Application of Social Enterprise Concept for Sustainable Tourism Development: Case Study of Saolaung Community at Nan Province, Thailand
This paper discusses the issue of sustainable tourism development from using the theme of applying the concept of Social Enterprise. In answer for the question, it’s about well-being and making Income driven by people in the community under the question of "How to use social enterprise in sustainable tourism development". Detailed analysis of this article uses an analysis for understanding case studies of community in northern of Thailand. The structure is an open question of tourism development under the concept of social enterprise for using the interviewing that involved in tourism related activities.
The conclusions of the research are findings of the factors for the success of the social entrepreneurship to development of the potential in Saolaung community for sustainable tourism that includes three main topics. 1. It’s the internal social responsibility of Saolaung community. 2. It’s Factors that promote clarity in the social entrepreneurship of Saolaung community. And 3. It’s the factors for supporting the potential of social entrepreneurship of Saolaung community that is internal of each community member already. Therefore, the factors support the potential of social entrepreneur that are important in stimulating the achievement of the objective. This research has been very challenging to apply the concept in place that’s higher urban communities. This may not be able to drive a high level of achievement since there may be a lot of different community members behaviors. This article can be used as a basis for comparison with other case studies and tested in a variety of ways for countries that wish to develop a strong economic community to foundations for rural tourism development.
2.Abbott, T. (2000). Unfinished business. Work for the Dole Co-ordinators’ Conference, 26 July 2000 Publisher, Melbourne.
3.Botsman, P., & Latham, M. (eds.). (2001). The Enabling State: People Before Bureaucracy. Sydney: Pluto Press.
4.Centre for Corporate Public Affairs. (2000). Corporate Community Involvement: Establishing a Business Case. Centre for Corporate Public Affairs in conjunction with the Business Council of Australia, Melbourne.
5.Church, K., Fontan, J. M., Lachance, E., & Shragge, E. (2000). Re-inventing the Trojan horse: Non-profit businesses attack labour market exclusion. Canadian Social Work Review, 17(1), 131–143.
6.Defourny, J. (2001). Introduction—from third sector to social enterprise. In D. Borzaga, J. Defourny, S. Adam, & J. Callaghan (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise, London: Routledge.
7.Hechavarria, D. M., & Reynolds, P. D. (2009). Cultural norms & business start-ups: the impact of national values on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(4), 417–437.
8.Henton, D., Melville, J., & Walesh, K. (1997). The age of the civic entrepreneur: Restoring civil society and building economic community. National Civic Review, 86(2), 149–156.
9.Janelle, A. (2010). A Comparative Analysis of the Global Emergence of Social Enterprise. Voluntas Journal, 21, 162-179.
10.Monica, D., & Alistair, R. (2011). Ambivalence and ambiguity in social enterprise: narratives about values in reconciling purpose and practices. International Entrepreneur Management Journal, 7, 93–109.
11.Pearson, N. (2001). Rebuilding indigenous communities. In P. Botsman, & M. Latham (Eds.), The Enabling State:People Before Bureaucracy. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press.
12.Powell, M., & Barrientos, A. (2004). Welfare regimes and the welfare mix. European Journal of Political Research, 43(1), 83–185.
13.Salamon, L., Sokolowski, S. W., & Anheier, H. K. (2000). Social origins of civil society: An overview. In (Eds.), Working Paper of the Johns Hopkins comparative nonprofit sector project no. 38, The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, Baltimore.
14.Seanor, P., & Meaton, J. (2008). Learning from failure, ambiguity and trust in social enterprise. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(1), 24–40.
15.SIMONS R [Internet] (2001), Social enterprise: Partnership for Sustainable Change. Paper Presented at the National Social Policy Conference, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.https://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/nspc2001/papers/Paper6 1.pdf (accessed 10 March 2017).
16.Taylor, I. (2003). Limits of market society: European perspectives. In H. Steinert, & A. Pilgram (Eds.), Welfare Policy from Below, Page 13 – 24.
17.Welford, R. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and Asia: Critical Elements and Best Practice. Corporate Social Review, 13, 31–47.
18.Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D., & Shulman, J. (2009). Typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.
19.Phitak Siriwong. (2547). "Theoretical foundations (Grounded Theory) Research Methodology to theorize in developing countries," Library Msk.t. (19): 1 April to September, 2547.
Copyright (c) 2018 Lampang Rajabhat University Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.บทความลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสารมหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฎลำปาง