Destination Development

Destinations have a wide variety of stakeholders due to their complexity. The addition of social entrepreneurs adds another layer to the already complex policy discussions. A number of authors have identified factors which improve the competitiveness of a destination (e.g. Crouch, 2007; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003) and while the importance of entrepreneurs in this process is currently understated (Koh & Hatten, 2002; Komppula, 2014; Ryan, Mottiar, & Quinn, 2012), social entrepreneurs must now be added to destination development policies.

Whether lifestyle entrepreneurs contribute to the growth or decline of a destination is debated by Andrew, Baum, and Morrisson (2001) and Dewhurst and Horobin (1998). They suggest that the focus on their lifestyle means they may not favor growth strategies for the destination. In contrast Ateljevic and Doorne (2000) suggest that lifestyle entrepreneurs can identify gaps in the market, and grow that demand. This can attract other types of entrepreneurs, stimulating growth in the destination as a result of the process started by lifestyle entrepreneurs. This can be true for social entrepreneurs also. An example in Norway shows how an installation of art on the beach became a tourist attraction (Johns & Mattson, 2005). While this was not the objective, this social entrepreneur inadvertently acted as a ‘trigger’ to destination development. Thus social entrepreneurs may not have destination development or growth as their objective but it may be a consequence of their actions.

In other cases the social objective can be used to improve growth and attractiveness of an area. For example the development of the Greenbox (an area with a concentration of eco-tourism providers) in Ireland was a consequence of policy makers’ desires to make rural areas more sustainable. Many who had lobbied for this strategy were driven by improving the sustainability of the area, and by the desire to encourage people to be more environmentally conscious (Mottiar, 2009). Similarly, a number of social entrepreneurs in South Africa certified by Fair Trade Tourism (Boluk, 2011b) were motivated to give back to African society as a consequence of the advantages received during apartheid. Accordingly, emergent businesses uniting African rural lifestyles with sustainable development practices created opportunities for geographically isolated communities, not previously recognized as viable tourism destinations due to their lack of infrastructure and resources. The development of eco-lodges and organized responsible township tours created poverty alleviation opportunities and further stimulated social entrepreneurial capability for the poorest African communities (Boluk, 2011a, 2011c). In such cases the balancing of these two objectives is necessary at both an individual and institutional level and at every decision making point.

It is possible that the objectives of a social entrepreneur has negative consequences for a destination. For example a decision to open a drug rehabilitation clinic, or a homeless shelter, or a refuge, could result in local opposition. In such cases the social entrepreneurs’ plans can cause division in the local area as residents voice their different perspectives. In such cases the social entrepreneurs’ objectives may conflict with the destination management organization’s plans causing tension and necessitating careful negotiation and cooperation to come to an agreed solution. The social entrepreneur has some kind of impact on a tourism destination or local area. The nature and extent of this impact can be quite different, but all stakeholders in the destination need to be aware of their emergence. Destinations have organizations, formal or informal, which help plan, guide and organize their development. Local entrepreneurs form a part of such organizations but it is also important to include social entrepreneurs. As Mottiar (2007) showed, often lifestyle businesses do not become part of such organizations because they are too small or not well- established, and yet they play an integral part in the development of destinations. Similarly they may not be part of local business associations or chambers of commerce, and the way they operate may alienate them from other profit-driven entrepreneurs. Yet there are many similarities, and including those with different perspectives in decision-making processes can result in more interesting and innovative discussions.

Social entrepreneurs will have an impact on tourism destinations, whether as part of their mission or as a side effect and these impacts may be negative and/or positive. As discussed above in the general social entrepreneurship literature, sometimes these individuals are already active in a destination, but they have not been classified as a social entrepreneur but instead perhaps a community leader, ambassador or a volunteer. Thus, social entrepreneurs are not always new to destinations, they have just not been identified before as social entrepreneurs.

Social entrepreneurs create opportunities and challenges for existing destination management organizations and as such they need to be included in their institutional and policy frameworks.