Abstract
Our study explores how embeddedness influences the sustainability outcomes of entrepreneurship in a European protected area. Protected areas have distinct spatial and social characteristics, and we investigate how sustainable entrepreneurship interacts with these unique contexts. Guided by embeddedness theory, we examine how these dynamics shape entrepreneurial outcomes. Through an inductive, multi-case approach, we find that sustainable entrepreneurs in protected areas actively engage with their surroundings, connecting to both local ecology and communities. This engagement reveals a bi-directional relationship where entrepreneurs not only adapt to but also shape their context. Our findings show that various forms of embeddedness enable entrepreneurs to generate empathic, statutory, innovative, and radical sustainability outcomes, emphasizing the pivotal role of embeddedness in shaping entrepreneurship within protected areas.
Introduction
Protected areas include national parks, World Heritage sites, wilderness areas, biosphere reserves, marine reserves and Natura 2000 nature areas. A combination of international and local regulations govern these areas, managing them for nature or cultural conservation; these regulatory frameworks make using resources for economic purposes both challenging and contentious.
Research on protected areas has primarily centred on management practices, often overlooking the roles of entrepreneurs, local communities, and their socio-economic activities. Much of this discourse is framed by the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG target 8.9, which aims to balance tourism and economic activities with heritage preservation and ecosystem protection. However, rising population pressures and economic demand for nature-based resources, such as fish or fossil fuels, sometimes make conservation a secondary concern. Indeed, protected areas are increasingly viewed as obstacles to socio-economic progress in certain regions (Sijtsma et al., 2019). For instance, in the Wadden Sea World Heritage site, natural gas extraction as well as the transportation and waste impacts of overtourism, disturb wildlife and generate air, water and ground pollution. This threatens the health of its ecosystems and biodiversity (Kabat et al., 2012). This context highlights the pressing challenge of balancing development goals and local economic interests with the socio-cultural and ecological conservation priorities of protected areas.
Sustainable entrepreneurship presents an opportunity to achieve sustainable development in protected areas as it seeks to balance competing goals. Protected areas host communities who conduct socio-economic activities including farming, fishing and more recently tourism, which significantly affect the cultural, environmental and economic well-being of protected areas. These activities are often instigated and carried out by entrepreneurs (Wigger & Shepherd, 2020). The critical question is how sustainable entrepreneurs can achieve positive outcomes, via the generation of both economic as well as environmental and/or social value.
Several studies examine protected area management through environmental (Zhong et al., 2015), social (Mutanga et al., 2015), or economic (Heagney et al., 2015) objectives. Yet, only a handful of studies explore strategies for achieving win-win outcomes—for instance, balancing conservation aims with tourist access to generate income for communities and revenue for protection agencies (Turner & Daily, 2008). This balance is difficult to achieve, with economic activities often having negative impacts on protected areas. The entrepreneurial process behind positive outcomes remains somewhat underexplored. Recent research exploring how collective action can enable sustainable entrepreneurship to yield sustainable (environmental, social and economic) solutions (see Wigger & Shepherd, 2020), is a rare exception. Our study seeks to contribute to this area of knowledge.
Existing research on conventional entrepreneurship in protected areas identifies embeddedness as an enabling factor, influencing barriers related to knowledge, technology, human and financial capital (Wigren-Kristofersen et al., 2019). The theory of embeddedness proposes that entrepreneurs are influenced by place (spatial) and community (social). The close-knit community relations characteristic of protected areas, coupled with complex governance structures, and fragile ecosystems, mean sustainable entrepreneurs need to participate in the conservation of the area’s societal, ecological and cultural heritage to help preserve the protected area (Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013). Entrepreneurs located in protected areas must manage intricate relations with the community and beyond (Mutanga et al., 2015). Sustainable entrepreneurs play a significant developmental role in protected areas, and their embeddedness is likely to influence which genre of sustainable practices they implement and their outcomes. Within conventional entrepreneurship, embeddedness can aid the acquisition of key resources. The extent to which this is the same, or whether the operation of embeddedness will be more complex in our context, given the importance of links between entrepreneurs, communities and the natural environment, is unclear. Key questions include the role that embeddedness plays in sustainable entrepreneurship, and the processes through which it unfolds. Indeed, the complexity and fragile nature of the research context underlines the need for a study combining the theories of embeddedness and sustainability, thus adding to theorizing on the process of sustainable entrepreneurship in protected areas.
To tackle this issue, a multiple-case study was conducted employing interviewing and observations during site visits and attendance of entrepreneurial meetings. Analysis of this primary data in connection with secondary data yielded results on the dimensions of embeddedness exhibited by sustainable entrepreneurs in protected areas. The paper addresses the research question: How does the enactment of embeddedness by sustainable entrepreneurs shape their sustainability outcomes in protected areas?
This paper contributes by providing insights into how embeddedness influences sustainable entrepreneurship in fragile socio-ecological contexts (such as those in a protected area). Three embeddedness dimensions were identified: importance of place (social and spatial), importance of collaboration (networking) and importance of sustainability mission. We find that rather than being unidirectional, embeddedness is an agency reliant and bidirectional phenomenon. It also documents SME strategizing driven by local embeddedness.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section reviews literature that introduces protected areas and brings together the concepts of embeddedness, sustainable entrepreneurship and protected areas. This section is followed by the methods and results sections, as well as discussion section where we reflect on the findings in the light of existing literature and highlight its key implications. The paper closes with a conclusion section which summaries the theoretical implications of its findings.
Literature Review
Introduction to Protected Areas
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected areas are defined as a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. (Phillips et al., 2008, p. 8)
This includes marine and transboundary protected areas (across multiple country borders), designated for the protection of biodiversity (for example, conservation of endangered species, or protection against invading species), unique natural resources (such as fish and rainforests), or conservation of cultural heritage (for example, religions or traditional crafts, such as pottery-making).
Without protection, these areas risk environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, or damage to cultural heritage. Legal protections counter short-term interests, limiting activities by individuals or businesses. Protected areas are governed by six international categories (I–VI) with varying restrictions, from strict nature reserves (Ia) to national parks (II) (Phillips et al., 2008). Management is overseen by regional and national governments, using legal frameworks, community involvement, and traditional knowledge. In the EU, protected areas under the Birds and Habitat directives form the Natura 2000 network, though local communities often feel excluded. Internationally, UNESCO World Heritage designations recognize sites of universal natural or cultural value, illustrating multi-level governance (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2023). This highlights how protected areas can be subject to multiple governance layers, from national, EU to UNESCO levels.
The Protected Area Context
Protected areas are often examples of peripheral contexts (Larsen et al., 2022). They are regularly semi-remote, and rich in nature and cultural heritage resources. These areas accommodate a variety of interests, ranging from the local community (Mutanga et al., 2015), nature and cultural protection organizations (Zhong et al., 2015), destination managers, local authority and other relevant institutions (Piñeiro-Chousa et al., 2021). Entrepreneurs operating in protected areas must navigate this complex socio-economic make-up. Further, protected areas are especially sensitive to environmental problems such as climate change and pollution, as well as social and economic issues such as unemployment and emigration (Kabat et al., 2012).
Due to the challenges of remote protected areas, sustainable entrepreneurship is seen by policymakers as a potential tool for regional development (Hartman & Sijtsma, 2018; Piñeiro-Chousa et al., 2021). While many studies focus on meso-level policy formulation and management (Heslinga et al., 2018), our study adopts a micro-level, bottom-up approach, to examine existing entrepreneurs who are motivated to operate sustainably in protected areas and the practices they use to achieve this.
Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Protected Areas
Entrepreneurs in protected areas face increased pressure from international, national and local governance institutions, and local communities, to align with protected areas’ sustainability goals (Jamal & Stronza, 2009; Piñeiro-Chousa et al., 2021). A growing number of entrepreneurs in European protected areas, (especially those in the tourism industry), have endeavoured to incorporate sustainability in their strategies and practices (Font et al., 2016). Sustainable entrepreneurship is a conscientious way of doing business. It involves an entrepreneur seeking environmental, social and economic outcomes concurrently. For our study, we adopt the definition of sustainable entrepreneurship as a way of generating competitive advantage by identifying sustainability as new business opportunities, resulting in new and sustainable products, methods of production or ways of organizing business processes in a sustainable way. (Lans et al., 2014, p. 37)
This definition, aligned with SDG 8.9—By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products—supporting our focus on sustainable entrepreneurs in protected areas over start-ups. It highlights the entrepreneur’s purpose and broad sustainable outcomes, including economic growth, productive employment (SDG 8), environmental and cultural conservation (Wigger & Shepherd, 2020), and sometimes regional regeneration (Redhead & Bika, 2022). Sustainable entrepreneurs in these areas seek to tackle environmental and social challenges, and turn a profit, leveraging these issues as opportunities to redefine their purpose and create environmental (Antolin-Lopez et al., 2019), social (Kimmitt & Muñoz, 2018), and economic (Stubbs, 2017) benefits.
Sustainable entrepreneurship broadly consists of changes to strategy, changes to operations, and implementation of sustainability innovation. According to research, sustainable entrepreneurs’ goals in protected areas range from reducing environmental impacts (for example, through use of renewable energy sources) (Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013), boosting social impact (such as through progressive hiring practices) and to increase legitimacy and social impact (Font et al., 2016). A range of barriers exist however, including lack of financial support, lack of knowledge on best practices, prevailing industry norms and barriers related to existing institutions and regulations (Midgett et al., 2020). These barriers can be linked to the peripheral characteristics of the protected area context, despite the area being rich in natural and cultural resources such as scenic nature and local heritage.
Various theories explore how sustainable entrepreneurs navigate contextual influences. For instance, resource dependency theory examines the impact of external resources on goals like growth and sustainability (Hillman et al., 2009). In the context of the close-knit communities residing in protected areas, it is important to also examine the role of embeddedness in shaping sustainable entrepreneurship—whether by supporting, enabling, or constraining it—alongside resource-related factors.
Embeddedness and Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Protected Areas
Drawing from the 1944 seminal work of Karl Polanyi “The Great Transformation,” economic actions occur within a socio-economic environment, and are bound to the social relations between the actors (Biggart, 2002), that is, economic actions are embedded. Granovetter (1985) further adapted Polanyi’s work by postulating that the behaviours and decisions of “economic” actors, such as entrepreneurs, are influenced by the social context in which they operate. Their entrepreneurial purpose is actually embedded in socio-economic systems (Granovetter, 1985). Embeddedness enables entrepreneurs to acquire knowledge, financial resources and impact their surrounding (McKeever et al., 2015; Sharafizad et al., 2022). This premise has been credited by recent studies in sustainable entrepreneurship. In a 2017 article, Muñoz and Cohen found that socio-ecological and economic systems had specific societal rhythms and biophysical patterns which influenced the formulation of new sustainable ventures. The existing socio-ecological and economic system determined the timing of sustainable entrepreneurship within their specific context (Muñoz & Cohen, 2017). Embeddedness influenced the entrepreneurial journey of new sustainable ventures and impacted decisions on whether to stay at a certain location or relocate (Kibler et al., 2015). Conversely, sustainable entrepreneurs also influenced the socio-economic system operate in, as shown by Pinkse and Groot (2015) study of the clean energy sector highlighted how sustainable entrepreneurs drove political change, to overcome market barriers they faced (Pinkse & Groot, 2015). Such studies (cf. Muñoz et al., 2019) exemplify the influential role of context in (sustainable) entrepreneurship, thus emphasizing the relevance of investigating context, and specifically the role of embeddedness, on sustainable entrepreneurship process and its outcomes.
Embeddedness is an interesting lens as studies have shown that enterprises located in protected areas experience a close connection to place, leading to higher levels of engagement with sustainability objectives (Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013). The characteristics of protected areas, including ecological and heritage resources and close-knit communities, mean an entrepreneur may need to become embedded to achieve their entrepreneurial outcomes (Redhead & Bika, 2022). At the same time, entrepreneurs may also form connections to these characteristics (i.e., connections to community or nature). It is for this reason that we chose embeddedness as a lens with which to view sustainability practices in protected areas.
Forms of Embeddedness
Our study investigates the influence of varied forms of embeddedness on sustainable entrepreneurship in protected areas. Kibler et al (2015) examine spatial embeddedness in the form of place-attachment, categorizing it as (a) caring about the place (emotional) and (b) using the place (instrumental). This suggests that attachment to place influences the actions of entrepreneurs (Redhead & Bika, 2022), and their outcomes (McKeever et al., 2015), including decisions regarding the location of an enterprise.
Another form of embeddedness is social embeddedness. This takes various forms including local embeddedness (Sharafizad et al., 2022) and network embeddedness (Korsgaard et al., 2015). Recent studies show that local embeddedness can revitalize a region (“adopting place”) (Redhead & Bika, 2022), while others theorized how local embeddedness yielded different forms of sustainability in small firms (Sharafizad et al., 2022). Studies have also shown that in rural contexts, entrepreneurs form strong local networks and build strategic networks outside the community to achieve entrepreneurial goals (Korsgaard et al., 2015). Existing research indicates that both spatial and social embeddedness is exemplified by entrepreneurs operating in semi-remote and remote (i.e., peripheral) regions.
Yet, an investigation of the relationship between embeddedness and sustainable entrepreneurship in protected areas, and its role in determining the extent to which sustainability practices are implemented, is lacking. Our study provides insights into the dynamism of embeddedness, and how a combination of embeddedness and dis-embeddedness lead to certain forms of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Method
Research Setting
The Wadden Sea, the world’s largest unbroken intertidal system along the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark, is home to diverse flora and fauna (Dijk et al., 2016; Sijtsma et al., 2019) and holds UNESCO World Heritage status for its unique geology and ecology. Entrepreneurship makes up an average of 11% of the labour force in the Netherlands, and 10% in both Germany and Denmark, and is supported by policy to create jobs, drive innovation and effect structural changes in the region (Dijk et al., 2016). Tourism and related entrepreneurs make up a majority of entrepreneurs in this region, and tourism generated annual economic revenue of 6.7 billion euros, pre-COVID, for the three countries combined (Hartman et al., 2022).
The Wadden Sea faces numerous socio-economic challenges, including demographic decline driven by an aging population and a shortage of skilled jobs. While tourism has brought economic growth to the region, these issues remain unresolved. Many tourism-related jobs are low-skilled, seasonal, and contribute to underemployment (Dijk et al., 2016; Hartman et al., 2022). Moreover, overtourism has become a pressing issue, particularly on the islands, where it has fuelled local resentment (Hartman et al., 2022). This issue is exacerbated by the gentrification of local communities caused by the proliferation of holiday homes, which displaces residents and disrupts traditional social structures.
Environmental issues such as ecosystem disruption and heritage loss due to pollution and overtourism are additional concerns (Kabat et al., 2012). While research has focused on ecological management (Hartman & Sijtsma, 2018), research on sustainable entrepreneurship, and the question of how to balance these competing challenges, especially in tourism, remains limited. The Wadden Sea’s socio-economic, ecological and governance context offers a unique setting to study embeddedness in sustainable entrepreneurship across the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark (see Figure 1 for an overview).
Map of the Wadden Sea World Heritage Site—Depicting the Trans-National Governance Divisions (Bjarnason et al., 2017).
Research Approach
A multiple-case study method was chosen to provide an in-depth analysis of a dynamic and relatively unexplored combined phenomenon, the achievement of sustainable entrepreneurship and the underlying influences of embeddedness within the protected area context. Data was collected through interviews, site visits, observational data during regional meetings, company and local newspaper websites, and social media. The sustainable entrepreneurs were located within close-knit communities in a protected area. This resulted in highly contextualized data which helped us gain a deeper understanding of the contextualized sustainable entrepreneurship process. Finally, by investigating multiple cases, we could observe variations and commonalities between cases, arising from a shared context and institutional structure. Based on patterns within the cases, we could advance theory regarding relationships between embeddedness and sustainable entrepreneurship in protected areas. Previous studies have utilized similar methods, including in peripheral regions (Larsen et al., 2022). Table 1 summarizes the regions where the entrepreneurs (cases) in our sample are located:
Regional Characteristics and Administrative Structures of Case Study Locations.
Case Selection
A purposive sampling strategy was used to select cases. Sustainable entrepreneurs were referred to the study by regional conservation officers (e.g., National Parks, and destination managers) via email and phone calls. These officers have been working in the World Heritage site for several years and were well informed of sustainable entrepreneurs operating in their regions. For sustainable entrepreneurs who fit the scope of the study, and agreed to participate, an interview was conducted on the business premises. The duration of the interviews was on average 60 min, excluding the site tour. Snowballing of additional cases was used where possible. In total, 24 sustainable entrepreneurs were interviewed, from 2018 to 2020. The interviewees signed a permission form to allow for recording and analysis of the interviews by the research team. Table 2 provides a summary of the cases.
Case Summaries Including Sustainability Outcomes in the Protected Areas (Abbreviation Key—Denmark = DK, the Netherlands = NL, Germany = DE).
Secondary Data
We collected secondary data for each case to triangulate information provided by the participants and to serve as additional evidentiary sources. A summary is provided in Table 3:
Overview of Data Sources and Their Contribution to the Study.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred in two rounds. First, we created case descriptions focused on the sustainability outcomes achieved by the entrepreneurs. Then, using ATLAS.ti, we coded interviews to reflect the interviewees’ intended meanings. For each case, we drew on interviews, site observations, and secondary sources to identify sustainability outcomes, categorizing them as empathic, statutory, radical, or innovative solutions. The aim was to capture all forms of sustainability outcomes for each case, as illustrated in Table 4.
Categorization of Cases Based on Sustainability Outcomes and Their Economic, Environmental, and Social Contributions (Adapted Definitions From Bos-Brouwers (2010)).
In the second analysis round, interview transcripts were coded to yield primary codes on sustainable entrepreneurship. Similar and overlapping codes were combined and grouped into subthemes, which were then aggregated into theoretical dimensions. The primary researcher conducted the initial coding, having conducted the interviews, to align codes with participants’ meanings. The research team participated in the theme and dimension coding to reach a consensus and ensure inter-subjective validity. Themes summarized key findings, shown in Table 5. Finally, cases were compared for embeddedness and sustainability outcomes. The data analysis process is illustrated in Supplemental Appendix I.
Summary of the Data Structure.
Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the data structure: Table 4 shows descriptive sustainability outcomes (an extension of Table 4 is provided as Supplemental Appendix II) while Table 5 details the stepwise coding process from first-order concepts to aggregate dimensions. First-order codes were linked to interview transcripts, enabling cross-case analysis and connecting aggregate dimensions to specific sustainability outcomes, forming the basis of the process model in Figure 2. The analysis was iterative, revisiting transcripts and company websites to ensure accurate interpretation. The primary researcher also followed up with participants for clarification. Using ATLAS.ti for coding and cross-case analysis allowed us to explore the relationship between embeddedness and sustainable entrepreneurship (Eisenhardt et al., 2016).
Depiction of Embeddedness-Bounded Sustainability Outcomes.
Findings
Descriptive Findings
During case description it became apparent that the sustainable entrepreneurs achieved varied sustainability outcomes. Based on existing studies (Bos-Brouwers, 2010), we categorized the sustainability outcomes as:
Empathic sustainability outcomes: outcomes tied to the local nature and culture, adopting local knowledge,
Statutory sustainability outcomes: outcomes tied to operating in a national park in a legal way,
Radical sustainability outcomes: outcomes tied to use of local knowledge to discover innovative market solutions, and
innovative sustainability outcomes: outcomes tied to sustainability-driven technological innovations.
A table summarizing these descriptive findings into these categories is provided in Table 4.
Results From Coding Transcripts
The interviews demonstrated that the study participants felt it was important to be part of the place (McKeever et al., 2015; Redhead & Bika, 2022) and/or community (Sharafizad et al., 2022), that is, communities in the Wadden Sea World Heritage Site area. During data analysis four embeddedness themes were identified, as well as a dis-embeddedness theme, specifically: empathic-driven sustainable opportunity recognition, resource-based implementation of sustainability practices, innovation-based implementation of sustainability practices, reinforced connection to place and community and the theme of dis-embedding from the locality. A summary of the data structure is provided in Table 5.
Empathic-Driven Sustainable Opportunity Recognition
Our findings highlight the protected area as a key motivation for sustainable entrepreneurs to operate there. Respect for ecology and the need for conservation were essential drivers. Entrepreneurs noted that living in the protected area fostered empathy for its environmental, economic, and social needs, inspiring them to create opportunities that benefit both stakeholders and the protected area itself.
The entrepreneurs’ care for nature was evident in their preference for customers who valued conservation and semi-remoteness. Some were motivated to revitalize the area, noting it was in poorer condition initially, and actively sought improvements (C3, C14). Many held environmental certifications, evidenced by interview statements and enterprise websites, which justified their use of natural and cultural resources while aiding preservation (for example, C7, C11, C16, C17, C19). They also aimed to share the area with broader audiences, offering online tours for those unable to visit. Social and spatial embeddedness motivated sustainable entrepreneurs to establish businesses in this fragile socio-ecological areas, reflecting their duty of care for the environment, community, or both. Illustrative quotes on empathic-driven opportunity recognition are included in Supplemental Appendix III.
Resource-Based Implementation of SUSTAINABLE Practices Versus Innovation-Based Implementation of Sustainable Practices
Resource-Based Implementation of Sustainable Practices
Some sustainable entrepreneurs recognized limitations in knowledge and resources and addressed these through local networking (Illustrations of networking activities are provided as Supplemental Appendices XV and XVI). Due to the semi-remote location (deep countryside or island), transport disruptions were common, so they coordinated with local transport companies (e.g., ferry in Supplemental Appendix IX) to stay updated and inform their customers (C12, C14). This demonstrated how sustainable entrepreneurs sought collaboration with local authorities in the protected area, to manage and understand limited available resources. The sustainable entrepreneurs had to engage with community, local business and local authority to enable their own service/product delivery and achieve societal and environmental impact concurrently.
The entrepreneurs collaborated with local authorities and nature organizations to understand current nature management policies and community goals, allowing them to develop sustainable offerings aligned with local needs and resources (C5).
For creation of local area cultural networks, the sustainable entrepreneurs referred customers to neighbouring enterprises, reasoning that they were all one community and had to work together to survive. One interviewee (C13) displayed works of art at their business premise (a restaurant) to promote local artists and artisans, because they felt that culture and art were important for the location (also illustrated in Supplemental Appendices VII, VIII, and X).
Yet, another interviewee (C19) emphasized the importance of mutual support among local enterprises for community well-being. The protected area was viewed as a valuable resource, providing not only economic benefits but also environmental and cultural value. They appreciated the natural environment and aimed to preserve it, exemplified by a fully organic restaurant (C2), who also provide a guidebook for nature (Supplemental Appendix XII). The area’s natural and cultural resources were essential to their enterprises.
The protected area offered entrepreneurs an ideal setting for services like nature and culture tours (pictures included as Supplemental Appendices VI, XI, XIII, and XIV), restaurants, hotels, B&Bs, sailing, and energy resources. For financial support, they sought funding from conservation organizations and government grants, with mixed success. They stayed vigilant for grant or loan opportunities. Illustrative quotes on resource-based sustainability practices are in the Supplemental Appendix IV.
Innovation-Based Implementation of Sustainability Practices
Some of the sustainable entrepreneurs noted they had established formal alliances with conservation organizations, for example, to raise awareness of bird breeding locations (C10), and the need to keep these pristine and free of sound pollution and foot traffic (C1, C7, C10). This helped to achieve their environmental and social sustainability outcomes.
Others noted they were seeking collaboration with academic institutions (C14) to gain knowledge on the latest conservation research. These entrepreneurs provided student internships hoping to both, get knowledgeable future employees, but also gain knowledge on the latest trends. Other sustainable entrepreneurs gave a fixed amount of their profits to nature conservation initiatives, as the more funds to protect local nature, they more they would benefit as a business.
Innovation-driven sustainable entrepreneurs valued expertise, with some proudly identifying as first-movers during interviews (for example, wave energy—C23, or fully electric yachts—C22), due to superior in-house technological development. These cases actively carried out sustainability-oriented activities, rather than relying on the community. For instance, (C23) constructed wave installations intended to support future coral reefs and studied local fishing lanes to minimize disruption. Illustrative quotes on innovation-based sustainability practices are provided in Supplemental Appendix IV.
Reinforced Connection to Place and Community Versus Dis-Embedding From Locality
Reinforced Connection to Place and Community
Some entrepreneurs reported a sense of belonging after establishing their business, fostering connections with the local community (for example, C2, C9, C21, C24). This led them to participate in cultural festivals, offer their premises for community use at reduced costs, and provide part-time jobs to locals, thereby strengthening their ties and sense of belonging.
Many sustainable entrepreneurs felt deeply connected to nature and valued local knowledge. Their attachment stemmed from either growing up in the area or moving there and developing appreciation for its natural and cultural resources (akin to “place adoption”). In return, they received community recognition, customer referrals, and seasonal local labour support. This reinforced their sense of belonging and commitment to preserving the area’s closeness, freedom, and values.
In summary, data coding shows sustainable entrepreneurs embedding themselves in the community by forming alliances with local businesses, authorities, and networks that support their sustainability goals. These connections provided resources and helped them implement their sustainability aspirations. Some entrepreneurs prioritized their reputation in these networks (C18, C19), highlighting the importance placed on being embedded.
Dis-Embedding From Locality
While some sustainable entrepreneurs showed re-embeddedness, others found it necessary to dis-embed from their locality to achieve their sustainability and business goals. For them, building legitimacy with external experts and stakeholders took precedence, even if local community support was lacking. When their sustainability goals conflicted with community or business expectations, disagreements and pushback arose. Despite local opposition, these entrepreneurs stood their ground, leading to feelings of dis-embeddedness.
These sustainable entrepreneurs took a competency-driven approach, setting clear sustainability goals and consulting experts for necessary technology. They relied less on community input, focusing on research to ensure social and environmental benefits. Although spatially embedded (addressing local needs like sustainable energy), they remained socially dis-embedded from the community (C22, C23).
The sustainable entrepreneurs noted a lack of like-minded individuals locally, leading them to seek external partners for financing and knowledge to pursue their sustainability goals—partly driven by a lack of local support for the ideas. Several sustainable entrepreneurs noted that they hoped neighbouring businesses and local authorities would emulate their environmental and social practices.
Finally, instead of totally dis-embedding, certain sustainable entrepreneurs tried to influence the behaviour of visitors, through actions such as enforcing shorter showers (C9, C11, C16), or plastic bottles bans (C9). They discounted prices for locals (C2, C9) and employed locals (C13, C24). These actions focused on achieving social and environmental benefits, prioritizing their sustainability mission over community approval, even when it conflicted with local aims.
Our findings indicate varied degrees of dis-embeddedness by the sustainable entrepreneurs. Dis-embedding by the entrepreneurs was a key finding which in combination with embeddedness yielded the different sustainability outcomes. Quotes illustrating the findings are included as Supplemental Appendices III, IV, V.
In summary, these findings showcase that collaboration among entrepreneurs leads to sustainable outcomes, such as environmental entrepreneurship, and that networking fosters sustainability embeddedness in firms. Further, the findings highlight the relevance of embeddedness for sustainability outcomes in fragile socio-ecological contexts.
Discussion
Our study explores the connection between embeddedness and sustainable entrepreneurship, using data from a transnational protected area. Existing studies have helped to explain the influence of embedding on entrepreneurial activities (Korsgaard et al., 2015), and their outcomes, such as revitalisation of place (Redhead & Bika, 2022). Yet, a recent review stresses that the dynamism of entrepreneurial embedding is rarely captured in existing studies (Wigren-Kristofersen et al., 2019). Our study contributions provide nuanced evidence from sustainable entrepreneurs in fragile socio-ecological contexts. The entrepreneurs were influenced by their social and spatial context and, in turn, impacted it through networking, collaboration, and, at times, dis-embedding. This highlights the dynamic, bidirectional nature of the embedding process, resulting in varied embeddedness bounded sustainability outcomes.
Multilayered Nature of Embeddedness
The evidence of both social and spatial embedding actions occurring simultaneously point to “multi-layered embeddedness” (Wigren-Kristofersen et al., 2019) having an important relationship with sustainable entrepreneurship in protected areas. The two forms of embeddedness ebb and flow during the sustainable entrepreneurial journey. It’s indicated that sustainable entrepreneurs simultaneously enact a combination of social and spatial embeddedness, and that this directs their entrepreneurial activities. The finding contributes to embeddedness theory by moving beyond seeing embeddedness as a mechanism to overcome limited resources (Korsgaard et al., 2015). Rather, our study shows embeddedness as an agent-driven phenomenon that provides direction to entrepreneurial actions.
Protected areas provided an ideal context for this investigation, as they are characterized by entrepreneurs that are spatially embedded through care for the nature in the protected area (Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013), as well as socially embedded in the close-knit communities (Redhead & Bika, 2022). By connecting the embedding actions of sustainable entrepreneurs to achievement of sustainability outcomes, we identify an additional complexity in embeddedness actions. The sustainable entrepreneurs in our study were ecologically aware (indicated respect and care for nature), socially and culturally aware (acknowledged the usefulness of local knowledge), and spatially aware (recognized the availability of resources in the protected area). Contrary to a simple sequencing of each embeddedness form culminating in a typology of sustainability outcomes, our study highlights a dynamic act conducted by sustainable entrepreneurs.
Re-Embedding, Dis-Embedding and Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Our findings show that, in mature stages, sustainable enterprises either re-embedded or dis-embedded from their locality. For re-embedding, entrepreneurs renewed their loyalty to the community through actions like serving on boards or collaborating with local businesses. In contrast, others dis-embedded, pursuing sustainability goals without immediate local support, such as converting farms into eco-tourism sites. These actions could lead to community resentment, with entrepreneurs facing open criticism in local meetings. Despite this, they persisted with their sustainability goals and were often isolated by members of either the local community, or local business. This meant, re-embeddedness and dis-embeddedness often had to be alternated. This dynamic balance reflects the fluidity of local ties and illustrates how entrepreneurs navigate community relationships to achieve their sustainability objectives.
Some sustainability entrepreneurs operated independently of the local community, relying on technological innovations like wave energy (C23) and boat batteries (C22) that required scientific expertise. Despite this, they considered community needs (e.g., fishery-friendly wave energy) and environmental benefits, like incorporating artificial reef structures.
Some sustainability entrepreneurs operated independently of the local community, relying on technological innovations like wave energy (C23) and boat batteries (C22) that required scientific expertise. Despite this, they considered community needs (e.g., fishery-friendly wave energy) and environmental benefits, like incorporating artificial reef structures.
Our research showed that sustainable entrepreneurs often needed to dis-embed locally to meet their sustainability goals, while remaining spatially embedded to address location-specific needs. This dis-embeddedness allowed them to act as stewards of the protected area, balancing regeneration with economic benefits. Local dis-embeddedness enabled creative experimentation with sustainability actions within the sensitive socio-ecological context of protected areas. Thus, when local ties limited sustainability outcomes, entrepreneurs chose dis-embeddedness to pursue their goals. Our study contributes theoretically by outlining a process by which sustainable entrepreneurs had to balance their sustainability practices against their embeddedness in place. Using primary and secondary data, we mapped each case’s evolution to their sustainability outcomes resulting in the process diagram in Figure 2.
Embeddedness-Bounded Sustainability Outcomes
Our cases show that sustainable entrepreneurs in protected areas are driven by a commitment to environmental care and community well-being, leading them to establish businesses rooted in these values. Some relied on local nature and culture, applying resource-based practices, while others prioritized innovation, applying less context-dependent, innovation-based practices. Each approach incorporated elements of the other, creating a blended strategy. Over time, entrepreneurs’ connection to place varied, with some becoming more embedded (strengthening ties to place and community) and others less so, as they dis-embedded from local ties. Regardless, entrepreneurs aimed to balance community interests with sustainability goals, navigating a complex journey that produced varied sustainability outcomes. An illustration of each typology using a case is provided by Figure 3, in combination with Table 6:
Illustration of the Four Pathways to Sustainability Outcomes.
Description of Each Case Represented by (Dotted) Arrow in Figure 3.
exemplar Case 15
exemplar Case 5
exemplar Case 2
exemplar Case 22
Delineation of Motivations of Sustainable Entrepreneurs in Protected Areas
All the cases in this study were rooted in place (Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013): within the protected area. However, despite their rootedness, not all exhibited the same focus on sustainability. This provides a more nuanced examination of forms of place-based entrepreneurship (Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013). In addition to eco-centric entrepreneurship (Vlasov, 2021), the study provides evidence that sustainable entrepreneurship in protected areas could also be innovation driven (Cohen & Muñoz, 2015), and in some cases also anthropocentric (focus on community building).
A mix of motivations and actions led to varied sustainability outcomes. While entrepreneurs valued the location, this did not produce solely sustainable, or contingent (focus on utility) enterprises, but rather hybrid enterprises (cf. Russo et al., 2022), with different sustainability outcomes.
Our study categorized sustainability outcomes, revealing four, varied sustainability strategies within protected areas, as summarized in Figure 4:
Statutory sustainability outcomes: Entrepreneurs focused on re-embedding locally, aiming for social and economic impact through community networking and regulated use of natural resources. They prioritized minimizing harm while adhering to protected area rules, without emphasis on environmental regeneration.
Empathic sustainability outcomes: Locally embedded, aware of global sustainability goals, exceeded local regulations to achieve broader environmental, social, and economic impacts.
Radical sustainability outcomes: Entrepreneurs chose to dis-embed locally, applying local insights to create solutions that benefitted both the community and their business. They formed networks to promote societal change at the location.
Innovation sustainability outcomes: These entrepreneurs dis-embedded entirely, relying on expert knowledge to pursue global sustainability goals independently of the local community.
Finally, our findings underscore the potential for protected areas to drive transformative changes in business and industry practices towards sustainability. By integrating embeddedness with a strong sustainability orientation, sustainable entrepreneurs can both influence and be influenced by their environmental and social contexts. Figure 4 illustrates this dynamic, highlighting how innovative sustainability outcomes have the potential to reshape industry practices, while statutory sustainability outcomes drive transformations in business operations. This framework contributes to the literature by emphasizing specific sustainability orientations and their interaction with varying degrees of embeddedness, offering new insights into the mechanisms of sustainable transformation.
Sustainability Transformation Potential for Sustainable Entrepreneurs in Fragile Socio-Ecological Contexts (Adapted From Schaltegger et al. (2016)).
Practical Implications of the Study
This study offers policymakers insight into sustainable enterprises within protected areas. Observations of entrepreneurial meetings showed policymakers sharing their vision and clarifying regulations, which entrepreneurs were generally aware of. However, some found regulations restrictive, noting they were top-down and often excluded local community input. Despite this, entrepreneurs engaged in networking to either cooperate with local authorities and conservation bodies or address regulatory challenges. As suggested by studies (Piñeiro-Chousa et al., 2021), involving local communities and businesses in regulatory development could facilitate easier implementation of necessary conservation regulations.
Limitations of the Study
First, the study was set within the context of the Wadden Sea World Heritage Site (Hartman et al., 2022). This was ideal for examining spatial embeddedness, and highlighting multi-layered embeddedness, due to its unique geographical and cultural characteristics (Dijk et al., 2016), as well as social embeddedness as a result of the semi-remoteness and close-knit community (Kabat et al., 2012). However, our study was not exhaustive in exploring all forms of embeddedness, such as institutional embeddedness (Wigren-Kristoferson et al., 2022). Future research could incorporate information from sources other than the entrepreneur, for instance interviewing nature organizations, or funding institutions to fill this gap.
Our data sources and supporting secondary data provide unique insights into entrepreneurs’ activities; however, the cases are drawn from a European protected area. This limits generalizability, as protected areas worldwide differ in governance structures, with communities having varied social, environmental, and economic goals. Future research should gather broader data from sustainable entrepreneurs in diverse regions to identify patterns and assess if embeddedness influences are similar across different institutional contexts.
A majority of existing literature on embeddedness examines it during a particular phase of the businesses, that is, early, mature or late stage (Wigren-Kristoferson et al., 2022). Most enterprises in our study were mature. Yet, we did not take into consideration the stage of the business. Future studies should include a variation in age of the enterprises sampled, so as to observe whether there are differences. Thus, application of a longitudinal approach may yield interesting results.
Conclusion
Our findings reveal that sustainable entrepreneurs balance embeddedness through intentional activities within the protected area, actively interacting with their context to gain resources, knowledge, and influence. Uniquely, we link embeddedness to entrepreneurial purpose, showing that these entrepreneurs embed with a clear, purposeful approach.
Our study illustrates multi-layered embeddedness, with entrepreneurs enacting social, spatial, and dis-embeddedness in various combinations. It shows that sustainable entrepreneurs often balance different forms of embeddedness and may partially dis-embed (Redhead & Bika, 2022) to achieve their goals. In fragile socio-ecological contexts, embeddedness effects are more socially oriented, relying on local networks and resources rather than merely the spatial location.
Finally, our study contextualizes sustainable entrepreneurship within protected areas, presenting a detailed matrix based on qualitative data. Future research could quantitatively assess this framework with a larger dataset, offering new insights into the complexity of embeddedness in sustainable entrepreneurship (Korsgaard et al., 2022).
There is substantial foundational work on embeddedness where conventional entrepreneurial research is concerned (Wigren-Kristoferson et al., 2022). Its role in advancing rural and community entrepreneurship have been elucidated from varied perspectives including embeddedness’ role in revitalization of an area (Anderson et al., 2019), and the need for strategic external networks to create opportunities in semi-remote/remote areas (Korsgaard et al., 2015). In recent years there have been calls by sustainable entrepreneurship scholars to examine the complex consequences of embeddedness for sustainability (Muñoz & Cohen, 2017, 2018). Our research, in part, begins to answer this call.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-oae-10.1177_10860266251351119 – Supplemental material for The Dynamics of Embeddedness on Sustainable Entrepreneurship Within Protected Areas
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-oae-10.1177_10860266251351119 for The Dynamics of Embeddedness on Sustainable Entrepreneurship Within Protected Areas by Hellen L. A. Dawo, Thomas B. Long and Gjalt De Jong in Organization & Environment
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-oae-10.1177_10860266251351119 – Supplemental material for The Dynamics of Embeddedness on Sustainable Entrepreneurship Within Protected Areas
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-oae-10.1177_10860266251351119 for The Dynamics of Embeddedness on Sustainable Entrepreneurship Within Protected Areas by Hellen L. A. Dawo, Thomas B. Long and Gjalt De Jong in Organization & Environment
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their instrumental suggestions that helped us refine our manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Interreg VB project PROWAD LINK. Funders: Interreg VB
Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements
Ethical approval for the conducting of the study was received from the University of Groningen, Campus Fryslan Ethical Committee. All respondents signed an informed consent form for participation in the study.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
