Can start-up motives influence social-ecological resilience in community-based entrepreneurship setting? Case of coastal shrimp farmers in Sri Lanka

Galappaththi, Iroshani M.; Galappaththi, Eranga K.; Kodithuwakku, Sarath S.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.024

Cited by 22 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Béné et al (2012) focus on two capacities apart from adaptive capacity (also common in Tand V-lens): absorptive capacity, which is the capacity of individuals, households, and/or communities to moderate the impacts of shocks on their livelihoods; and transformative capacity, which is the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when shocks in ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable. Most of the papers using the C-lens work with these three capacities (absorptive, adaptive, and transformative), but some papers use "the capacity for learning and adaptation" or "the capacity to self-organize" instead of adaptive or transformative capacity (i.e., C05, Galappaththi et al 2017;C10, Jacobi et al 2018;C18, Speranza 2013;C19, Speranza et al 2014). Papers to some extent elaborate on the type of perturbations and the resources used in dealing with them (e.g., C14, Shadbolt and Olubode-Awosola 2016) and give no or limited attention to practices.…”

Section: Four Lenses Four Theoretical Positionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical positions and approaches to resilience assessment in farming systems. A review

Lee

Kangogo

Özkan

et al. 2022

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the concept of resilience being increasingly applied in farming systems research, there is general agreement that the resilience theory should be supported by sound assessment methodologies. Yet, in the extant literature, definitions and measures of resilience as a system outcome, a system capability or a process are often conflated, causing conceptual and methodological ambiguities. To overcome these limitations, here we systematically review the literature on assessing the resilience of farming systems and identify patterns, including similarities and differences in underpinning theories and in methodologies. We analyzed 123 papers on how the resilience of farming systems is conceptualized and assessed. From these papers, we identified four theoretical positions (“lenses”): traditional, vulnerability, capacities, and agroecology. These lenses differ and complement each other in terms of the outcome definition of resilience (stability, transformation, and reduced vulnerability), the prominent components of resilience (capacities, practices, and resources), and the perturbations that farming systems are exposed to (shocks, exposure, and sensitivity). Collectively, these lenses offer a novel causality framework with a complementary set of causal links between perturbations, components, and outcomes. This paper suggests for the first time that resilience assessment methodologies can be further developed by drawing from the strengths and complementarities of the different perspectives. Hence, this paper identifies five design choices that need to be made in order to rigorously assess the resilience of farming systems. These concern the choice of system traits, of perturbations, of type of resilience, of contributing factors, and of resilience outcomes that will be considered.

show abstract

Section: Four Lenses Four Theoretical Positionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical positions and approaches to resilience assessment in farming systems. A review

Lee

Kangogo

Özkan

et al. 2022

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Community-based enterprises (CBEs) focus on the symbiotic relationship that different people and organizations are mutually dependent on and the creation of social value for the community in the long term (Pinheiro et al, 2020). Moreover, the current term which has been used and accepted by most researchers is community-based entrepreneurship (Galappaththi et al, 2017;Murphy et al, 2020;Parwez, 2017;Purusottama et al, 2018;Sankaran & Demangeot, 2017). Therefore, the terms used to represent community-based entrepreneurship are multidimensional and diverse in approaches which may be viewed as routes and directions for promoting entrepreneurship in the communities.…”

Section: Similar Terms To Represent Community-based Entrepreneurshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, this paper contributes to the current literature by systematically reviewing suitable and relevant articles based on systematic procedures from keywords identification to articles eligibility analysis (Moher et al, 2015). Community-based entrepreneurship has been defined differently and as a result, it can stimulate different interpretations in the concepts (Argyrou & Hummels, 2019;Galappaththi et al, 2017;Gurău & Dana, 2018;Jaafar et al, 2020). Hence, for its usability, various studies have been published in the context of entrepreneurship at the community level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Concept of Community-Based Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review Approach

Hassan¹,

Dahalan²,

Hilmi³

et al. 2021

cibg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community-based entrepreneurship is a growing concept in entrepreneurship research, which capitalises on the demand for community participation in any enterprise development. However, there are many misconceptions from the previous researchers regarding the terms' definition and influencing factors. This paper aims to understand community-based entrepreneurship concepts and add value to the current literature in an academic context. This paper employed secondary data resources from 2010 until 2020. Four scientific databases are selected as an appropriate database, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was employed as the basic method for conducting this review. Based on 14 articles which were reviewed thoroughly and systematically, this paper found the definition of community-based entrepreneurship and summarised two main factors that influenced the success of community-based entrepreneurs. Overall, this systematic review provides a good platform for further research by identifying the research needs in community-based entrepreneurship.

show abstract

“…[12], [13], [14] , [15]. CE is collective action to transform social-economy, culture and environmental system within several roles in the community; owner, businessmen, and workers [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. They identify opportunities, market as well as self-managing improvement, exploited advantages locally to promote local welfare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement Model on Community Farmer for Agriculture Cluster Development

Silfia

Helmi

Noer

et al. 2021

Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community entrepreneurship (CE) is an established synergetic network between the community and social entrepreneurship. CE in agricultural cluster area development (ACD), which is based on small-medium enterprise (SMEs) comprises the collaborative engagement between farmer community, agribusiness cluster, and common resources. This research aims to analyze CE performance in ACD based on SMES through emerging CE variables and how to manage CE's variables most effectively. This study contributes to the enhancement of CE performance in ACD. It also contributes to the methodology through the community effectiveness entrepreneurship index (CEEI). CEEI is a model to measure CE in ACD. It is an average score of 30 indicators from CE functions: collective innovation, collective supply chain management, collective accessibility to economic resources and opportunities, profit accumulation, and benefit-sharing. Using a factor analysis validation, CEEI has been applied to farmer groups in Lembah Gumanti subdistrict, Solok regency, West Sumatra province, Indonesia as a pilot test. The results indicated constructing the measured performance of CE in ACD identified CE performance supported by all CE variables. There are three CE effectiveness categories in ACD; strong (4), fair (3), and weak. Primarily, the management has yet been effective for CE variables. This is because the majority of CE is still not managed by non-social business communities. Community social businesses are better at managing synergies with the dimensions of collective action for innovation, SCM, accessibility, profits, and benefit-sharing.

show abstract

Can start-up motives influence social-ecological resilience in community-based entrepreneurship setting? Case of coastal shrimp farmers in Sri Lanka

Cited by 22 publications

References 38 publications

Theoretical positions and approaches to resilience assessment in farming systems. A review

Theoretical positions and approaches to resilience assessment in farming systems. A review

Understanding the Concept of Community-Based Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review Approach

Measurement Model on Community Farmer for Agriculture Cluster Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About