Using Social Network Analysis to Understand Trust, Reciprocity, and Togetherness in Wildlife Tourism Microentrepreneurship

Abstract

High levels of trust, reciprocity, and togetherness embedded within entrepreneurial networks are believed to facilitate cooperation that enables success among individual business owners. This study examines the effects of social influence, network characteristics, and entrepreneurial motivations on trust, reciprocity, and togetherness in a network of wildlife tourism microentrepreneurs. Thirty-seven wildlife tourism microentrepreneurs from North Carolina’s Pamlico Sound Region were recruited for in-person structured interviews. Data were analyzed using social network analysis, specifically a series of linear network autocorrelation models in conjunction with supportive qualitative assessment. Microentrepreneurs expressing a high level of trust were connected with microentrepreneurs expressing a low level of trust in their peers. Conversely, microentrepreneurs with strong feelings of reciprocity were connected with microentrepreneurs having similar feelings. These findings illustrate that the presence of equally reciprocal relationships is not an indication of equally trusting relationships. The findings also suggest that higher numbers of business ties tend to diminish the levels of trust, reciprocity, and togetherness toward connected peers.

Influence of Network Embeddedness and Network Diversity on Green Innovation: The Mediation Effect of Green Social Capital

“…Previous concepts of social capital were considered to pursue more linkages to others to absorb as many resources as they could in order to achieve their outcomes. Nevertheless, the exclusion, limitation of sharing benefit, restriction, and common experience and opinion would limit the expansion of network to connect to the social capital [22,23,[33][34][35]. Based on this, the association between network diversity and green social capital is not generalizable.…”

“…Based on this, trust and reciprocity are critical roles in the exchange and transition of information among network members. Social capital embedded within the network [23]. Coleman [24] mentioned that social capital is the relationship among individuals, which consists of aspects of social structure.…”

“…Furthermore, social capital is the tangible and intangible resources embedded in social networks [25,26]. Therefore, social capital, structure or cognitive, is connecting with other members and enhances the positive impact of corporations to grow and success [23]. However, social capital, in its natural definition, is different to embeddedness.…”

Social Capital along Wine Trails: Spilling the Wine to Residents?

“…For example, both Grängsjö and Gummesson [47], and Wang and Xiang [48] examined cooperative efforts and marketing alliances of tourism businesses through reciprocal exchange of resources. Others found that trust and social network ties were important to both prospective and current tourism and related business owners in terms of starting and operating their businesses [12,25,49]. Some studies also investigated from the tourists' perspective [27] suggesting that tourism creates and strengthens social ties between families and friends [50] and fosters interactions with others [51].…”

Alters & functions: exploring the ego-networks of tourism micro-firms

“…These include the coordination of supplementing activities (Pavlovich, 2003;Romeiro & Costa, 2010); marketing opportunities (Braun, 2015;Kc et al, 2019a); access to resources and knowledge (Czernek-Marszałek, 2020a); financial support and cost reduction (Czernek-Marszałek, 2020a;Rebelo, 2012); practical help (Rebelo, 2012); facilitate learning and skill development (Reinl & Kelliher, 2010) and; emotional support (Kc et al, 2019a;Rebelo, 2012). Kc et al (2019b) found that it is trust, reciprocity and a sense of togetherness that enabled tourism entrepreneurs to benefit from their networks. They note that the quality of network ties is more important than their extent.…”