Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Agritourism microbusinesses within a developing country economy: A

resource-based view
Jeffrey M. Campbell a, *, Marketa Kubickova b
a
College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management, The University of South Carolina, Close-Hipp Building 718, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
b
College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management, The University of South Carolina, Close-Hipp Building 630, Columbia, SC 29208, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study examines the role of microbusiness resources and their impact on microbusiness success within the
Agritourism agritourism domain for the developing country of Honduras. Using the resource-based view of the firm and social
Resource-based view network theoretical frameworks, the results suggests that key dimensions include small business orientation,
Social capital
social capital, and social network ties, while government promotions, brand identification, and financial re­
Small business orientation
Microbusiness resources
sources access are also key elements to microbusiness success within the community. Both business resources and
Structural resources structural resources have a positive relationship with microbusiness success. Theoretical and practical implica­
Microbusiness success tions are provided, as well as future research directions for other developing countries that may consider
agritourism.

1. Introduction income opportunities for microbusinesses along with value creation/­

The importance of microbusinesses in a world dominated by large
multinational corporations can be often overlooked, as microbusinesses
are often included in small business statistics though they can widely
differ from their small business counterparts (Woods & Muske, 2007).
Previously defined by Devins (1999) and Kangasharju (2000) as those
businesses that employ 10 or fewer workers, microbusinesses are argued
to have an increasingly greater role in economic development (Atasoy,
McConnon, & Gabe, 2007; Campin, Barraket, & Luke, 2013; Larochelle,
McConnon Jr., & Gabe, 2008), while also creating entrepreneurship
opportunities for women (Tamilmani, 2009), family groups (Chell &
Baines, 2000) and ethnic-minority business owners (Sanghera, 2002).
Microbusinesses competing in the tourism domain are of unique in­
terest, particularly those with a focus on agritourism. This is particularly
relevant for developing countries that seek to leverage their natural
resources as a point of differentiation for tourists, specifically when the
tourism can be in rural locations as opposed to typical destination lo­
cations (Komppula, 2013). Agritourism is defined as “visiting a working
farm or other agricultural setting for enjoyment, education, or active
involvement in an operation’s activities” (Gao, Barbieri, & Valdivia,
2014, p. 367). Although not all agritourism enterprises offer the same
type of activities (including direct-to-consumer sales, farm tours,
on-site-activities), benefits from these activities often include increase
enhancement of the products or services from cross-marketing activities
(Barbieri & Tew, 2016; Tew & Barbieri, 2012). Difficulties in agritour­
ism operations, however, can stem from farmers not being able to meet
tourist expectations (Karampela & Kizos, 2018), and a lack of training
and education of the workforce, among other factors (Llorca-Rodríguez,
Casas-Jurado, & García-Ferna �ndez, 2017).
While previous research on agritourism has addressed the social,
environmental, cultural, and authenticity dimensions (Barbieri, 2013;
Flanigan, Blackstock, & Hunter, 2014; Yang, 2012), as well as the con­
sumer response to agritourism marketing efforts and subsequent de­
mand generated (Asseraf & Shoham, 2017; Carpio, Wohlgenant, &
Boonsaeng, 2008; Hvass, 2014; Joyner, Kline, Oliver, & Kariko, 2018),
studies have not addressed the entrepreneurial side to agritourism and
specifically the identification of the resources necessary for micro­
businesses to succeed in agritourism ventures within their respective
communities, particularly in rural local communities. As microbusiness
success is built upon not only individual business success but also the
contributions each makes to its respective community holistically
(Campbell, Line, Runyan, & Swinney, 2010; Runyan, 2005), it becomes
important to farms, tourist providers, hotels and other agritourism
microbusinesses to understand how business resources and structural
resources can be leveraged to attain this success. To this end, the present
research fills a research gap in that it considers the role of both

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jcampbell@hrsm.sc.edu (J.M. Campbell), kubickova@hrsm.sc.edu (M. Kubickova).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100460
Received 26 May 2019; Received in revised form 30 June 2020; Accepted 5 July 2020
Available online 17 July 2020
2212-571X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova
business-related resources (internally created) and structure-related
resources (outside of the businesses’ control) and their interplay for
agritourism microbusiness development within the destination location
of Honduras.
The current study highlights the manner in which the growing
number of tourist-related businesses in Honduras are being developed as
a way for economic sustainability and the resource challenges they face.
It furthers the research stream on microbusiness development by seeking
to understand how agritourism providers in a developing country such
as Honduras view and value resources as necessary and important in
their microbusiness development. Most importantly, this study aims to
identify key resources for agritourism businesses, particularly small
microbusiness operations in developing economies, as economic drivers.
The study addresses the research questions: What are the key structural
factors important to agritourism microbusiness development? What key
microbusiness factors may lead to improved microbusiness success?
Which resource factors are viewed by agritourism microbusinesses in
Honduras as important for economic success and could help to improve
their destination marketability?
2. Literature review
2.1. Community-based tourism development
There are a number of unique factors and opportunities that have led
to the growth of community-based tourism for developing countries
such as Honduras. These have been cited as the positive effects of
creating social capital among the poor, providing added income that
leads to job opportunities for both women and young persons, as well as
the creation of microentrepreneurs for persons to gain business acumen
(UNWTO, 2004). However, as argued by Zapata, Hall, Lindo, and Van­
derschaeghe (2011) in reviewing effects for Nicaragua, top-down ap­
proaches with a strong dependence on ‘mediator organizations’ may be
less effective in addressing poverty improvement and or/socio-economic
development than those types of community-based tourism structure in
which a bottom-up approach is taken. Elements of culture, social capital
and equity, and network creation are all considered as factors that can
increase economic development (Zapata et al., 2011). Community-based
approaches suggest that, through the development of tourism within a
given area, factors such as economic improvement, social welfare, and
environmental improvement may occur (Murphy, Moscardo, & Black­
man, 2014). As a community-based endeavor, tourism relies on the
support of residents within each locale in helping to achieve success and
it has been argued that, under a social exchange theory view, “local
residents are prepared to participate in an exchange with tourists if they
believe that it is likely they will obtain benefits without incurring un­
acceptable costs” (García, Va �zquez, & Macías, 2015, p. 38). Barriers,
however, may prevent these benefits from occurring, which often
include factors relating to financial barriers, skillset and leadership is­
sues, limited market analysis, and/or poor infrastructure to leverage
tourist interaction (Murphy et al., 2014).
Similarly, a number of structural and socio-cultural factors have been
shown to affect the interaction between tourists and the local commu­
nity residents, including preconceived issues of nationalism, tourist and
resident perceptions, and how voluntary the interactions may be be­
tween the two groups. Thus, the use of social exchange theory as a basis
for research on community tourism has been called into question
(Sharpley, 2014). Community tourism development is often negatively
impacted by lack of tourism skills training and education for community
participants, changing employment patterns to meet seasonality of
tourist visits, and lack of widespread participation thereby limiting
benefits to the overall community (Moscardo, 2008). Similarly, the
negative effects of state failures across crime, security, political and
poverty dimensions have hindered tourism (Sharpley & Ussi, 2014).
With this in mind, the current research seeks to understand how
microbusinesses in the tourism sector view resource factors important to
2
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460
their success.
2.2. The evolution of microbusinesses in Honduras
Honduras was selected as the research location given that Honduras
is a developing economy in which both agriculture and tourism are key
economic generators (Hernandez Ore, Sousa, & Lopez, 2015). Forecasts
for Honduran agriculture predict that by second quarter of 2017, a 7590
million Lempiras (approximately US$3 billion) contribution to GDP
would occur (Trading Economics.comEconomics.com, n.d.). Agriculture
contributes 39.2% to total employment and accounts for approximately
13.8% of the Honduran GDP (United States Central Intelligence Agency,
2013). In 2016, tourism accounted for 14.6% of the Honduran GDP and
contributed 12.9% to total employment (World Travel & Tourism
Council, 2017). Honduras is a producer of high-quality agricultural
crops, particular cacao (chocolate), and many local farmers find success
through producing high-quality cocoa. Of most importance in the se­
lection of Honduras as an area of interest was the focus on the agricul­
ture sector by the Honduran government: specifically, that of small
businesses that are central to the social investment and economic
revival, which can lead to improved tourism opportunities within as a
destination location (Catracho, 2015).
With funding for Honduras development being cut by countries such
as the United States, particularly in the farming and agriculture domain
(Miller-Medzon, 2017), the role of small business development such as
microbusinesses becomes even more important. More than 590,000
small-to-medium-sized businesses exist in Honduras, generating more
than 1.1 million available jobs for the country (Perdomo, n.d.). Yet it is
frequently noted that a lack of capital, factors related to entrepreneurial
and fair-market conditions, as well as a lack of governmental support
make it difficult for these businesses to survive (Perdomo, n.d.). Unlike
in other parts of the world, where the small businesses are defined by
number of employees within the firm (e.g. fewer than 250 for countries
in the EU, fewer than 500 for the US) and firm financial assets (e.g.
income below €50 million) within a given year (Organisation for Eco­
nomic Co-operation and Development, n.d.), “Small business enterprises
in Honduras are classified as microempresas (microbusiness) that have
one to four employees, and pequenas empresas (small businesses) with
five to ten employees” (Theodore, 2015, p. 292). Given their resource
fragility and that the average lifespan of microbusinesses in Honduras is
11 years (Theodore, 2015), it is important to understand not only the
type of resources that microbusinesses in Honduras may use, but also
how the business owners themselves view these resources as important
and necessary to their business success.
Honduran chocolatiers, representative of the varied microbusinesses
around the country, have begun to leverage business and trade organi­
zations to better understand external consumer demand, available
markets, and to better understand value-added production opportunities
to attract consumers for their products (Arias & Fromm, 2019). Hon­
duran cacao (cocoa) has only recently been recognized as the best in
Central America and the Caribbean, recently being awarded at the 2015
Salon Du Chocolat in Paris (Kubickova & Campbell, 2020). Micro­
businesses have noted the importance of promoting and advertising
brands and products to consumers, yet have suggested a struggle in
learning how to market and retail to consumers (Kubickova & Campbell,
2020). Given the newly developing cacao agritourism market, much of
the knowledge of the markets and subsequent training in cacao pro­
duction and retailing by microbusinesses is gained from outside orga­
nizations such as FHIA (Honduran Foundation of Agricultural Research)
or APROCACAHO, a large Honduran Producers Association (Fromm,
2012). Educational opportunities regarding market development and
trends are addressed through organizations such as Capacity Develop­
ment for Agricultural Innovation Systems (CDAIS), where micro­
businesses can exchange ideas regarding production issues, as well as
market needs and value-added assessment of opportunistic products and
services to support agritourism (CDAIS.net, 2018). To this end, the
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460

microbusinesses within the country continue to gain valuable informa­ stemming from the farm, types of accommodations, or educational
tion regarding supply, demand, and can better assess current capabilities support (Gao et al., 2014). The present study posits that pursuing a small
to address future trends in agritourism. business orientation approach, as part of the business resources, is a
necessary step for microbusinesses businesses in Honduras to become
2.3. Resource-based view of the firm more established as they work to become lasting entities. Therefore, it is
suggested that:
Theoretically, the resource-based view of the firm (RBVF) can help to
H1a. Small business orientation composes one of three factor in­
frame the current study on agritourism and microbusiness development
dicators for business resources in the agritourism domain
in Honduras. The RBVF suggests that competitive advantage for busi­
nesses, particularly those to be sustained over the long-term, come from
2.5. Social network theory
firm resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991; Porter, 1980; Wernerfelt,
1984). Resources are “anything which could be thought of as a strength
Social network theory also contributes to the understanding of how
or weakness of a given firm” (Caves, 1980; Wernerfelt, 1984, p. 172).
group interactions can benefit the individual microbusinesses. The
How are these resources manifested? While Barney (1991) discussed
theory focuses on the role of strong or weak network ties, and how
resources with characteristics of being (a) valuable, (b) rare, (c) hard to
groups can benefit both internally and compete externally against
imitate, and (d) hard to substitute, other researchers have suggested
outside forces (Granovetter, 1973). Both formal and informal
culture and community environment, as well as family and entrepre­
networking between independent microbusinesses within the agritour­
neurship processes, as key strategic resources for competitive advantage
ism domain can help to create a number of benefits, including the cre­
(Adiguna, 2015). The value of intellectual capital has also been linked to
ation of stronger network ties. Communities as a whole also benefit from
performance under a resource-based framework, with dimensions of
social interaction between tourists and residents on a number of levels
human capital, structural capital, and relational capital seen as being
including economic and quality-of-life benefits (Alonso & Nyanjom,
important (Hsu & Fang, 2009; Martín-de-Castro, Delgado-Verde,
2016).
Lo�pez-Sa�ez, & Navas-Lo �pez, 2011). Martín-de-Castro et al. (2011,
Social capital is “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources
p.6510) note that: “It is difficult to provide a unified definition of IC, and
which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
even more difficult it is to propose a commonly accepted typology for it”.
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition”
Other research on intellectual capital has suggested that financial
(Bourdieu, 1986, p. 248). As the value that can be derived from in­
measures, social measures, cultural, commitment, and process measures
teractions between participants, it serves as a resource to attract cus­
can be important aspects of intellectual capital (Kannan & Aulbur,
tomers (Runyan, 2005), as a means to exchanging information, and for
2004).
small rural communities is often an important economic output of as­
Microbusinesses have been termed main-street businesses in rural or
sociations for microbusinesses such as family firms (Niehm, 2002;
small towns, often operating in downtown locations (Woods & Muske,
Niehm, Swinney, & Miller, 2008). Social capital has been conceptual­
2007). In extending the RBVF to better understand business success
ized in previous literature as multidimensional, with dimensions of
within a small downtown context, Runyan (2005) argues that resources
trust, group shared values and vision, and reciprocity being of impor­
be categorized as business-based resources and structural resources,
tance (Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000; Runyan, 2005). Given the importance of
where “business resources are those created and possessed by individual
social capital, this study posits that microbusinesses such as those in
business owners” (e.g. small business orientation), while structural re­
Honduras can benefit from social capital as a business resource so as
sources are considered to be externally-based, “more macro in nature …
long as they are willing and able to engage in group activities, share
that owners may benefit from or contribute to, but do not possess
information across business types (for example, tourist providers with
individually” (p.11). Runyan suggested that while business owners can
farms and/or hotels), work toward common goals of the community and
benefit from existing external resources outside of their development (e.
create a level of trust across group members. Therefore, it is suggested
g. community economic activity, banking regulation or government
that:
support), they are not directly creating them and similarly should also
consider resources within the businesses’ direct control. From this H1b. Social capital composes one of three factor indicators for busi­
perspective, three business resources (small business orientation, social ness resources in the agritourism domain
capital, and social network ties) are conceptualized for the current in­
Similarly, the importance of social network ties as a business
quiry on agritourism and microbusinesses, as well as three
resource is manifested through the strength of the relationships of the
structural-based resources (government promotions, brand identifica­
businesses within (Granovetter, 1973), implying that a both strong and
tion, and financial resources access) to be explored. Each is addressed
weak network ties can lead to some resource advantage. As noted by Lin
below.
(2008), social networks may be a precursory condition for the formation
of possible social capital, yet “they are not equivalent or interchangeable
2.4. Small business orientation
terms” (p.58) and thus “equating networks with social capital is incor­
rect” (p.59). Lin (2008) argues for the separation of social networks and
Small businesses, such as microbusinesses, are unique entities and
social capital as exogenous variables, given that loose or broad networks
have been considered to be different to entrepreneurs, with small
may not lead to any capital advantage and that social capital by nature is
business ventures seen as “any business that is independently owned and
not binding or bridging whereas social network ties accomplish both
operated, not dominant in its field, and does not engage in any new
tasks. Factors contributing to network ties include homophily (group
marketing or innovative practices” (Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland,
composition where the group reflects similar characteristics) and
1984, p. 358). Smaller-type businesses (like a family-owned micro­
network interaction frequency and strength (Ruef, Aldrich, & Carter,
business), which use a small business orientation (SBO), do not seek to
2003; Runyan, 2005). As businesses begin to see themselves as similar in
become large entities, they tend to be more risk-averse than entrepre­
goals, capabilities, and work to create lasting ties across business types,
neurs, and often see themselves in an emotional way as attached to the
it is believed that these ties will grow stronger which will positively
business (Stewart Jr. & Roth, 2001). Agritourism-based businesses in
influence their own individual business resources over time. Therefore,
developing countries such as Honduras are frequently driven by cultural
it is suggested that:
and family concern issues (Yang, 2012), they are often extensions of
family-related businesses such as farming or tourist-related activities H1c. Social network ties composes one of three factor indicators for
(Tew & Barbieri, 2012) and are focused on authentic experiences business resources in the agritourism domain

3
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova
2.6. Structural resources
2.6.1. Government promotions
As a structural resource, the government can have a positive effect on
microbusinesses engaging in agritourism activities. Governments and
local municipalities tend to invest a high level of resources into agri­
tourism promotion (Myer & De Crom, 2013; Yang, 2012). These in­
vestments and government-sponsored marketing/promotional activities
can have positive effects so long as agritourism promotion is not a niche
activity but rather part of a larger cohesive and multipurpose rural
tourism experience (Ainley & Smale, 2010). The role of government in
promotional activity has been shown to positively help both survival and
sustainability of microbusinesses (Samujh, 2011). Given the importance
of the government, it is suggested that:
H2a. Government promotions composes one of three factor indicators
for structural resources in the agritourism domain
2.6.2. Brand identification
Brand identification is considered to be the identity a community
may possess (Runyan, 2005). At a consumer level, brand identification
highlights the psychological connections that occur between consumer
and brand (Becerra & Badrinarayanan, 2013). Research has suggested
that a brand can help form the basis for choices made by the tourist
(Pearce, 1982) and that branding, particularly brand image, can help in
tourism destination marketing of particular areas (Hankinson, 2004a,
b). While brands have been considered to be structural resources within
the RBVF literature if properly leveraged (Barney, 1991; Runyan, 2005),
the present study argues that agritourism destination locations can
leverage their community brand successfully so long as the brands are
communicated consistently and effectively within the overall strategic
design and that the businesses can identify with and utilize the brand.
Therefore, it is suggested that:
H2b. Brand identification composes one of three factor indicators for
structural resources in the agritourism domain
2.6.3. Financial resource access
Microbusinesses, particularly those in the agritourism context, are
often challenged by a lack of, or limited access to, financial resources
(Hayes, 2017; Theodore, 2015; Woods & Muske, 2007). In contrast to
large businesses, due to size and other economic constraints, micro­
businesses have fewer resources, higher transaction costs, and often lack
budgets to keep up with larger organizations (Jones, Beynon, Pickernell,
& Packham, 2013). Past studies have suggested that lack of access to
financial resources is a major concern for businesses within the agri­
tourism domain (McGehee, 2007; Valdivia & Barbieri, 2014). Bank
support for agritourism businesses is particularly difficult, as obtaining
bank loans is a key factor for new business ventures in agritourism
(Demirovi�c, Simat, & Radovi�c, 2014). It is argued that, as a structural
resource, access to financial resources for microbusinesses wishing to
engage in or grow their current agritourism businesses is important
when the government makes loan opportunities available or banks
provide preferred low-cost loan rates. Therefore, it is suggested that:
H2c. Financial resources access composes one of three factor in­
dicators for structural resources in the agritourism domain
2.7. Business resources and structural resources
In places like small-island destinations, where destination tourism
and agriculture are important economic drivers, Baldacchino (2002)
notes the importance of marketing an identity with the help of gov­
ernment agency promotion to help businesses brand themselves as well
as create consistent messaging and networking even when firms use
unique business resources as part of their strategies. Malkanthi & Routry
(2011) suggest that for agritourism business development, while close
4
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460
relationships and linkages across tourist-activities are important in
creating social capital, a lack of access to finances or lack of government
policies and regulations to help agritourism are of equal concern. To this
end, a broad resource approach for microbusinesses engaging in agri­
tourism is necessary, and both business resources and structural re­
sources are important and related in that one without the other will not
lead to community success. Therefore, it is suggested that:
H3. There is a significant and positive relationship between business
resources and structural resources in the agritourism domain
2.8. Microbusiness success factors
Previous studies have considered various success factors as they
relate to microbusinesses. Factors such as good reputation of the product
or service, strong competence of company personnel, good knowledge of
customers and their needs, and long-term relationships with customers
have been found to be important success factors in the tourism domain,
being acknowledged as market and customer orientation-based factors
(Komppula, 2004; Komppula & Reijonen, 2006). Conversely, external
factors such as advice from incubators, consultants, or research experts
have been found to be less important (Komppula, 2004; Komppula &
Reijonen, 2006). Relating to social networking theory, research has
found that microbusinesses may belong to at least one business or as­
sociation network, yet over half surveyed did not have a master plan to
leverage their social networks (Lonier & Matthews, 2005), thereby
potentially inhibiting their microbusiness success. The success of
microtourism businesses can also be found through the availability and
use of local networks, knowledge of the local area, managerial compe­
tence and education, as well as the availability and accessibility to
economic subsidies (Yachin, 2019). In developing countries particularly,
the role of governmental factors remain strongly important to tourism
success, identified through governmental marketing and destination
advertising policies which help formalize decision making for micro­
businesses and reduce bureaucracy and uncertainty (Kimura, Ragui, &
Gakure, 2013). Success for microbusinesses is often conceptualized in
terms of a combination of subjective and economic factors (Hiemstra,
Van der Kooy, & Frese, 2006), therefore providing researchers an op­
portunity to explore various dimensions of success across multiple
platforms.
2.9. Microbusiness success and agritourism providers
How, then, should researchers measure success for microbusiness
tourism providers? It has been argued that agritourism can be an
“important piece of the economic puzzle that can result in the sound
development of resilient rural communities” (McGehee, 2007, p. 116,
see also; Edgell Sr & Harbaugh, 1993). Success for microbusinesses has
been believed to come from factors related to the economic base and
unique individual business resources that operate within the commu­
nities (Paige & Littrell, 2002; Runyan, 2005). McMahon (1996, p.181)
has concluded that “It would be impossible to over-emphasize the
importance of community involvement in achieving success in rural
tourism initiatives”. As a community supported activity, agritourism has
been found to help drive a community’s economic survival and pros­
perity (Mace, 2005). Hiemstra et al. (2006) have contended that sub­
jective success was measured by the vendor’s perception of business
success. Agritourism success may not be simply a measure of longevity
of the business or business survival, as researched by Brouder & Eriksson
(2013); rather, subjective measures for estimating business performance
have been found to be equally capable in measuring performance,
particularly for service firms (Vij & Bedi, 2016). Given this support, it
can be conceptualized that resources (both business and structural) that
can help agritourism microbusinesses succeed economically and
improve their performance will in turn lead to improvement in micro­
business success. Therefore, it is suggested that:
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova
H4. There is a significant and positive relationship between business
resources and microbusiness success in the agritourism domain
H5. There is a significant and positive relationship between structural
resources and microbusiness success in the agritourism domain
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample design
Surveys were distributed and collected during a four-month period to
microbusinesses in the country of Honduras, with the assistance of key
personnel in the country to aid with translation, business and farm
identification, and distribution across the 18 various departments (re­
gions) within the country. Given this context, the most useful sampling
design was to employ a non-probability sample design that was both
purposive (e.g. a specific targeted group) and convenient given the
difficulty of reaching every potential small microbusiness within the
country that worked within the agritourism domain. Surveys were
created in English, translated to Spanish, and finally back-translated to
ensure appropriate meaning was conveyed. Respondents were allowed
to complete the survey in either English or Spanish.
3.2. Construct measurement
Measurement items for each of the constructs were borrowed from
previous literature, with a total of nine factors and 25 measurement
items created for the study. Three factor indicators representing the
latent factor of ‘business resources’ were adapted from a study by
Runyan (2005), which reviewed small business success for downtown
areas. These included three factor indicators of small business orienta­
tion (e.g. ‘I have plans to expand this business/farm in size/sales reve­
nue’), six indicators of social capital (e.g. ‘Others share the same
ambitions and visions of our community’), and four indicators of social
network ties (e.g. ‘We in the community talk to each other regularly
about business/farming issues’). For structural resources, nine total
factor indicators were utilized across three separate factors. These
include three factor indicators of brand identity (e.g. ‘We have a com­
munity brand’), three indicators for government promotions of tourism
(e.g. ‘The government helps to promote tourism’), and three indicators
for financial resources access (e.g. ‘It is easy to obtain a loan for devel­
opment of tourism’). Indicators were borrowed from Runyan’s (2005)
research on small downtown businesses and adapted to this study
context of agritourism. Additional items were created from studies that
suggest the need for capital access to succeed in linking tourism and
agriculture (Torres, 2003; Vlaicu, 2009), as well as the importance of
government for support of rural tourism activities (Akama, 2002; Jaafar,
Abdul-Aziz, Maideen, & Mohd, 2011; Wilson, Fesenmaier, Fesenmaier,
& Van Es, 2001). Finally, three factor indicators of microbusiness suc­
cess were borrowed from Campbell et al. (2010), which included the
following: ‘How would you describe the overall performance of your
business/farm last year?’ and ‘How would you describe the overall
success of your business/farm compared to other businesses/farms like
yours?’. Subjective factors of microbusiness success were used within
the study as many of the respondents in rural Honduras did not wish to
share specific financial data but could reasonably estimate their progress
of their business or farm comparatively to prior years or other
competitors.
3.3. Demographics
A total of 90 females (37.0%) and 147 males (60.5%) completed the
survey, with five respondents (2.5%) not indicating their gender. The
minimum age of the respondents was 20 and the maximum age was 81
years, with a mean of 43 years old. A total of 130 respondents indicated
working within the farming/cooperative business, while 90 indicated
5
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460
working within the tourism sector. Most of the respondents (204) were
microbusiness owners of their respective businesses, while 16 reported
being managers/supervisors and 20 being employees. Finally, 36.9%
(89 respondents) reported an income of less than 95,000 Lempiras
(approximately US$4050), with 78.8% (200 respondents) making
500,000 Lempiras or less (US$21,313) and 8.7% (21 respondents)
making over 750,000 Lempiras (US$31,969). The average years of being
involved in the tourism or agricultural business was 15.6 years, with a
maximum of 50 years. Respondents noted that they talked with their
fellow farmers/business partners within the community frequently
(approximately 8.8 times per month), and that they attended and
engaged in community/co-op business meetings (approximately 2.9
times per month). The final sample for hypotheses testing included 242
respondents.
3.4. Reliability and validity
Reliability and validity of the measures were tested through the
creation of Cronbach’s alpha statistic and through average variance
extracted (AVE) analysis. Reliability measures ranging from 0.701 for
small business orientation to 0.878 for social capital suggest good reli­
ability of the measurement items (Cortina, 1993; Kline, 2005). Average
variance extracted values were above the 0.50 threshold, which suggests
convergent validity of the items on the construct (Fornell & Larker,
1981). Discriminant validity was also tested by comparing the AVE
values to the shared variance of the constructs (Table 1). Results also
suggested that each construct adequately discriminated from one
another and therefore discriminant validity can be inferred from the
data (Fornell & Larker, 1981; Kline, 2005).
3.5. Hypotheses testing
A two-step approach to structural equations modeling (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988) was utilized to test the proposed relationships (Fig. 1),
using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0 with AMOS structural equations
modeling. The first step included the use of confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) on the latent variables and creation of a measurement model prior
to testing of the structural model. A bootstrap method of sampling using
maximum likelihood (ML) estimation of the parameters was utilized
given its robustness of estimation capability (Kline, 2005). To assess
model fit, diagnostics, including the chi-squares statistic (χ2), degrees of
freedom, comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), were utilized (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Byrne,
2010; Kline, 2005).
4. Results
4.1. Measurement model (confirmatory factor analysis)
Prior to hypotheses testing, a measurement model was created and
confirmatory factor analysis was completed. CFA was completed on each
individual construct and subsequently a final measurement model
created where all individual measures were loaded on their proposed
latent constructs. Results of the final measurement model indicated a
good-fitting model (χ2 ¼ 415.32, df ¼ 239, χ2/df ¼ 1.74, CFI ¼ 0.94,
RMSEA ¼ 0.05), with the χ2 over degrees of freedom ratio within the
range of a good-fitting model (Wang & Juan, 2016) as well as the CFI
above 0.90 (Bentler, 1992; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005). A RMSEA
value below 0.08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Kline, 2005) also supported
a good model fit. Prior to creation of the final measurement model, as
part of the confirmatory process, the second-order factor ‘Business Re­
sources’ was specified as a function of the latent indicators of small
business orientation (SBO), social capital (SC), and social network ties
(SNT). Confirmatory factor analysis was first completed on each of the
three latent indicator factors independently to ensure measurement
items adequately loaded on each without cross-loading to other factors.
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460

Table 1
Construct reliability and validity tests.
Construct C.R. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Small Business .658 .635

Orientation
2 Social Capital .861 .248 .715
3 Social Network Ties .855 .093 .184 .776
4 Government Promotions .789 .003 .019 .024 .745
5 Brand Identification .737 .001 .026 .048 .277 .696
6 Financial Resources .834 .000 .018 .089 .134 .036 .795
Access
7 Microbusiness Success .855 .044 .055 .216 .026 .045 .075 .817

C.R. ¼ Composite Reliability.

Diagonal entries (Bolded) reflect the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct.
Off-diagonal entries reflect the variance (squared correlations) shared between constructs.

Fig. 1. Conceptual model with related hypotheses.

A combined CFA model with each of the three latent indicators was then
completed to ensure fit. The result (χ2 ¼ 79.05, df ¼ 53, χ2/df ¼ 1.49,
CFI ¼ 0.98, RMSEA ¼ 0.04) also suggested a well-fitted model. In a
similar manner, the second-order factor ‘Structural Resources’ was
specified as a function of the latent indicators of government pro­
motions, brand identification, and financial resource access. CFA was
again first completed on each of the three latent indicator factors
independently to ensure measurement items adequately loaded on each
without cross-loading to other factors. A combined CFA model with each
of the three latent indicators helped to ensure model fit. The result (χ2 ¼
58.71, df ¼ 22, χ2/df ¼ 2.67, CFI ¼ 0.96, RMSEA ¼ 0.08) suggested a
well-fitted model.
4.2. Structural model with hypotheses testing
Small business orientation, social capital, and social network ties
were hypothesized to be positive factor indicators of business resources
as part of Hypotheses 1a-1c. From the data, the three hypotheses were
supported as the factor loadings of each were statistically significant (p
< .05) and positive. Standardized factor loadings (β ¼ 0.743 for SBO; β
¼ 0.747 for SC; β ¼ 0.720 for SNT) suggested similar large effects that
well represent the construct as all were above 0.50 (Kline, 2005). Each of
the individual measures was also above 0.50, suggesting measures that
well-represented their individual proposed constructs. H1a-H1c were
therefore accepted. As part of Hypotheses 2a-2c, government pro­
motions (GP), brand identification (BI), and financial resources access
(FRA) were hypothesized to be positive measurement indicators of
structural resources. From the data, the three hypotheses were also
supported as the factor loadings of each are statistically significant (p <
.05) and positive. Standardized factor loadings for government pro­
motions and brand identification (β ¼ 0.924 for promotions; β ¼ 0.729
for brand identification) suggested large effects that well-represent the
construct (above 0.50) while the standardized loading for financial re­
sources access (β ¼ 0.493) suggested a typical or medium-effect (Kline,
2005). Each of the individual measures for the three constructs were also
above 0.50, suggesting measures that well-represented their individual
proposed constructs. Hypotheses H2a-H2c were also therefore accepted.
Finally, for Hypotheses 3–5, path relationships between structural re­
sources, business resources, and community success were tested. The
overall model reflected good fit (χ2 ¼ 448.67, df ¼ 250, χ2/df ¼ 1.79,
CFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.06). For H3, a significant relationship exists
between structural resources and business resources (β ¼ .225, p ¼ .020.
For H4, a significant relationship existed between business resources
and community success (β ¼ .414, p < .001). Finally, H5 tested the
relationship of structural resources to community success and was also
found to be significant and positive (β ¼ .156, p ¼ .046). Therefore
H3-H5 were all accepted. Results of the hypotheses testing can be seen in
Table 2 below.

6
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460

5. Discussion cities/towns with coffee or cacao farms) as valuable tourist attractions,

borrowing from research on community success/downtowns which
While the underexplored domain of agritourism as a small business suggest a unified approach to marketing and messaging could have
entrepreneurial activity has yet to gain full notice in the literature, it greater success when working with business owners (Line, Runyan,
remains important to understand those factors necessary to support Swinney, & Sneed, 2016). This approach also supports the notion that
success. This study suggests that both business resources and structural farmers, when asked to consider the necessary skillset to successfully
resources are key components to microbusiness success of agritourism. diversify into areas such as agritourism, have noted the importance of
The multidimensionality of both types of resources suggest that micro­ customer service, marketing and finance aspects over those such as
businesses who can manage internal factors (e.g. small business orien­ business planning or opportunity identification which is often done at a
tation or social capital) and can gain benefit from external factors (e.g. higher level than the farm itself (Phelan & Sharpley. 2010).
government promotions or access to financial resources) will have a
positive chance for enhancing microbusiness success. 5.1. Theoretical implications
Consistent with previous research on downtown and small busi­
nesses, which suggests that factors such as social network ties, small The review of literature presented in this paper suggested that for
business orientation, social capital and brand identity are key compo­ microbusinesses within the agritourism domain to succeed, a number of
nents to understanding successful communities and successful busi­ resources are necessary that cross both internal capabilities (e.g. busi­
nesses operating within (Beckman, Kumar, & Kim, 2013; Runyan, ness resources) and external capabilities (e.g. structural resources).
2005), the present study is the first to expand this conceptualization into Drawing on the resource-based view of the firm theoretical approach
the agritourism domain. It also considers other key factors germane to (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) it was found that small business
agritourism microbusinesses in developing countries like Honduras, orientation, social capital, and social network ties are representative of
such as government promotional activities or access to government or business resources and that these business resources are significantly
bank capital, issues that can easily make or break success. Agritourism and positively related to microbusiness success for the Honduran agri­
activities are unique, particularly in developing countries such as tourism microbusinesses. Similarly, structural resources are highlighted
Honduras, in that unlike small retail or hospitality businesses, most through government promotions, brand identification, and financial
agritourism-based businesses rely on government help and support in resource access and also are significantly related to agritourism micro­
attracting potential customers to their location given the socio-economic business success. Although business resources reflect a stronger rela­
importance to the national economy (Akama, 2002; Rogerson & Rog­ tionship to community success (β ¼ 0.414) than do structural resources
erson, 2014; Yang, 2012). This government support would be especially with agritourism microbusiness success (β ¼ 0.156), one must be
helpful when trying to position certain agricultural locations (e.g. cautious, however, of excluding the importance of the competitive
external environment and help from outside constituents (e.g. the gov­
ernment or banks) when trying to strengthen agritourism capabilities. Of
Table 2
the six dimensions of resources tested within the model (H1a-H1c and
Hypotheses test results.
H2a-H2c), government promotions (β ¼ 0.924) was perceived by re­
Parameter Hypothesis Standard Standard t- p-value spondents as the most important followed by social capital (β ¼ 0.747).
Relationship Estimate Error value
In one case (government promotions), microbusinesses in developing
Small Business H1a .743 .215 5.930 <.001** countries such as Honduras may have little or no input into how the
Orientation (← national or local governments choose to support agritourism business
Business
Resources)
development over other economic programs. Planning for such agri­
Social Capital (← H1b .747 .167 5.956 <.001** tourism endeavors is not an easy process: tourism activities that require
Business government funds or support are also at the mercy of a more top-down
Resources) approach to planning and decision making, and may not adequately
Social Network H1c .720 .169 5.956
address all of the key stakeholders such as residents and their inputs/­
<.001**
Ties (← Business
Resources) resources to help make the process more successful (Moscardo & Mur­
Government H2a .924 .361 4.569 <.001** phy, 2014). What microbusinesses can control, however, are the
Promotions (← internally-focused business resources whereby relationships across
Structural different aspects of tourism and business (farms, tourist providers, hotels
Resources)
Brand H2b .729 .301 4.866 <.001**
and restaurants) create a combined value proposition for their patrons
Identification through improved social capital and network ties. This study extends the
(← Structural argument that sustainable competitive advantage can be created
Resources) through both internal means along with externally-driven structural
Financial H2c .493 .140 4.866 <.001**
resources such as government and bank/financial support, even at the
Resources
Access (← smallest microbusiness level.
Structural The results also suggest an important role of the strategy-structure
Resources) paradigm for microbusinesses, particularly those operating within
Business H3 .225 .089 2.335 .020* agritourism. Under various considerations, strategy has been shown as a
Resources →
Structural
precursor to developing structures capable of executing those strategies
Resources into better performance, particularly when supply chain activities are
Business H4 .414 .189 4.392 <.001** involved (Defee & Stank, 2005). In agritourism activities, particularly
Resources → those that involve microbusinesses, the structures are often developed
Microbusiness
with the growth of products such as coffee or cacao on individual farms.
Success
Structural H5 .156 .144 1.997 .046* Rather, from this perspective, structures precede the decision in that
Resources → farms have the raw materials and therefore create new strategic business
Microbusiness ideas “with regard to the processing and direct marketing of a farm’s
Success own products” (Schmitt, 2010, p. 44). Farms, looking to capitalize on
(χ2 ¼ 448.67, df ¼ 250, χ2/df ¼ 1.79, CFI ¼ 0.94, RMSEA ¼ 0.06). new markets for their products or to increase farm revenue, seek to
*Significant @ p < .05; **Significant @ p < .01. leverage their farm structures through on-site farm visits, activities, and

7
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova
overnight stays (Schmitt, 2010) as well as create cultural interaction
activities for guests through culinary experiences or the creation of arts
and crafts (Naidoo & Sharpley, 2016). As noted by Tew and Barbieri
(2012, p. 217), “agritourism appears as a convenient diversification
strategy because it does not necessarily require excessive investments in
farm infrastructure, labor or equipment. Farms diversifying into tourism
are likely to focus on those activities that utilize their existing resources,
rather than requiring additional investment”. To this end, research on
the strategy-structure relationship may consider various types of agri­
tourism and the extent that diversification may be attained, particularly
as microbusinesses often struggle with financing (McGehee, 2007) or
that differences in ownership, size, and market proximity may hinder
market growth strategies and goal construction of such enterprises
(Barbieri, 2009).
5.2. Practical implications
The research presented in this paper suggests a number of practical
implications for microbusinesses competing in the agritourism domain,
including hotels, restaurants, retail shops, tourism providers and farm
operations. First, the results suggest that building social capital across
business types may help to affect overall microbusiness success. As
microbusinesses share information with one another about tourists,
products or services available, and create a more comprehensive tourism
package that creates value for the visitors, they should have a better
chance for overall success. Strong network ties through community
involvement, organizations or associations can help individual busi­
nesses compete against external threats as it has been suggested that
community associations, trust, cooperation between members and net­
works can help tourism in destination communities particularly when
trying to match tourism with the destination community members
(Moscardo, Konovalov, Murphy, McGehee, & Schurmann, 2017). While
business resources are important, structural resources are also important
to the success of microbusinesses in agritourism. Having equal access to
loans, financing, and support from national and local government
through branding and promotional efforts can help both the individual
microbusinesses as well as the industry more broadly. Collective
lobbying by tourism-related businesses to these larger entities may also
be necessary to create a consistent branding message. Lastly, the study
results suggest that for businesses considering agritourism as an eco­
nomic activity, particularly in developing countries like Honduras
where relationships are highly valued, a focus on creating social capital
with other businesses and identifying key unique business resources that
can be exploited take precedence over more structural factors in the
short term. This is suggested as a means to overcoming external factors
such as political unrest or economic shifts from governmental policy to
instead creating a level of systemic resiliency noted by Peterson, Harrill,
and DiPietro (2017) as reflective of island nations. As businesses become
more established, however, growth opportunities through added capital
or investment and promotional activity will become necessary.
6. Limitations and future research
A number of limitations to the study must be addressed to aid future
development of research within the microbusiness and agritourism
domain. First, the study only considers one specific developing country,
Honduras, whose government and business structure may vastly differ
from other developing countries engaging in, or wishing to start, agri­
tourism programs on a broader level and may limit the generalizability.
Also, the study reviews key constructs related to small business and
agritourism such as small business orientation, social capital, pro­
motions and branding while other factors such as infrastructure devel­
opment, accessibility to the various agritourism locations, previous
experience, or product diversity may be of equal importance to
8
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460
understanding why and how agritourism is successful around the
country. It should also be noted that Honduras is comprised of 18 de­
partments/regions (Dupuis, 2018), with varying sets of resources which
can make sustainability of agritourism enterprises a difficult proposition
based upon differences in locale and as noted in the sampling, somewhat
difficult in reaching potential microbusiness respondents to survey.
Similarly, it should also be noted that like many other countries,
Honduras has key natural resources (including a large barrier reef and
ancient ruins) which already bring tourists into the country, although
agritourism is a developing concept of focus in which they are currently
in the initial stages. With any self-report survey, respondents may
exhibit desired responses versus actual behaviors or may misinterpret
the survey questions in some way. Difficulty in reaching some farm­
s/tourism providers and other possible key microbusinesses may also
limit the results.
While the current research considered Honduras as an entirety,
future research should consider potential key resource differentiators
across each department/region that can help to increase lifespan of the
microbusinesses above the average of 11 years. Though it was noted in
the research sample that the average years of being involved in the
tourism or agricultural business was 15.6 years with a maximum of 50
years, future research should include a review of family-owned micro­
businesses versus non-family owned entities to better understand how
resource development and utilization can help sustain the business over
time. Research may also seek to expand the conceptual framework,
which considered microbusiness resources as either business or struc­
tural to other types of resources, such as natural resources or factors
relating to access when determining how successful an agritourism
program may become for destination locations within developing
economies. The role of intellectual capital may also be of future interest,
as farms/businesses continue to grow and develop through added
educational opportunities and the creation of longer established
microbusinesses over time. A deeper understanding of other potential
key stakeholders in agritourism development for microbusinesses (e.g.
government, tourists, and local citizens) will be vital as developing
countries such as Honduras seek to gain economic stability and viability.
Finally, longitudinal research on the development of agritourism pro­
grams and microbusinesses and any potential affects from governmental
policy, investment, or educational incentives will help to determine
which factors may be most prevalent in predicting microbusiness suc­
cess. In the end, the success of agritourism for microbusinesses in
Honduras and other developing economies as potential destination lo­
cations may not only depend on individual business acumen, but also on
how the business is able to get external support from outside stake­
holders in the form of promotions and marketing, capital, and benefits
from unique branding initiatives for an extended period of time.
Author statement
Jeffrey M. Campbell: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - review & edit­
ing, Funding acquisition. Marketa Kubickova: Conceptualization,
Investigation, Data curation, Writing - review & editing, Funding
acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially funded by an Interdisciplinary Grant through
The University of South Carolina College of HRSM.
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460

Appendix 1. Survey measures for the study

Code Measure

Small Business Orientation

SBO1 I established this business/farm because it fit my personal life better than working for others
SBO2 I love my business/farm
SBO3 I have plans to expand this business/farm in size/sales revenue
Social Capital
SC1 Others would say I am trustworthy
SC2 I can be trusted by others not to take advantage of them
SC3 Others are generally fair in dealing with me
SC4 Others visit my business because I support the community
SC5 Others share the same ambitions and visions for our community
SC6 Others like to work toward achieving community goals
Social Network Ties
SNT1 We in the community know each other by name
SNT2 We in the community talk to each other regularly about business/farming issues
SNT3 I am similar to these people in terms of my business/community/farm philosophy
SNT4 I am similar to these people in terms of my values and beliefs
Promotions
P1 The government helps to promote tourism
P2 Government agencies (e.g. FIA, IHT, ProHonduras) provide support for tourism development
P3 Local financial institutions help to promote tourism in our country
Brand Identification
BI1 Local government presents a consistent image of the community
BI2 Our community has a symbol(s) readily recognized by visitors
BI3 We have a community brand
Financial Resources
FR1 The interest rates available to farmers are reasonable
FR2 Local financial institutions provide capital for tourism development
FR3 It is easy to obtain a loan for development of tourism
Microbusiness Success
MS1 How would you describe the overall performance of your community last year
MS2 How would you describe the overall performance of your business/farm last year
MS3 How would you describe the overall performance of your business/farm compared to other businesses/farms like yours

References Beckman, E., Kumar, A., & Kim, Y. K. (2013). The impact of brand experience on
downtown success. Journal of Travel Research, 52(5), 646–658.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the
Adiguna, R. (2015). Organisational culture and the family business. In M. Nordqvist,
Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 400.
L. Melin, M. Waldkirch, & G. Kumeto (Eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Family
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory
Business (pp. 156–174). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Ainley, S., & Smale, B. (2010). A profile of Canadian agritourists and the benefits they
Brouder, P., & Eriksson, R. H. (2013). Staying power: What influences micro-firm
seek. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 5(1/2), 58–75.
survival in tourism? Tourism Geographies, 15(1), 125–144.
Akama, J. S. (2002). The role of government in the development of tourism in Kenya.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In
International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(1), 1–14.
K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Alonso, A. D., & Nyanjom, J. (2016). Tourism, quality of life, and residents of a rural
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
town. Tourism Analysis, 21(6), 617–629.
Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
Campbell, J. M., Line, N., Runyan, R. C., & Swinney, J. L. (2010). The moderating effect
411–423.
of family-ownership on firm performance: An examination of entrepreneurial
Arias, R. C., & Fromm, I. (2019). From cocoa producers to chocolatiers? Developing an
orientation and social capital. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 21(2), 27–45.
entrepreneurial model for small-scale producers in Honduras. International Journal
Campin, S., Barraket, J., & Luke, B. (2013). Micro-business community responsibility in
on Food System Dynamics, 10(1), 38–54.
Australia: Approaches, motivations and barriers. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3),
Asseraf, Y., & Shoham, A. (2017). Destination branding: The role of consumer affinity.
489–513.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(4), 375–384.
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. (1984). Differentiating
Atasoy, S., McConnon, J. C., Jr., & Gabe, T. (2007). The economic impact and importance of
entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of
microbusinesses to the new England economy. Resource economics and policy department
Management Review, 9(2), 354–359.
Staff paper (Vol. 560). Orono, Maine: The University of Maine.
Carpio, C. E., Wohlgenant, M. K., & Boonsaeng, T. (2008). The demand for agritourism in
Baldacchino, G. (2002). A taste of small-island success: A case from Prince Edward
the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 33(2), 254–269.
island. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(3), 254–259.
Catracho, J. R. (2015). Honduras to use foreign financing to help agriculture sector.
Barbieri, C. (2009). A comparison of agritourism and other farm entrepreneurs:
Hondurasnews.com. Retrieved 01.18.20. from https://www.hondurasnews.com/hon
Implications for future tourism and sociological research on agritourism. In
duras-to-use-foreign-financing-to-help-agriculture-sector/.
D. B. Klenosky, & C. L. Fisher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Northeastern Recreation
Caves, R. E. (1980). Industrial organization, corporate strategy and structure. Journal of
research Symposium; 2008 March 30-April 1; Bolton Landing, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-
Economic Literature, 18(1), 64–92.
P-42 (pp. 343–349). Northern Research Station: Newtown Square, PA: US
CDAIS.net. (2018). Creating spaces for cacao producers to find new markets and build new
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
capacities. Retrieved 02.17.20. from https://cdais.net/2018/06/20/honduras-a-
Barbieri, C. (2013). Assessing the sustainability of agritourism in the US: A comparison
story-of-change-on-cacao/.
between agritourism and other farm entrepreneurial ventures. Journal of Sustainable
Chell, E., & Baines, S. (2000). Networking, entrepreneurship and microbusiness
Tourism, 21(3), 252–270.
behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(3), 195–215.
Barbieri, C., & Tew, C. (2016). Perceived impact of agritourism on farm economic standing,
Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.
sales and profits (vol. 34). 2010 Tourism Travel and Research Association: Advancing
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
Tourism Research Globally. Retrieved 12.20.19. from https://scholarworks.umass.
Defee, C. C., & Stank, T. P. (2005). Applying the strategy-structure-performance
edu/ttra/2010/Oral/34.
paradigm to the supply chain environment. International Journal of Logistics
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 16(1), 28–50.
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Demirovi�c, D., Simat, K., & Radovi�c, G. (2014). State support for development of
Becerra, E. P., & Badrinarayanan, V. (2013). The influence of brand trust and brand
agritourism entrepreneurship in AP Vojvodina (Serbia). Tourism Education Studies
identification on brand evangelism. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22
and Practice, 1(1), 11–22.
(5/6), 371–383.

9
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova
Devins, D. (1999). Supporting established micro businesses: Policy issues emerging from
an evaluation. International Small Business Journal, 18(1), 86–96.
Dupuis, J. (2018). Honduras departments. HondurasTravel.com. Retrieved 12.10.19. from
https://hondurastravel.com/about-hondurastravel-com/honduras-departments/.
Edgell Sr, D. L., & Harbaugh, L. (1993). Tourism development: An economic stimulus in
the heart of America. Business America, 114(2), 17–18.
Falk, Ian, & Kilpatrick, Sue (2000). What is social capital? A study of interaction in a
rural community. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(1), 87–110.
Flanigan, S., Blackstock, K., & Hunter, C. (2014). Agritourism from the perspective of
providers and visitors: A typology-based study. Tourism Management, 40(1),
394–405.
Fornell, C., & Larker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Fromm, I. (2012). Linking small scale cocoa farmers from Honduras to the Swiss chocolate
industry through targeted partnerships. Retrieved 03.10.20. from https://mfe.be/ch
oconomics/fromm.pdf.
Gao, J., Barbieri, C., & Valdivia, C. (2014). Agricultural landscape preferences:
Implications for agritourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 53(3),
366–379.
García, F. A., V� azquez, A. B., & Macías, R. C. (2015). Resident’s attitudes towards the
impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13, 33–40.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78
(6), 1360–1380.
Hankinson, G. (2004a). Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place
brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 109–121.
Hankinson, G. (2004b). The brand images of tourism destinations: A study of the saliency
of organic images. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13(1), 6–14.
Hayes, L. A. (2017). The hidden labor of repayment: Women, credit, and strategies of
microenterprise in northern Honduras. Economic Anthropology, 4(1), 22–36.
Hernandez Ore, M. A., Sousa, L. D., & Lopez, J. H. (2015). Honduras: Unlocking economic
potential for greater opportunities. Systematic Country Diagnostic. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Hiemstra, A. M., Van der Kooy, K. G., & Frese, M. (2006). Entrepreneurship in the street
food sector of Vietnam: Assessment of psychological success and failure factors.
Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 474–481.
Hsu, Y. H., & Fang, W. (2009). Intellectual capital and new product development
performance: The mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 664–677.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Hvass, K. A. (2014). To fund or not to fund: A critical look at funding destination
marketing campaigns. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 3(3),
173–179.
Jaafar, M., Abdul-Aziz, A. R., Maideen, S. A., & Mohd, S. Z. (2011). Entrepreneurship in
the tourism industry: Issues in developing countries. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 30(4), 827–835.
Jones, P., Beynon, M. J., Pickernell, D., & Packham, G. (2013). Evaluating the impact of
different training methods on SME business performance. Environment and Planning
C: Government and Policy, 31(1), 56–81.
Joyner, L., Kline, C., Oliver, J., & Kariko, D. (2018). Exploring emotional response to
images used in agritourism destination marketing. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 9, 44–55.
Kangasharju, A. (2000). Growth of the smallest: Determinants of small firm growth
during strong macroeconomic fluctuations. International Small Business Journal, 19
(1), 28–43.
Kannan, G., & Aulbur, W. G. (2004). Intellectual capital: Measurement effectiveness.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(3), 389–413.
Karampela, S., & Kizos, T. (2018). Agritourism and local development: Evidence from
two case studies in Greece. International Journal of Tourism Research, 20(5), 566–577.
Kimura, E., Ragui, M., & Gakure, R. (2013). Organizational and governmental policies:
Hindrance to success of tourism businesses owned by indigenous Kenyans. Prime
Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4), 282–290.
Kline, R. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Komppula, R. (2004). Success factors in small and microbusinesses: A study of three branches
of industry in North Karelia (Vol. 17). Discussion papers. ISBN952-458-514-6 (pdf).
Komppula, R. (2013). Success and growth in rural tourism micro-businesses in Finland:
Financial or life-style objectives? In R. Thomas (Ed.), Small firms in tourism:
International perspective (pp. 125–148). Oxford: Elsevier.
Komppula, R., & Reijonen, H. (2006). Performance determinants in small and micro
tourism business. Tourism Review, 61(4), 13–20.
Kubickova, M., & Campbell, J. M. (2020). The role of government in agro-tourism
development: A top-down bottom-up approach. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(5),
587–604.
Larochelle, S., McConnon, J. C., Jr., & Gabe, T. M. (2008). Effects of microbusiness on US
regional economic growth. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maine.
Lin, N. (2008). A network theory of social capital. In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, &
G. Wolleb (Eds.), The handbook of social capital (pp. 50–69). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Line, N., Runyan, R., Swinney, J., & Sneed, C. (2016). Community stakeholders and the
perception of tourism downtowns: An assessment of brand identity. Tourism Analysis,
21(2/3), 159–172.
10
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460
Llorca-Rodríguez, C. M., Casas-Jurado, A. C., & García-Fern� andez, R. M. (2017). Tourism
and poverty alleviation: An empirical analysis using panel data on Peru’s
departments. International Journal of Tourism Research, 19(6), 746–756.
Lonier, T., & Matthews, C. H. (2005). Measuring the impact of social networks on
entrepreneurial success: The master mind principle. Babson College. Retrieved 03.10.20.
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.203.4749&re
p¼rep1&type¼pdf.
Mace, D. (2005). Factors motivating agritourism entrepreneurs. In Risk and Profit
Conference, Manhattan, Kansas. Retrieved 05.10.19. from https://www.agmrc.org/m
edia/cms/Mace_BA47806FF3EE2.pdf.
Malkanthi, S. H. P., & Routry, J. K. (2011). Potential for agritourism development:
Evedance [sic.] from Sri Lanka. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 6(1), 45–58.
Martín-de-Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M., L� opez-S�aez, P., & Navas-L� opez, J. E. (2011).
Towards an intellectual capital-based view of the firm: Origins and nature. Journal of
Business Ethics, 98(4), 649–662.
McGehee, N. G. (2007). An agritourism systems model: A Weberian perspective. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 15(2), 111–124.
McMahon, F. (1996). Rural and agri-tourism in Central and Eastern Europe. In
G. Richards (Ed.), Tourism in central and Eastern Europe: Educating for quality (pp.
175–182). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Miller-Medzon, K. (2017). Struggling Honduran farmers cope with climate challenges.
Retrieved 05.12.19. from https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/06/20/hondur
as-farmers-climate-challenges.
Moscardo, G. (2008). Building community capacity for tourism development. Cambridge,
MA: CABI Publishing.
Moscardo, G., Konovalov, E., Murphy, L., McGehee, N. G., & Schurmann, A. (2017).
Linking tourism to social capital in destination communities. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, 6(4), 286–295.
Moscardo, G., & Murphy, L. (2014). There is no such thing as sustainable tourism: Re-
conceptualizing tourism as a tool for sustainability. Sustainability, 6(5), 2538–2561.
Murphy, L., Moscardo, G., & Blackman, A. (2014). Tropical communities as resources for
tourism or tourism as a resource for tropical communities: Changing the perspective
by applying a community well-being framework in the Mekong Delta. In Conference
Proceedings of BEST EN Think Tank XIV: Politics, policy and governance in sustainable
tourism (pp. 232–250).
Myer, S. L., & De Crom, E. P. (2013). Agritourism activities in the Mopani District
municipality, Limpopo Province, South Africa: Perceptions and opportunities. TD:
The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 9(2), 295–308.
Naidoo, P., & Sharpley, R. (2016). Local perceptions of the relative contributions of
enclave tourism and agritourism to community well-being: The case of Mauritius.
Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(1), 16–25.
Niehm, L. S. (2002). Retail superpreneurs and their influence on small communities.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Niehm, L. S., Swinney, J., & Miller, N. J. (2008). Community social responsibility and its
consequences for family business performance. Journal of Small Business Management,
46(3), 331–350.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Enterprises by business size
(n.d.) Retrieved 05.20.19. from https://data.oecd.org/entrepreneur/enterprises
-by-business-size.htm.
Paige, R. C., & Littrell, M. A. (2002). Craft retailers’ criteria for success and associated
business strategies. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(4), 314–331.
Pearce, P. L. (1982). Perceived changes in holiday destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 9(2), 145–164.
Perdomo, A.. What’s it like to be an entrepreneur in Honduras? (n.d.) Retrieved
05.13.19. from https://upspringassociates.com/being-an-entrepreneur-in-honduras
/.
Peterson, R., Harrill, R., & DiPietro, R. (2017). Sustainability and resilience in Caribbean
tourism economies: A critical inquiry. Tourism Analysis, 22(3), 407–419.
Phelan, C., & Sharpley, R. (2010). Agritourism and the farmer as rural entrepreneur: A
UK analysis. In NeXT tourism entrepreneurship Conference, 26th-27th April 2010.
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rogerson, C., & Rogerson, J. M. (2014). Agritourism and local economic development in
South Africa. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series, 26(26), 93–106.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams:
Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological
Review, 68, 195–222.
Runyan, R. C. (2005). Predicting downtown and small business success: A resource-based
view. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Samujh, R. H. (2011). Micro-businesses need support: Survival precedes sustainability.
Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 11(1), 15–28.
Sanghera, B. (2002). Microbusiness, household and class dynamics: The embedding of
minority ethnic petty commerce. The Sociological Review, 50(2), 241–257.
Schmitt, M. (2010). Agritourism: From additional income to livelihood strategy and rural
development. The Open Social Science Journal, 3(1), 41–50.
Sharpley, R. (2014). Host perceptions of tourism: A review of the research. Tourism
Management, 42, 37–49.
Sharpley, R., & Ussi, M. (2014). Tourism and governance in small island developing
states (SIDS): The case of Zanzibar. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(1),
87–96.
Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between
entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(1), 145–153.
Tamilmani, B. (2009). Rural women microentrepreneurs: An empirical study on their
social profile, business aspects and economic impact. The IUP Journal of
Entrepreneurship Development, 6(2), 7–20.
J.M. Campbell and M. Kubickova Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 17 (2020) 100460

Tew, C., & Barbieri, C. (2012). The perceived benefits of agritourism: The provider’s Yang, L. (2012). Impacts and challenges in agritourism development in development in
perspective. Tourism Management, 33(1), 215–224. Yunnan, China. Tourism Planning & Development, 9(4), 369–381.
Theodore, J. (2015). Small and medium size private business enterprises in the economic Zapata, M. J., Hall, C. M., Lindo, P., & Vanderschaeghe, M. (2011). Can community-
structure of Honduras. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 7(2), based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from
290–298. Nicaragua. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(8), 725–749.
Torres, R. (2003). Linkages between tourism and agriculture in Mexico. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30(3), 546–566.
Trading Economics.com. Honduras GDP from agriculture: Forecast 2016-2020 (n.d.)
Retrieved 01.10.20 from https://tradingeconomics.com/honduras/gdp-from Dr. Jeffrey M. Campbell is an Associate Professor in the Col­
-agriculture/forecast. lege of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management at The
United States Central Intelligence Agency. (2013). The world Factbook 2013-14. University of South Carolina. His research interests include
agritourism, small business and entrepreneurship, and local
Washington D.C. Retrieved 05.13.19. from https://www.cia.gov/library/publicati
ons/the-world-factbook/index.html. food production. He received his Ph.D. from the University of
Tennessee, Knoxville and has published in the tourism, mar­
UNWTO. (2004). Tourism and poverty alleviation recommendations for action. Madrid:
Author. keting, hospitality and retailing domains.
Valdivia, C., & Barbieri, C. (2014). Agritourism as a sustainable adaptation strategy to
climate change in the Andean Altiplano. Tourism Management Perspectives, 11, 18–25.
Vij, S., & Bedi, H. S. (2016). Are subjective business performance measures justified?
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(5), 603–621.
Vlaicu, A. N. (2009). Financing tendencies for agritourism activities. Seria Stiinte
Ingineresti si Agro-tourism, 4, 127–135.
Wang, E. S. T., & Juan, P. Y. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and service innovation
on consumer response: A B&B case. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(2),
532–545.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5 Marketa Kubickova (PhD) is an Assistant Professor at the
(2), 171–180. University of South Carolina in the School of Hotel, Restaurant
Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D. R., Fesenmaier, J., & Van Es, J. C. (2001). Factors for success and Tourism Management. Dr. Kubickova has received her Ph.
in rural tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 40(2), 132–138. D. from University of Central Florida, Orlando. Her research
Woods, M. D., & Muske, G. (2007). Economic development via understanding and interests mainly focus on competitiveness, tourism economics,
growing a community’s microbusiness segment. In N. Walzer (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and governance with special emphasis on developing econo­
and local economic development (pp. 187–210). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. mies. Dr. Kubickova has mainly published in the hospitality
World Travel, & Tourism Council. (2017). Travel & tourism economic impact 2017 world. and tourism domain.
Retrieved 05.20.19. from https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic
-impact-research/regions-2017/world2017.pdf.
Yachin, J. M. (2019). The entrepreneur–opportunity nexus: Discovering the forces that
promote product innovations in rural micro-tourism firms. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism, 19(1), 47–65.

11