, and the destinations’ economic dependence on it. The author (Getz, 1994) suggests that a destination that is more dependent on tourism is more tolerant to negative changes in the industry’s

55

performance than a destination that has a more varied economic base. Likewise, Hao

et al. (2010) and Andereck et al. (2005) highlight a relationship between the economic

benefits a person receives from tourism and their attitude towards it. This implies that local economic and tourism development may influence the relationship between STBs and their LC.

The literature suggests rural accessibility as a further influence on STBs’ relationship with their LC. In her study of firms’ networking behaviour in accessible and remote locations in Scotland, Atterton (2007) observes that business owners in the most remote rural town are more likely to have long-standing social ties, and links with their family. Owners in this town tended to have local ties, comparatively fewer extra-local relations and were more inward-looking. Similarly, Sutherland and Burton (2011) observe that small-scale farmers in remote locations were more dependent on local economic relationships to source staff and equipment than those in more accessible locations. In contrast, Atterton (2007) finds that businesses in accessible locations had weaker ties to their LC, and were more likely to engage with actors in the city to exploit possible opportunities. Based on her findings, she argues that in the most rural location it was more likely that the strength of ties would lead to an overriding of economic arguments, as norms and social obligations result in high opportunity costs. This research therefore suggests that STBs’ potential to contribute to SS through their relationship with the LC relates to the accessibility of their location.

The studies reviewed thus far indicate that STBs might differ in their relationship with their LC and hence their potential to contribute to SS. They also emphasise the need to consider how local economic and tourism development as well as rural accessibility relate to the STB-community relationship. Moreover, they stress that the nature and potential in the STB-community relationship relates to their OMs’ personal ties with it, which echoes the literature reviewed in Chapter Two (see chapter 2.1).

56

3.4.2. Owner-managers’ views of their business’ relationship with the local