Tourism Planning & Development

ISSN: 2156-8316 (Print) 2156-8324 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rthp21

Community Networks and Sustainable Livelihoods

in Tourism: The Role of Entrepreneurial Innovation

Jithendran Kokkranikal & Alison Morrison

To cite this article: Jithendran Kokkranikal & Alison Morrison (2011) Community Networks and
Sustainable Livelihoods in Tourism: The Role of Entrepreneurial Innovation, Tourism Planning &
Development, 8:2, 137-156, DOI: 10.1080/21568316.2011.573914

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2011.573914

Published online: 09 Jun 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1290

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rthp21
Tourism Planning & Development
Vol. 8, No. 2, 137– 156, May 2011

Community Networks and Sustainable

Livelihoods in Tourism: The Role of
Entrepreneurial Innovation
JITHENDRAN KOKKRANIKAL∗ AND ALISON MORRISON∗∗
∗
Business School, University of Greenwich, London, UK and ∗∗ Management School, University
of Surrey, Guildford, UK

ABSTRACT Entrepreneurial innovation plays a significant role in tourism development, especially

in communities with limited experience or expertise in tourism. Innovative tourism businesses, often
in the small business sector, are likely to be more beneficial to the local community in terms of job
creation and economic linkages. Such forms of tourism could offer new forms of livelihood in
destination communities, making tourism an effective strategy for livelihood diversification that is
more sustainable and community-based. Community-based tourism initiatives can also help form
community networks that facilitate involvement of local stakeholders in a more efficient manner.
This paper analyses the role of entrepreneurial innovation in facilitating community networks and
sustainable livelihoods in tourism. A case study of an eco-heritage tourism resort of Coconut
Palms, in the Indian state of Kerala provides an illustration of how entrepreneurial innovation
helped form a community network and offer sustainable livelihood diversification opportunities to
stakeholders in the periphery of tourism. The paper thus contributes an example of a sustainable
community– private network and a new understanding into a phenomenon that has potential to
make a real contribution to the lives of individuals in disadvantaged communities.

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to consider the role of entrepreneurial innovation in tourism devel-
opment through the facilitation of networks within destination communities. It provides an
overview of how this could pioneer new products and services and stimulate social and
economic transformation with direct, sustainable, and equitable distribution of benefits
with respect to the livelihoods of the indigenous population. Thus, within the context of
the tourism industry, theories and concepts associated with entrepreneurial innovation,
community networks, and sustainable livelihoods are reviewed and analysed. A case
study research methodology approach is adopted and employed to further investigate
the phenomena at a micro-level; that of the community network that has evolved to
support and operate the eco-heritage tourism resort of Coconut Palms in the Indian state
of Kerala. This provides a useful illustration of an indigenous community network initiat-
ive involving local stakeholders at the periphery of tourism, facilitated by an external tour

Correspondence Address: Dr Jithendran Kokkranikal, Business School, University of Greenwich, London,

SE10 9L5, UK. Email: j.kokkranikal@gre.ac.uk

ISSN 2156-8316 Print; ISSN 2156-8324 Online/11/020137–20 # 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/21568316.2011.573914
138 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

operator entrepreneur. Conclusions are drawn relative to examples of best practices that
could inform and guide future such community-led initiatives, inform policy, and stimu-
late new research directions within the relevant academic communities.
While possible limitations regarding dependence on a single case are recognised, this is
offset by the rich insight generated. It provides a source of new understanding into a
phenomenon that has potential to make a real contribution to the lives of people in disad-
vantaged communities. The paper contributes an example of a sustainable community –
private network, instigated and facilitated by an entrepreneur. It is valuable in that it
demonstrates that through entrepreneurial innovation meaningful additional livelihoods
at a community level can be generated within the context of a poverty-line way of life.

Entrepreneurial Innovation and Tourism Development

Entrepreneurship creates wealth by combining existing production factors in new ways
(Stam and Stel, 2009). It represents “a process of innovation and new venture creation
through four main dimensions – individual, organisational, environmental, process –
that is aided by collaborative networks” (Kuratko and Hodgetts, 1998, p. 47). As
Audretsch and Keilbach (2004) argue, entrepreneurship could be considered as a fourth
factor in the macroeconomic production. Acclaimed for expanding the frontiers and
scope of many an economic activity, its role as a driver of economic development
cannot be overemphasised. Significant contributions made by entrepreneurship to econ-
omic development, both in the developed and developing world have been well-
established (for example, Levie et al., 2004; McMillan and Woodruff, 2002; Kokkranikal
and Baum, 2002; Baptista et al., 2008 and Benneworth, 2004). Furthermore, it has been
advocated as an effective strategy for poorer communities to escape the poverty trap
and move towards economic development (Manyara and Jones, 2007). The literature on
entrepreneurship categorises it into many types, which include social, family, indigenous,
ethnic, serial, lifestyle and corporate types of entrepreneurship (Zahra et al., 1999;
Morrison, 2006; Pedro and McLean, 2006; Deakins and Freel, 2009; Ateljevic and
Page, 2009; Lee-Ross and Lashley, 2009). On a continuum, these entrepreneurial activities
range from individual enterprises inspired by motives of wealth creation to altruistic
endeavours with a community focus, as is the case in social entrepreneurship. As Morrison
(2006) argues the socio-economic and environmental outcomes of entrepreneurship make
significant contributions to rural and peripheral communities, and many such communities
have benefited from both deliberate and organic development of tourism, which occurs
when a visitor economy develops in a community without any planned or unplanned inter-
ventions by the public or private sector tourism organisations. Organic tourism develop-
ment often happens accidentally as a result of the explorers among tourists straying into
communities unknown to the tourism sector. Many tourist destinations in the developing
world owe their origin to the organic model of tourism development, which conforms to
the destination development theory of Butler (1980).
As just discussed, entrepreneurship is critical to tourism development and could play a
catalytic role in developing tourism in communities with no tradition of attracting visitors
(Kokkranikal and Morrison, 2002; Russell and Faulkner, 2004; Harrison and Schipani,
2007). As an industry that is dominated by small businesses, tourism provides many
opportunities for entrepreneurs in its formal and informal sectors (Wall, 1999). The
social, indigenous and family dimensions of entrepreneurship and its socio-economic
and environmental outcomes are of major relevance to tourism in marginal communities.
As entrepreneurship involves creating novel products and services (Shane, 2003), crea-
tivity and innovation are recognised as essential traits. Innovation is about implementing
 Entrepreneurial Innovation, Community Networks 139

creative ideas (Amabile et al., 1996), and can lead to changes to products, processes,
markets and logistics (Hjalager, 2002). According to Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) it is
anything that is “perceived as new by an individual, and it matters little. . .whether or
not an idea is relatively new. . .It is the perceived newness of the idea for the individual
that determines his reaction to it. If the idea is new to the individual, it is an innovation”
(p. 19, cited in Scott et al., 2008, p. 47). As Franchetti and Page (2009) note, innovation
promotes competitiveness of businesses by giving them the ability to provide novel pro-
ducts and achieve efficiencies through management processes. Moreover, in an era of
increasing competition, innovative tourist products, experiences, and management pro-
cesses are deemed as vital for the survival of tourism destinations and businesses
(Claver-Cortés et al., 2007; Stamboulis and Skayannis, 2003; Ritchie and Crouch,
2003). Indeed, contemporary tourism, like many other business sectors, owes its origin
to innovation by pioneers such as Thomas Cook and Walt Disney, who exploited the
opportunities offered by technological and socio-economic changes to introduce “con-
ducted tours” and “theme parks”, respectively (Russell and Faulkner, 2004). In recent
years, there have been many instances of entrepreneurial innovation leading to tourism
destination development, for example Tinsley and Lynch (2001), Kokkranikal and
Baum (2002), Ateljevic (2009), Fillis (2009), Rosa and Joubert (2009). Such practices
have played an important role in the historical development of tourism. Importantly, entre-
preneurial innovation represents a major opportunity to tourism destinations in the devel-
oping world, which, with the exceptions of countries such as Peru and some of the
honeypots in Southeast Asia, are relatively new to international tourism, especially as
they may encounter intensive competition from the well-established tourism destinations,
mostly in the developed world.

Community Networks and Tourism

It has been argued that the concept of community networks, connected to entrepreneurial
innovation, may make a useful combination in tackling issues of poverty and social
inclusion (Vyakarnam, 2003), making significant socio-economic contributions locally
and not only with respect to the overall development of a tourist destination (Tinsley
and Lynch, 2001). Networks can be described as an infinite set of formal and informal
relationships that lead to collaborative actions between persons, groups, communities,
organisations and governments (Dredge, 2006; Novelli et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2008).
They consist of units/members (individuals, groups, communities, businesses, govern-
ments, and so on) that are linked together through meaningful relations. The concept stres-
ses the fact that “each individual has ties to other individuals, each of whom in turn is tied
to a few, some or many others, and so on” (Wasserman and Faust, 1994, p. 9). Some basic
principles guiding the network perspective are interdependence between the units,
relations as channels for exchange of resources, networks providing opportunities for
and constraints for action by units, network structures that represent the social, economic
and political patterns of relations between the units, and commitment by network units to a
common goal (Dredge, 2006).
Thus, a network can be depicted in the form of a graph or a diagram in which various
units are represented by dots, and the connections among them by lines that link the dots
(Scott et al., 2008). The key concepts associated with network analysis and their descrip-
tions are presented in Table 1, drawn from the work of Wasserman and Faust (1994),
Pavlovich (2003), Scott et al. (2008) and Timur and Getz (2008) .
Thus, network analysis represents a research approach that aims to understand the rela-
tional linkages between various actors within a network, and their implications. The
140 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

Table 1. Key concepts and descriptions in network analysis

Network The existence and connection of actors, units or “dots” within an organisational configuration
Actors The units or “dots” in the network
Relational The linkages between actors
tie
Relation The collection of specific kinds of ties among actors
Group All actors within a network
Sub-group A sub-set of actors and relational ties between them
Density The number of relational ties between actors within a network and resultant degree of efficient
communication and diffusion of network norms
Centrality The power of an actor or actors in the network structure and their capacity to access information
and other actors, e.g. high centrality indicates single, multiple linked actors

objective is to simplify and communicate linkage content and critical incidents in the
development of tourism destination networks that are helpful in promoting necessary col-
laboration and integration of key actor stakeholders (Scott et al., 2008; Watts, 2009). As
such, it may provide a useful methodology to examine links, the influence of ties, and
issues of import such as innovation and sustainability (Timur and Getz, 2008).
Furthermore, as argued by Scott et al. (2008), as a fragmented and geographically
dispersed industry, tourism probably provides one of the best examples of a networked
industry. Tourism markets and products are geographically dispersed and the sector con-
sists of an eclectic range of businesses that can range from a self-employed street
vendor on a beach to the luxurious resorts, providing a multitude of tourism services
(Kokkranikal and Morrison, 2002). The tourism product is a highly co-ordinated
product with inputs from businesses providing various services such as transport,
accommodation, entertainment, and recreation. Assembling a tour package, whether
by a tour operator or by an individual tourist, involves building up a set of linkages
between the assembler (a tourist or a tour operator), tourism businesses at destinations,
and markets. The importance of collaboration, co-operation, co-ordination, integration
and partnerships between tourism businesses, tourism organisations and tourism desti-
nations has been well recognised (for example, Jamal and Getz, 1995; Bramwell and
Lane, 2000; Lovelock, 2001; Tyler and Dinan, 2001; Ladkin and Bertramini, 2002;
Bjork and Virtanen, 2005; Bramwell and Meyer, 2007). Moreover, the organisational
fragmentation in tourism at almost all levels of governance also lends itself to
network structures at both vertical and horizontal level (Pearce, 1996; Dredge, 2006;
Stevenson et al., 2008).
Dredge (2006) identifies two streams of network applications in tourism literature.
The first is from the business perspective dealing with tourism product development,
packaging and destination development, and the second, in a policy context to
manage public – private partnerships and understand tourism administrative frameworks.
Morrison et al. (2004) add a categorisation of networks in tourism into three categories:
networks of independent private sector businesses, public – private sector partnerships,
and tourism academics. The first assists the businesses in lobbying with the government
to influence tourism policies, work together to obtain state funding, and pool their
resources for synergies in product development, research and marketing. The second
aims to stimulate co-operation and help enhance innovation, market development and
tourism destination development. Finally, the academic networks collaborate to create
and disseminate new knowledge. The types of potential benefits of networks for
tourism destinations are summarised by Franchetti and Page (2009) and are presented
in Table 2.
 Entrepreneurial Innovation, Community Networks 141

Table 2. Potential network benefits for tourism destinations

Learning and knowledge exchange
Improved business activities
Community effects
Enhancement of business know-how through education and
communication
Gains achieved through co-operative activities in marketing and supply
chain management
Achievement of agency in terms of improved participation, contribution
of tourism resources, and control over tourism activities within their
midst

Important is the recognition of the potential for significant community contributions,

control and resultant benefits. This highlights the relevance of a network approach to
tourism development at a destination community level. Furthermore, it explicitly recog-
nises the intrinsic nature of the communities’ human, natural and cultural resources that
form the foundation of tourism destinations and touristic experience. However, the
common practice of top-down development of tourism (Manyara and Jones, 2007)
leaves many destination communities with very little or no opportunities to engage in
tourism in any meaningful manner (Tosun and Timothy, 2003). Tourism plans and pro-
jects tend to be prepared by bureaucrats and policy planners from the governmental
centre, and in some cases by international consultants. Consequently, they often fail to
recognise and incorporate local development needs, resource constraints, human resource
issues, environmental and cultural variables, and local aspirations (Akama, 1999). Such a
top-down approach represents what Burns (2004) describes as the “tourism-first
approach”, which is characterised by little or no importance given to the development
needs of the destination communities. Frequently, the local communities have to share
their resources with tourists and create a welcoming atmosphere, but are excluded from
the decision-making process, and the benefits of tourism development. In contrast,
Harris (2009) provides the example of Bario on the island of Borneo. Here, there exists
a willingness to fashion a tourism strategy that integrates and is compatible with its com-
munity development strategy. The key guiding principle behind the development of
tourism in this destination is how it can be useful for the community.
Thus, the contribution and positive involvement of local communities has been estab-
lished as an essential, central feature for sustainable tourism development. Community
participation in tourism and control or a level of ownership of tourism could help
ensure that at least a significant proportion and type of benefits will go to the stakeholders
in the destination community (Scheyvens, 2002; Tosun, 2006). The local community is
one of the most important stakeholders in tourism especially as its immediate victims or
beneficiaries, and they also may have intimate understanding of the local development
politics, which will help make tourism development more sensitive to local realities.
Indeed, the inclusion and involvement of communities in the ownership or planning of
a tourism initiative will not only help build greater appreciation and understanding of
the people, their needs and culture on the part of visitors, but is also likely to guarantee
tangible livelihood and economic benefits to the destination communities (Simpson,
2008). In this respect, the notion of community networks may have significant merit. It
requires the participation of local residents in planning, development and the commercial
operation of tourism in their community (Tosun, 2006; Simpson, 2008; Sebele, 2010).
This is recognised as important for local democracy, equitable distribution of tourism’s
benefits, and more effective stewardship of tourism resources, and even more importantly
to avert the potential tragedy of social, cultural, environmental and/or economic adverse
impacts (Healey, 2006).
142 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

Tourism and Sustainable Livelihoods

The concept of “sustainable livelihoods” represents another innovative approach that
could help achieve a more broad-based development through tourism (Ashley, 2000;
Bouahom et al., 2003; Lee, 2008; Tao and Wall, 2009). A livelihood consists of the
capabilities, assets and activities that are required to make a living. It becomes sustain-
able when able to cope with, and recover from, stresses and shocks experienced, while
maintaining or enhancing the capabilities and assets for the benefit of both present and
future generations (Chambers and Conway, 1992). This approach to development recog-
nises the multi-sectoral character of life and the importance of integrating environ-
mental, social and economic issues into a holistic framework (Tao and Wall, 2009).
It could enable members of a local community to meet their development needs by
diversifying their livelihood options without compromising environmental and/or
social interests (Walker et al., 2001b, cited in Tao and Wall, 2009). It is considered
one of the practical ways for local people to develop a set of activities that can
strengthen and enhance their existing livelihoods (Lee, 2008). Tourism could offer
opportunities for this to many destination communities without endangering their tra-
ditional sources of livelihood (Ashley, 2000). It can offer some advantages. For
example, according to Tao and Wall (2009) “tourism can become (1) a means to
enable accumulation (e.g., income) for consumption and investment; (2) a means to
help spread risk; (3) an adaptive response to longer-term declines in income or entitle-
ments, due to serious economic or environmental changes beyond local control; and/or
(4) a means to take pressure off fragile lands and increase household incomes” (p. 92).
However, it is important to understand the effect of tourism, both positive and adverse,
on the complex range of traditional livelihood activities that are based on multiple land
uses and may involve wide-ranging risks (Ashley, 2000; Walker et al., 2001a). That
said, transformation of communities’ environmental and cultural resources to tourism
products through entrepreneurial innovation could offer one effective strategy for liveli-
hood diversification for rural and marginal communities.

Research Methods
The aim of this research is to investigate the role of entrepreneurial innovation in tourism
development, with specific focus on facilitating networks and the generation of sustainable
livelihoods within destination communities. To this end, a case study of a heritage tourism
business that involves a community network has been researched and developed. The
subject of the case study is the eco-heritage tourism resort of Coconut Palms in the
Indian state of Kerala. This research approach was employed for its ability to focus on
relationships and processes, and the complexities of a given situation (Stake, 2003;
Dubois and Araujo, 2007; Jaspers, 2007). The case study method is particularly appropri-
ate when examining or exploring a phenomenon that requires context and an overall view
of the relationships between factors (Yin, 2009). As Brotherton (1999) states, case-study
method is adopted in situations where there is a desire to research a particular phenomenon
within a particular situation. The method is well suited to the study because it enables mul-
tiple data collection strategies, flexibility in data analysis and the consideration of a broad
range of literature (Stake, 2003), and unfolds the process of network formation and oper-
ation (Hartley, 1994). The research was undertaken in four main phases as follows:

1. An extensive literature review was carried out to analyse entrepreneurial innovation,

community networks, sustainable livelihoods and tourism in Kerala.
 Entrepreneurial Innovation, Community Networks 143

2. Secondary data pertaining to the case-study business was accessed and investigated in
order to develop deeper understanding of the context of the community network being
considered.
3. Seven key informant interviews with the actors within case-study network were carried
out, exploring the structure, and linkages of the network, and whether tourism rep-
resents a livelihood diversification option for the actors.
4. The data generated were analysed using qualitative techniques of data reduction, data
organisation and interpretation (Sarantakos, 2002). The interview data were transcribed
and analysed to identify key themes, and interpreted within the context of the theories
of networks and sustainable livelihood. Explanations and conclusions derived were
cross checked for verification and confirmation. A number of illuminative statements
from respondents are also included in the case study. The results of data analysis are
embedded in the sections that follow below.

Some researchers are sceptical about the advantages of a case-study approach, and may
question the value of the study of single cases, the potential for selective reporting, and are
concerned with the dangers of possible distortion (Tellis, 1997; Gill and Johnson, 2002).
However, supporters argue that it does allows more in-depth study of a phenomenon, can
facilitate the challenging of existing theory, and provide sources for new research under-
standing and direction (Gomm et al., 2000; Yin, 2009).

Tourism in Kerala
Kerala is one of the states in Southern India, and Figure 1 provides a geographical and
political perspective. It has a rich and varied portfolio of attractions, such as beaches, back-
waters, hill stations, festivals, wildlife, and classical art and dance forms, and is one of the
most popular tourist destinations in India, both domestically and overseas. With this sig-
nificant range of tourism resources, and a relatively well-developed society, tourism was
identified and developed as a major industry in the state (Kokkranikal and Morrison,
2002). It contributes US$2.88 billion to Kerala’s economy (Kerala Tourism, 2010c),
and generates more than 700,000 jobs (Express Hospitality, 2010). In 2008 it hosted
5,98,929 international and 7,591,250 domestic tourists. Thus, tourism represents one of
the leading components of Kerala’s economy (Kerala Tourism, 2010c).
The state is well known for its “Kerala Development Model” (Franke and Chasin, 2000;
Vernon, 2001). Uniquely within India, it boasts a fully literate population and a Human
Development Index rating comparable to developed western societies (McKibben,
1996). According to Franke and Chasin (2000) and McKibben (1996), the Kerala Devel-
opment Model can be described as a paradoxical phenomenon of:

. rapid social development unaccompanied by corresponding gains in economic growth;

for example, Kerala’s per capita income is US$610 per year (Kerala Government,
2011); but its indicators of development such as literacy, infant mortality, life expect-
ancy (70 years) are very high
. wealth and resource redistribution programmes, which helped create a high material
quality of life
. high levels of political activism and participation among ordinary people

Despite the state’s positive reputation for tourism development, Kerala faces a range of
economic and environmental challenges. They include severe infrastructure limitations,
high levels of unemployment especially of the educated youth numbering 4 million, declining
144 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

Figure 1. India and its state structure. Source: Nationsonline (2010).

industrial and agricultural sectors, a fragile environment suffering from degradation, and a
very high population density of over 819 per square kilometre (Kannan, 1998; Singh, 2005;
Biswas, 2010). In addition, there is a militant trade union movement. The dominance of
left-leaning political parties and set-backs in the manufacturing sector has made the state
one of the major consumer societies in the country. The foregoing does not encourage indus-
trial investment (Singh, 2005). It has forced a large number of Keralites to migrate to the
Middle East and elsewhere in search of employment, whose remittances have been and con-
tinue to be a major source of income to the state’s economy. The recent economic problems in
the Middle East have seen expatriate Keralites returning in large numbers (Praveen, 2009).
Unemployment is another major hurdle in the state’s development (Kang, 2002). A combi-
nation of these development problems tends to nullify the positive aspects of the Kerala Devel-
opment Model (Rajeev, 1999; Singh, 2005; Biswas, 2010).
Given these harsh realities of under-development, tourism offers a viable alternative for
Kerala’s social and economic development (Kang, 2002; Kokkranikal and Baum, 2002),
 Entrepreneurial Innovation, Community Networks 145

recognition of which has seen concerted efforts to develop tourism in the state since the
1980s. One of the immediate developments was recognising it as an industry in 1986,
making the sector eligible for all incentives and concessions extended to other industries.
This was followed by the announcement of a number of investment and performance
incentives to the tourism industry by the state government. Kerala has also benefited
from a supportive and co-operative private sector, and the public – private sector
network is also relatively strong, contributing significantly to the state’s tourism develop-
ment (Scott et al., 2008).
Some of the innovations embarked upon by Kerala Tourism are included in Table 3, and
as a consequence it is now acclaimed as one of the success stories in Indian tourism,
winning a number of national and international awards for its commendable performance
(Kang, 2002; Kelly and Kokkranikal, 2010; Kerala Tourism, 2010c).
Although demonstrating success in tourism development, Kerala has not been free from
some associated environmental and socio-cultural problems. Pollution of beaches and
backwaters, overcrowding during tourist seasons, socio-cultural problems such as drug-
trafficking, commercial sex activities, and a thriving parallel economy consisting of
illegal and unlicensed traders are some of the major impacts documented in the state
(Jacob, 1998; White, 2007). The environments in the hill stations such as Munnar and
Wynad are under serious threat from illegal encroachment by resort developers. Indigen-
ous cultural attractions such as Kathakali (a form of dance drama), Theyyam (a religious
festival celebrated in north Kerala temples), and the temple festivals have been commodi-
tised into tourist products. Development of new destinations and a consequent increase in
tourist numbers, especially during the limited tourist season, creates more pressure on the
environment and infrastructure, which are already reeling under a very high population
density and under-investment (Singh, 2005; Biswas, 2010). Innovative approaches to
ensure a more equitable and inclusive development of tourism are vital for the sector to
be able to assuage some of the dire development problems in the state. Given a very pol-
itically and aware population and militant trade union movement, any disillusionment with
tourism’s ability to benefit the broader community could lead to a hostile response to
tourism. This would be catastrophic to the long-term prospects of tourism in the state.
For example, there have already been instances of industrial action by workers in the
houseboat sector in recent years, and without conscious efforts to ensure opportunities
for the local people to share in the benefits of tourism, the euphoria could turn into hostility

Table 3. State of Kerala tourism innovations

Establishment of a tourism training institute called the Kerala Institute of Tourism and Travel Studies in 1988, the
first of its kind by a state government in India
Formation of district tourism promotion councils aimed at making tourism development more decentralised and
broad-based
Carrying out a year-long tourism awareness campaign in 1992
Organising a series of familiarisation tours for the overseas travel trade and media
Developing an international airport at Kochi as a co-operative venture
Setting up a dedicated organisation (Tourist Resorts Kerala) to promote joint ventures with the private sector
Deploying tourist police in the major tourist destinations
Forming the Tourism Investment Promotion Agency
Introducing a Tourism Act, which provided for setting up special tourism zones
Intelligent use of the Internet for tourism marketing
Organising an annual Kerala Travel Mart
Including tourism at the grass roots level “people’s planning campaign” introduced in the state

Sources: Ministry of Tourism and Culture (2005); Kerala Tourism (2010c).

146 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

very soon (Doxey, 1975). A community network, incorporating a sustainable livelihood-

based approach to tourism development, may represent one viable strategy in this respect.

Coconut Palms Eco Heritage Resort and the Community Network

Large ancestral homes called Tharavad in vernacular lingo were widespread among tra-
ditional land-owning families in Kerala. Large houses were required to accommodate
the extended families that lived together under the joint family system, which was very
common in the state until recently. They were built using locally available building
materials, especially wood, according to the indigenous architecture system known as
Vasthu. A typical Tharavad was designed either in the format of a Nalukettu (four quar-
ters) or Ettukettu (eight quarters) with a central courtyard. As the size of a traditional joint
family could range from ten to forty people, they represented a necessity to house these
families.
However, rapid socio-economic changes were brought about by land reforms in the state
in the 1960s and 1970s. They resulted in the redistribution of land among poorer sections
of society, fragmentation of large farms, and contributed to the collapse of the joint family
system. It was also accelerated by the relatively feeble economic development in the state
in the 1970s and 1980s that forced large numbers of Keralites to migrate to other parts of
India and overseas. With the decline of the landed gentry, many joint families were faced
with extreme economic challenges, making it difficult for them to maintain the large
houses. A significant number of families were forced to leave the Tharavads and their sur-
vival was under threat, many falling into ruin. Tourism offered them a lease of life when
innovative entrepreneurs restored and converted some into tourist accommodation. The
Department of Tourism also introduced a heritage protection scheme called Grihasthali
to convert traditional buildings in the state, such as Tharavads, to tourist accommodation
by giving incentives and financial assistance to approved projects (Kerala Tourism,
2010a). The state now has 40 Tharavads converted into heritage tourism facilities devel-
oped under the Grihasthali programme, and more than 200 outside the scheme (Kerala
Tourism, 2010b).
The subject of this research, Coconut Palms which is an eco-heritage resort located in
the Alappuzha district of Kerala (Figure 2), is a good example of how a 200-year-old
ancestral home of one of the traditional families in the Alappuzha district was converted
into a tourism facility through innovative entrepreneurial practices. Pandavath Tharavad
is in Kumarakodi, situated close to an estuary. The unique location is flanked by the sea on
one side, and back-waters on the other. It is also situated away from the popular tourist
circuits in the district. The Pandavath Tharavad, like many of its kind was in disuse
due to the social and economic reasons discussed above. It is located in a four-acre
(1.618 hectares) compound and had a pond and four serpent groves, all in a state of
ruin. The serpent groves are the abodes of serpent gods and usually consist of foliage of
indigenous wild plants and idols of serpent gods. The Pandavath Tharavad was bought
by a tour operator from the city of Trivandrum in the late 1990s and converted to the
Coconut Palms eco-heritage resort.
The transformation of the dilapidated Tharavad represents a good example of entrepre-
neurial innovation and creativity. It and the serpent groves were restored with minimum
changes to their original features, and the restoration was undertaken with the help of
craftsmen and artisans from the neighbourhood. They had valuable detailed knowledge
of the building materials and architectural features of the Tharavad. While restoring it
into its former glory, every care was taken to make sure its originality was retained,
period features and furniture were used and only basic modern day amenities, such as
 Entrepreneurial Innovation, Community Networks 147

Figure 2. The State of Kerala. Source: Thekkottil.com (2010).

bathrooms, were added to the structure. The resort now has nine bedrooms and offers a
range of ethnic cultural tourism experiences, which include classes on cooking local
cuisine, yoga and meditation, cultural workshops on traditional dance forms, traditional
architecture, mural painting, Kalarippayattu martial art, and coir (fibre found in coconut
husks) making. Canoe rides through the narrow backwater canals, houseboat cruises
and relaxing on the beach are some of the activities offered in the resort. It follows eco-
friendly best practices such as rainwater harvesting, wastewater recycling, uses solar
energy as much as possible, and has its own organic vegetable garden. The innovative
and creative approach to restoring and converting the Tharavad into an indigenous heri-
tage resort has resulted in a tourist attraction that provides authentic Kerala life and
culture in a rural environment. In recognition, the resort was presented with the Kerala
Tourism Heritage Award by the Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala in 1996
(Coconut Palms, 2010).
Once the restoration and conversion process was completed, the next challenge was how
to operate the resort as an authentic heritage product. Its distance from the tourist circuit
exacerbated the situation. “More than the restoration and conversion, running the resort in
148 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

a place where there was no tourism industry was one of the biggest challenges,” said the
tour operator. There were no trained personnel available in the village who could be
employed in the resort. “Having made so much effort to retain the authenticity of the Thar-
avadu, I wanted to make sure the personnel working also were from the local area, making
the whole project as indigenous and local as possible,” he recalled. However, it proved to
be a blessing in disguise. Having used the local knowledge in restoring the Tharavad, the
tour operator began a search for people in the neighbourhood who might be suitable to
work in the resort. Four neighbouring families showed an interest, resulting in a nascent
network of local community members.
Members of the four families were engaged in traditional vocations in the area in the
informal sector on a casual basis. Some of them were working in the coir making
sector, one was operating the local ferry using a traditional rowing boat, and another
was a freelance chef, who found work mainly during the wedding season. The tour oper-
ator’s primary challenge was to train them in some of the essential operational aspects,
basic requirements to run the resort, including maintaining hygiene standards, food
service, soft skills to deal with customers, and communication skills. As they had basic
literacy and numeracy skills, this was relatively straightforward. In addition, two of
them were able to communicate in English. “We all were told and shown how things
are done in tourist hotels, and it all looked very easy, during the training. However, we
were not confident at all in interacting with strangers. . .most of them foreigners,” said
one of the neighbourhood workers. The tour operator stayed at the resort during the
initial period when there were guests, to help them gain experience. He or one of his
staff from the office in Trivandrum, accompanied guests to the resort to help the neigh-
bourhood workers serve the guests and to ensure that everything was in place. Gradually,
the neighbourhood workers grew in confidence and were able to manage the resort on their
own. A total of fourteen neighbourhood workers are now involved in operating the resort.
The tour operator arranged local practitioners of yoga, mural painting, Ayurveda, Kalar-
ippayattu and traditional dance and music to offer workshops in the resort as and when
there was demand from the guests. During the initial period the neighbourhood workers
were paid wages when they were required at the resort. When there were no guests,
they were engaged in their normal livelihood activities. As they were casual labourers,
it was possible to leave their work for short periods to operate at the resort. The resort
employment was an additional, diversified source of livelihood for them and they were
able to continue with their traditional livelihood activities when they were not required
at the resort. Slowly, the tour operator developed a system in which he would take book-
ings for the resort in Trivandrum and inform the neighbourhood workers when guests were
going to be staying at the resort. He would arrange transport to the resort and once the
guests arrived, the neighbourhood workers were responsible for running all operations
and looking after them. Besides catering and housekeeping, they organised cultural activi-
ties, backwater cruises, and sightseeing trips to local coir making units, temples, and
markets. As they were from the local area, they knew about all cultural events and
resources such as temple festivals, boat races and beautiful land features, and the sight-
seeing trips they organised were unique and off the beaten track.
The financial arrangement was that the tour operator charged only the room rent and
transport cost; with the neighbourhood workers sharing the profit from the catering, organ-
ised cultural activities and sightseeing trips. The year-round maintenance and upkeep of
the resort was carried out on a regular basis by the members of the neighbourhood
group, for which the tour operator paid them directly the equivalent of a daily wage of
Rs 250/- (which is on par with the wages for casual work locally). The peak season is
from November to March, when the occupancy rates go up to 70%, with near full
 Entrepreneurial Innovation, Community Networks 149

occupancy during December and January. During the five months of peak season, the
neighbourhood workers are employed solely in the resort and earn comparatively higher
income. Although precise figures are not available, each family earned an average of
Rs 15,000 to Rs 20,000 a month during the season. During the lean season they are
required only intermittently when the resort had occasional guests. However, since
tourism is an additional livelihood, the neighbourhood workers could go back to the
normal livelihood activities during off-season. Thus, tourism represents a sustainable,
additional source of livelihood to the neighbourhood workers.
Besides helping in the operation of the resort and ensuring authenticity, a major advantage
of this system was the sense of ownership that the neighbourhood workers have towards the
resort. As it represents a major source of their livelihood, they are motivated to deal with any
crisis or issues that may arise from time to time. The responsibility for the maintenance,
security and overall preservation of the heritage resort was voluntarily taken over by the
neighbourhood workers. The tour operator was required to make only occasional visits to
satisfy himself that there were no issues that required his attention. For example, once one
of the neighbours blocked the drainage from the resort, the neighbourhood workers inter-
vened and persuaded the offending neighbour to remove the block without involving the
tour operator. It would probably have resulted in a civil law suit and major dispute if it
had been left to the tour operator to resolve, especially as he was not from the local area.
It is argued that involvement of the neighbourhood families in the operation of Coconut
Palms and sharing of income represents a model of community network embedded in a
micro-tourism business. The actors in the network could be grouped into five: 1)
Coconut Palms Eco Heritage Resort; 2) fourteen neighbourhood workers from four
families; 3) providers of cultural activities, which include a yoga centre, the village
coir-making unit, martial arts trainer, canoe ride providers, mural painting artist, house-
boat operators and practitioners of traditional dance and art forms; 4) local shops,
farmers and transport providers – taxis and rickshaws; and 5) the tour operator. The com-
munity network surrounding the heritage resort can be depicted as in Figure 3. As the
diagram shows, the connection topology of the network could be considered random
(Watts and Strogatz, 1998). The actors in the network belong to both formal and informal
sectors of the local economy, and apart from the tour operator, the neighbourhood families
and the resort, other actors’ linkages are irregular and happens whenever there is demand
for their services from the resort’s customers. For the providers of local cultural experi-
ences and the local shops, farmers and transport, custom from the resort is an additional
source of revenue. With the exception of the houseboat operators, their primary customers
are from the local region. However, there are direct and indirect linkages between all
actors in the network, which is not always of an economic nature. Relational linkages
are in the form of knowledge and information transfer, and sharing of the income. The
structure of the network is made up of economic, cultural and community relations. The
sharing of income between the neighbourhood workers and the opportunities provided
to other actors to earn additional revenue formed the economic relations; the resultant
community of neighbourhood workers and other actors linked to the resort shape the com-
munity relations; and the contributions of practitioners of various forms of local culture to
the tourist activities within the resort represent cultural relations. The common objectives
of this community network include preservation of cultural heritage and community devel-
opment through tourism.
Centrality and density are two important features of a network, which describe the
dominant actor and the extent of relational ties respectively within a network (Scott
et al., 2008; Timur and Getz, 2008). The central actors in the network in this case are
the resort, tour operator and the neighbourhood families, suggesting a multiple centrality
150 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

Figure 3. Coconut Palms community network.

(Porta and Latora, 2008). These three actors play the leadership roles in this network,
which is very important for the effectiveness of networks (Mehra et al., 2006). In the
case of the Coconut Palms network, the tour operator, the resort and the neighbourhood
families initiate and manage most of the linkages, both economic and non-economic, by
creating and facilitating formal and informal connections between various actors.
Density indicates the number of relational ties within a network and is considered
 Entrepreneurial Innovation, Community Networks 151

crucial for network effectiveness (Mehra et al., 2006). With all actors connected in some
way or other, e.g. economic and non-economic ties, there exists a high level of density in
the Coconut Palms network and indicates efficiency within the network. A detailed analy-
sis of the centrality and density of the network, which is beyond the scope of this paper,
will help appreciate the level of interdependence, politics and power relations, and the sub-
stantive outcomes and effects within the network.

Conclusions
The paper has considered in depth the role of entrepreneurial innovation in tourism devel-
opment through the facilitation of community networks at destination level. Through the
case study of Coconut Palms the pioneering behaviour of one entrepreneur interacting with
a community network has been investigated. Outcomes for the entrepreneur and other
network actors have been explained. The following consolidates and discusses key find-
ings, with specific reference to lessons learned and best practices identified.
The example of Coconut Palms demonstrates how the initiative, innovation and creativ-
ity of one entrepreneur expanded the frontiers and scope of economic activity through
tourism. Out of discontinuities in societal structures, agricultural base, and economic
depression he identified an entrepreneurial opportunity to acquire a redundant ruin to
transform into a tourism product. Although the restoration of the Tharavad to its original
state was in itself nothing “new”, the system used to operate and manage it, the compo-
sition of an authentic local experience to offer to the market place, and the development
of a destination peripheral to the established main tourism circuit was.
Through this endeavour he facilitated, and explicitly incorporated a community-
populated network into the business model, that was engaged and motivated to be assertive
and proactive in the generation of additional livelihood, within the context of a poverty-
line way of life. Explanation for this strategy can be found in the following:

. Local knowledge: while the entrepreneur had identified an opportunity, his innovation,
to be successful, required local knowledge in the restoration of the original features of
the Tharavad using skilled craftsmen and artisans who understood about building
materials, architectural features and who could construct period features and furniture.
Once in operation, the local expertise associated with resort guests experiencing auth-
entic cultural experiences also required the capture and engagement of the knowledge
and expertise of individuals within the community.
. Geography: the tour operator’s office was based in Trivandrum some distance from
the resort. Having local people in place and volunteering to take economic, social
and preservation responsibilities overcomes potential operational and management
issues associated with remote ownership, and being an “outsider”.
. Fragmentation: in co-operation the tour operator and the neighbourhood workers have
the knowledge, resources and contacts to allow for the efficient assembling and co-
ordination of the diverse range of inputs required to construct the products and services,
reach markets, deliver the innovative and unique touristic experience imbued with
authentic indigenous values.

Thus, it can be said that the entrepreneur succeeded in implementing his creative and
innovative idea through re-engineering processes and logistics to integrate the human
and cultural assets of the host community, embedding them as integral and authentic
components of the tourism resort product and service. The manner in which this was
done instilled a sense of community ownership of the entrepreneur’s business endeavours.
152 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

The network relationships were made meaningful to the community network actors due to
the following best practices which have been identified:

. Limitation placed on leakages out of the local economy by limiting procurement of

labour and resources from outside.
. Economic benefits are shared with the community in a manner that appears to be
equitable.
. Value assigned to cultural and traditional craft activities in the local community, which
otherwise have limited or no economic value.
. Alignment of the entrepreneur’s vision with local aspirations, incorporating eco-
friendly responsibilities.
. Indigenous human, cultural and natural resources assembled to create an authentic
tourism product.
. Entrepreneur’s recognition of the difficulties of doing business as an “outsider” and the
value of the community kith and kin relationships.
. The resort does not displace traditional livelihood activities, but does provide for
seasonal additional livelihood generation opportunities.
. Opportunities for livelihood diversification do not compromise cultural values and beliefs.

In conclusion, the Coconut Palms community represents an example of a community –

private sector partnership which appears to have achieved a relative degree of
sustainability with mutual benefits being achieved. As has been found consistently in
network analysis, the linkages that sustain this type of informal organisation are heavy
in learning and knowledge exchange. The entrepreneur shared his knowledge in the oper-
ation and management of a resort, and the local population shared their culture, customs
and practices. This form of co-ordinated and co-operative system augments the entrepre-
neur’s business activities while achieving positive community effects. Thus, pioneering
entrepreneurial innovation is enabled, additional local livelihoods sustained, socially
responsible stewardship over resources achieved, and adverse economic effects controlled.
However, the simplicity of the above statements and the “tidy” depiction of the network in
Figure 3 belie the complexity of the evolution, management and sustainability of such an
organisational type. Collaborative community endeavours of this nature can also give rise
to conflicts between members of the community, when opportunities and benefits are not
uniformly available to everyone (Reed, 1999; Bramwell and Lane, 2000).Therein lies the
imperative for more research into this phenomenon which does appear to have the poten-
tial to make a real contribution to the lives of individuals in disadvantaged communities.
Finally, a definition reflecting the type of entrepreneurship revealed in this paper is
tentatively offered as follows.
Entrepreneurship is a process of innovation and enterprise creation. It does not represent
a solo activity carried out exclusively by an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurial success draws
energy by mobilising and engaging human, cultural and social resources in a community
network in their pioneering endeavours. Sustainability of entrepreneurial outcomes is
dependent on the maintenance of positive perceptions of mutual respect, equitable distri-
bution of benefits, and socially and environmentally responsible practices.

References
Akama, S. (1999) The Evolution of Tourism in Kenya, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(1), pp. 6–25.
Amabile, T., Conti, R. and Coon, H. (1996) Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity, Academy of
Management Journal, 39(5), pp. 1154–84.
 Entrepreneurial Innovation, Community Networks 153

Ashley, C. (2000) The Impacts of Tourism on Rural Livelihoods: Namibia’s Experience, ODI working paper no.
128 (London: Overseas Development Institute).
Ateljevic, J. (2009) Tourism Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: Example from New Zealand,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 15(3), pp. 282–308.
Ateljevic, J. and Page, S.J. (2009) Tourism and Entrepreneurship: International Perspectives (London:
Butterworth-Heinemann).
Audretsch, D.B. and Keilbach, M. (2004) Entrepreneurship Capital: Determinants and Impact. Discussion
Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, 2004-37. (Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute of
Economics, Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Group). Available at ftp://papers.econ.mpg.de/
egp/discussionpapers/2004-37.pdf (accessed 12 February 2010).
Baptista, R., Escária, V. and Madruga, P. (2008) Entrepreneurship, Regional Development and Job Creation: The
Case of Portugal, Small Business Economics, 30(1), pp. 49–58.
Benneworth, P. (2004) In What Sense “Regional Development?” Entrepreneurship, Underdevelopment and
Strong Tradition in the Periphery, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16(6), pp. 439–58.
Biswas, S. (2010) Conundrum of Kerala’s Struggling Economy. BBC News. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/
1/hi/world/south_asia/8546952.stm (accessed 16 February 2010).
Bjork, P. and Virtanen, H. (2005) What Tourism Project Managers Need to Know About Co-Operation Facilita-
tors, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(3), pp. 212–30.
Bouahom, B., Douangsavanh, L. and Rigg, J. (2003) Building Sustainable Livelihoods in Laos: Untangling Farm
from Non-Farm, Progress from Distress, Geoforum, 35, pp. 607–19.
Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2000) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, practices and sustainability
(Clevedon: Channel View Publications).
Bramwell, B. and Meyer, D. (2007) Power and Tourism Policy Relations in Transition, Annals of Tourism
Research, 34(3), pp. 766–88.
Brotherton, B. (1999) Case Study Research, in: B. Brotherton (Ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Hospitality
Management Research, pp. 115–41 (Chichester: Wiley).
Burns, P. (2004) Tourism Planning: A Third Way? Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), pp. 24–43.
Butler, R.W. (1980) The Concept of a Tourism Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for the Management of
Resources, Canadian Geographer, 24, pp. 5–12.
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century, IDS
discussion paper 296. (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex).
Claver-Cortés, E., Molina-Azorın, J.F. and Pereira-Moliner, J. (2007) Competitiveness in Mass Tourism, Annals
of Tourism Research, 34(3), pp. 727–45.
Coconut Palms (2010) Coconut Palms: The Historic 200 year old Kerala House. Available at http://ariestravel.
net/html/coconutpalms.htm (accessed 18 March 2010).
Deakins, D. and Freel, M. (2009) Entrepreneurship and Small Firms (Maidenhead: McGraw Hill).
Doxey, G.V. (1975) A Causation Theory of Visitor-Resident Irritants: Methodology and Research Inferences.
Proceedings of the Travel Research Association, 6th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA.
Dredge, D. (2006) Policy Networks and the Local Organisation of Tourism, Tourism Management, 27, pp. 269–80.
Dubois, A. and Araujo, L.M. (2007) Case Research in Purchasing and Supply Management: Opportunities and
Challenges, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 13(3), pp. 170–81.
Express Hospitality (2010) Infrastructure Development is Indispensable to Tourism Says Kerala CM at SIHRA
Convention. Available at http://www.expresshospitality.com/20100131/management07.shtml (accessed 3
March 2010).
Fillis, I. (2009) Entrepreneurial Crafts and the Tourism Industry, in: S. Page and J. Ateljevic (Eds) Tourism and
Entrepreneurship: International perspectives, pp. 133–48 (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann).
Franchetti, J. and Page, S.J. (2009) Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Tourism: Public Sector Experiences of
Innovation Activity in Tourism in Scandinavia and Scotland, in: S. Page and J. Ateljevic (Eds) Tourism and
Entrepreneurship: International perspectives, pp. 107–30 (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann).
Franke, R.W. and Chasin, B.H. (2000) Is the Kerala model sustainable? Lessons from the past, prospects for
the future, in: G. Parayil (Ed.) Kerala: The Development Experience, Reflections on Sustainability and
Replicability, pp. 16–39 (London: Zed Books).
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2002) Research Methods for Managers (London: Sage).
Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. and Foster, P. (2000) Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts (London: Sage).
Harris, R. (2009) Tourism in Bario, Sarawak, Malaysia: A Case Study of Pro-Poor Community-Based Tourism
Integrated into Community Development, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), pp. 125–33.
Harrison, D. and Schipani, S. (2007) Lao Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: Community Based Tourism and the
Private Sector, in: C.M. Hall (Ed.) Pro Poor Tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and poverty
reduction, pp. 84–97 (Bristol: Channel View Publications).
154 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

Hartley, J.F. (1994) Case Studies in Organisational Research, in: C. Cassell and G. Symon (Eds) Qualitative
Methods in Organisational Research: A practical guide, pp. 208–29 (London: Sage).
Healey, R.G. (2006) The Commons Problem and Canada’s Niagara Falls, Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2),
pp. 525–44.
Hjalagar, A. (2002) Repairing innovation defectives in tourism, Tourism Management, 23(5), pp. 465–74.
Jacob, T. (1998) Tales of Tourism from Kovalam (Thiruvananthapuram: Odyssey).
Jamal, T.B. and Getz, D. (1995) Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning, Annals of Tourism
Research, 22(1), pp. 186–204.
Jaspers, F. (2007) Case Study Research: Some Other Applications Besides Theory Building, Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 13(3), pp. 210–12.
Kang, J.S.S. (2002) Regional governance and sustainable development in tourism-driven economies. Paper
presented at the International Colloquium on Regional Governance and Sustainable Development in
Tourism-Driven Economies, Cancun, Mexico, 20– 22 February. Available at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/
groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN002907.pdf (accessed 20 February 2010).
Kannan, K.P. (1998) Political Economy of Labour and Development in Kerala, working paper (Thiruvanantha-
puram: Centre for Development Studies). Available at http://www.cds.edu/download_files/wp284.pdf
(accessed 18 January 2010).
Kelly, C. and Kokkranikal, J. (2010) The evolution and commodification of wellness tourism in India: A case
study of Kerala. Paper presented at the Tourism and Travel Research Association Conference, Budapest,
Hungary, 21– 23 April.
Kerala Government (2011) Kerala at a Glance. Available at http://www.kerala.gov.in/index.php?
Kerala Tourism (2010a) Join “Grihasthali” to protect heritage, promote hospitality and in the process make huge
profits. Available at http://www.keralatourism.org/business/grihasthali.htm (accessed 21 March 2010).
Kerala Tourism (2010b) Personal communications with officials of the Department of Tourism, Government of
Kerala.
Kerala Tourism (2010c) Tourist statistics 2008. Available at http://www.keralatourism.org/tourismstatistics/
Tourist-Statistics2008.pdf (accessed 2 March 2010).
Kokkranikal, J. and Baum, T. (2002) The Role of Product Innovation in Rural Tourism Development: A Case
Study of Houseboats of Kerala, in: N. Andrews, S. Flanagan and J. Ruddy (Eds) Innovation in Tourism
Planning, pp. 95–104 (Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology).
Kokkranikal, J. and Morrison, A. (2002) Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of the House-
boats of Kerala, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Surrey Quarterly Review, 4(1), pp. 7–20.
Kuratko, D. and Hodgetts, R. (1998) Entrepreneurship: A Contemporary Approach (New York: Dryden Press).
Ladkin, A. and Bertramini, A. (2002) Collaborative Tourism Planning: A Case Study in Cusco, Peru, Current
Issues in Tourism, 5, pp. 71–93.
Lee, M.H. (2008) Tourism and Sustainable Livelihoods: The Case of Taiwan, Third World Quarterly, 29(5),
pp. 961–78.
Lee-Ross, D. and Lashley, C. (2009) Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management in the Hospitality
Industry (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann).
Levie, J., Brown, W. and Cooper, S. (2004) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Scotland Report 2003 (Glasgow:
University of Strathclyde).
Lovelock, B. (2001) Interorganisational Relations in the Protected Area—Tourism Policy Domain: The Influence
of Macro-Economic Policy, Current Issues in Tourism, 4(2/4), pp. 253–274.
Manyara, G. and Jones, E. (2007) Community-Based Tourism Enterprises Development in Kenya: An Explora-
tion of their Potential as Avenues of Poverty Reduction, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), pp. 628–44.
McKibben, B. (1996) The Enigma of Kerala, Utne Reader. March/April, pp. 103– 112.
McMillan, J. and Woodruff, C. (2002) The Central Role of Entrepreneurs in Transition Economies, Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 16, pp. 153–70.
Mehra, A., Dixon, A.L., Brass, D.J. and Robertson, B. (2006) The Social Network Ties of Group Leaders:
Implications for Group Performance and Leader Reputation, Organization Science, 17(1), pp. 64–79.
Ministry of Tourism and Culture (2005) Kerala’s Approach to Tourism Development: A Case Study. Available at
http://www.tourism.gov.in/survey/KeralaCaseStudy.pdf (accessed 10 February 2010).
Morrison, A., Lynch, P. and Johns, N. (2004) International Tourism Networks, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(3), pp. 197–202.
Morrison, A. (2006) Contextualisation of Entrepreneurship, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, 12(4), pp. 192–209.
Nationsonline (2010) Available at http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/india_map.html (accessed 14 February
2010).
 Entrepreneurial Innovation, Community Networks 155

Novelli, M., Schmitz, B. and Spencer, T. (2006) Networks, Clusters and Innovation in Tourism: A UK
Experience, Tourism Management, 27, pp. 1141–52.
Pavlovich, K. (2003) The Evolution and Transformation of a Tourism Destination Network: The Waitomo Caves,
New Zealand, Tourism Management, 24, pp. 203–16.
Pearce, D. (1996) Tourist Organisations in Sweden, Tourism Management, 17(6), pp. 413–24.
Pedro, A. and McLean, M. (2006) Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review of the Concept, Journal of World
Business, 41, pp. 56–65.
Porta, S. and Latora, V. (2008) The Spatial Analysis of Urban Systems: Multiple centrality assessment and the
dynamics on street networks, in: T. Hasic (Ed.) New Urbanism and Beyond: The future of urban design,
pp. 101–5 (New York: Rizzoli International).
Praveen, M.P. (2009) NoRKA Clueless on Malayalis Returning from the Gulf, The Hindu, 12 February. Available
at http://www.thehindu.com/2009/02/12/stories/2009021258470300.htm (accessed 18 February 2010).
Reed, M.G. (1999) Collaborative Tourism Planning as Adaptive Experiments in Emergent Tourism Settings,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3–4), pp. 331–55.
Ritchie, J.R.B. and Crouch, G.I. (2003) The Competitive Destination, A Sustainable Tourism Perspective
(Wallingford: CABI).
Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971) Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach
(New York: Free Press).
Rosa, P. and Joubert, P. (2009) Entrepreneurial Wildlife Exploitation in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Overview, in: S.
Page and J. Ateljevic (Eds) Tourism and Entrepreneurship: International perspectives, pp. 173–86 (Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann).
Russell, R. and Faulkner, B. (2004) Entrepreneurship, Chaos and Tourism Lifecycle, Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(3), pp. 556–79.
Sarantakos, S. (2002) Social Research (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave).
Scheyvens, R. (2002) Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities (Harlow: Pearson Education).
Scott, N., Cooper, C. and Baggio, R. (2008) Destination Networks. Four Australian Cases, Annals of Tourism
Research, 35(1), pp. 169–88.
Sebele, L.S. (2010) Community-Based Tourism Ventures, Benefits and Challenges: Khma Rhino Sanctuary
Trust, Central District, Botswana, Tourism Management, 31, pp. 136–46.
Shane, S. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship, The Individual Opportunity Nexus (Basingstoke:
Edward Elgar).
Simpson, M.C. (2008) Community Benefit Tourism Initiatives: A Conceptual Oxymoron? Tourism Management,
29(1), pp. 1–18.
Singh, N.K. (2005) Kerala Not Yet God’s Own Country, Indian Express. Available at http://www.indianexpress.
com/oldStory/84184/ (accessed 10 February 2010).
Stake, R. (2003) Case Studies, in: N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 2,
pp. 86– 109 (London: Sage).
Stam, E. and Stel, A. (2009) Types of Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, UNU-MERIT Working Paper
Series 049 (Maastricht: United Nations University). Available at http://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/
wppdf/2009/wp2009-049.pdf (accessed 5 February 2010).
Stamboulis, Y. and Skayannis, P. (2003) Innovation strategies and technology for experience-based tourism,
Tourism Management, 24, pp. 35–43.
Stevenson, N., Airey, D. and Miller, G. (2008) Tourism Policy Making: The Policymakers’ Perspectives,
Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), pp. 732–50.
Tao, T.C.H. and Wall, G. (2009) Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy, Tourism Management, 30,
pp. 90–98.
Tellis, W. (1997) Introduction to Case Study, The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Available at http://www.nova.edu/
ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html (accessed 16 February 2010).
Thekkottil.com (2010) Kerala at a Glance. Available at http://www.thekkottil.com/pradeep/aboutkerala.
html#instruments (accessed 12 February 2010).
Timur, S. and Getz, D. (2008) A Network Perspective on Managing Stakeholders for Sustainable Urban Tourism,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(4), pp. 445–61.
Tinsley, R. and Lynch, P. (2001) Small Tourism Business Networks and Destination Development, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 20, pp. 367–78.
Tosun, C. (2006) Expected Nature of Community Participation in Tourism Development, Tourism Management,
27(3), pp. 493–504.
Tosun, C. and Timothy, D.J. (2003) Arguments for Community Participation in the Tourism Development
Process, Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), pp. 2–15.
156 J. Kokkranikal and A. Morrison

Tyler, D. and Dinan, C. (2001) The Role of Interested Groups in England’s Emerging Tourism Policy Network,
Current Issues in Tourism, 4, pp. 210–53.
Vernon, R. (2001) The “New” Kerala Model: Lessons for Sustainable Development, World Development, 29(8),
pp. 601–617.
Vyakarnam, S. (2003) Entrepreneurial intensity: Searching for the hero inside. Paper presented at the Institute of
Small Business Affairs Conference, University of Surrey.
Walker, J., Mitchel, B. and Wismer, S. (2001a) Livelihood Strategy Approach to Community-Based Planning and
Assessment: A Case Study of Molas, Indonesia, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19(4), pp. 297–309.
Walker, S., Valaoras, G., Gurung, D. and Godde, P. (2001b) Women and Mountain Tourism: Redefining the
Boundaries of Policy and Practice, in: Y. Apostolopouls, S. Sonmez and D.J. Timothy (Eds) Women as
Producers and Consumers of Tourism in Developing Regions, pp. 211–34 (Westport, CT: Praeger).
Wall, G. (1999) The Role of Entrepreneurship in Tourism, in: K. Bras, H. Dahles, M. Gunawan and G. Richards
(Eds), Entrepreneurship and Education in Tourism, Proceedings of ATLAS Asia Inauguration Conference,
pp. 15–24. (Tilburg: ATLAS).
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Watts, D.J. and Strogatz, S.H. (1998) Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks, Nature, 393(4),
pp. 440–42.
Watts, M. (2009) Collaborative Implementation Network Structures: Cultural Tourism Implementation in an
English Seaside Context, System, Practice and Action Research, 22, pp. 293–311.
White, T. (2007) Sex-Workers and Tourism: A case study of Kovalam Beach, India, in: J. Cochrane (Ed.) Asian
Tourism: Growth and Change, pp. 285–98 (Kidlington: Elsevier).
Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Zahra, S.A., Nielsen, A.P. and Bogner, W.C. (1999) Corporate Entrepreneurship, Knowledge, and Competence
Development, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), pp. 169–89.