**Analysis of Land-Use Change in Shortandy District in Terms of Sustainable Development**

**Onggarbek Alipbeki 1,\* , Chaimgul Alipbekova <sup>2</sup> , Arnold Sterenharz <sup>3</sup> , Zhanat Toleubekova <sup>1</sup> , Saule Makenova <sup>1</sup> , Meirzhan Aliyev <sup>1</sup> and Nursultan Mineyev <sup>1</sup>**


Received: 18 April 2020; Accepted: 7 May 2020; Published: 12 May 2020

**Abstract:** The suburban territories of large cities are transitional zones where intensive transformations in land use are constantly taking place. Therefore, the presented work is devoted to an integrated assessment of land use changes in the Shortandy district (Kazakhstan) based on an integrated study of the dynamics of land use and sustainable development indicators (SDIs). It was found that the main tendency in the land use of this Peri-urban area (PUA) during 1992–2018 is their intensification, through an increase in arable lands. Kazakhstan only recently started the systematic collection of SDIs according to international standards. Therefore, to assess the sustainable development of the study area, limited amounts of information were available. Nevertheless, the use of SDIs from 2007 to 2017 showed that the growth of economic development inthe study area is almost adequately accompanied by an increase in the level of social and environmental development. The methodological approach used can be widely used to assess the sustainable development of specific territories in general and the development of the capital of Kazakhstan and their PUA, in particular.

**Keywords:** land use change; analyze; sustainable development; Shortandy district

#### **1. Introduction**

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) statement on food security "by 2050, the world's population will grow to almost 10 billion," which will increase food demand by about 50% compared to 2013 [1]. At the same time, the share of the rural population will decrease, and the urban population of the world will reach 68% [2]. Increased food production is recommended to be accompanied by sustainable agricultural land management [3], including PUA.

The purpose of increasing the effectiveness of land use management is to stop or at least slow down the negative impact of land use on natural resources. Moreover, adverse processes are often understood as degradation of the soil cover under the influence of various types of erosion [4], desertification and salinization [5,6], depletion of soil fertility [7], pollution [8], reduced water quality [9], land grabs by rapidly growing cities and their consequences [10], etc. These local changes in land use together have a global impact on climate, hydrology, biogeochemistry, biodiversity and the ability of biological systems to meet human needs [11,12]. Besides, changes in land use significantly affect the energy balance of the entire Earth and the biogeochemical cycles in it, of which 60% are associated with direct human activities (for example, urban sprawl and intensification of agriculture) and only 40% with

indirect environmental factors (for example, climate change) [13–17].Ultimately, these undesirable processes occurring in the environment, if detected and not prevented in time, lead to undesirable economic, social and environmental consequences, the indicators of which should also be measured and evaluated. It is emphasized that the process of sustainable development is multidimensional and interdisciplinary, and the indicators proposed for its assessment are an attempt to combine them into a measurable set [18–21], which usually focus on a certain aspect of sustainable development.

In the light of the above context, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive and systematic assessment of changes in land use, environmental factors, economic and social conditions by instrumental and statistical methods based on indicators of sustainable development (SDI) [22].

On the one hand, the transformation of land use is the main driver of environmental change at all levels. Instrumental methods using Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are widely used to evaluate Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) changes. The accuracy of the LULC assessment using RS and GIS depends on the potential of the devices used and their sensors, the frequency of measurement repeatability and the qualifications of an expert [23–25]. For example, the assessment of long-term LULC changes based on RS and GIS is implemented at the global, regional, national and local levels [26–31]. It is obvious that over time, the level of reliability of the assessment of changes in LULC will increase with the development of geoinformatics, in general, and geoinformation technologies, in particular. Apparently, instrumental research methods supplemented by data on the state of social, economic and environmental factors may be more useful in assessing the sustainable development of a particular territory.

On the other hand, the concept of sustainable development is one of the doctrines of the economy and assumes that "it meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their own needs" [32]. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the foundation for a better and sustainable future for all. They address the global challenges that we face, including those related to poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace and justice. All 17 SDGs are interlinked [33] and provide for the balance between economic growth (economic aspect), care for nature (environmental aspect) and quality of life (social aspect), and are closely related to space and land use. To assess the transformation of sustainable development, different approaches are used [34]. In our opinion, studies on sustainable development using LULC digital maps in integration with economic social and environmental indicators are of the greatest interest. This is because land use always represents a correlation between different economic, social and environmental needs [35]. For example, LULC digital maps were used in conjunction with environmental statistics [35,36], land use intensity [37], socio-economic consequences of land use [38], and a combination of environmental, economic and social factors based on land processing [22]. In order to conduct such comprehensive studies, in addition to reliable digital cards, reliable SDI [39,40] and adequate methodological approaches are additionally needed.

In Kazakhstan, to date, research in the field of sustainable development has been carried out either using LULC digital maps [41], or using reliable scientific and official source statistical data [42]. Initial statistical indicators of sustainable development to date in the republic have not been fully systematized according to the requirements of the SDGs, the use of which still requires their transformation into three or more stages. Nevertheless, the republic fully supports the principles of sustainable development [43] and the country has joined the United Nations (UN) special program "Sustainable Development Goals for the Period until 2030" [44]. Therefore, to monitor the sustainable development of land use, the RS group was created from KazEOSAT 1 and KazEOSAT 2 (Kazakhstan) [45]. In addition, in recent years, studies have been launched in the field of long-term observation of changes in LULC using RS [41,46–51]. However, the problem of a comprehensive assessment of the sustainable development of PUA using instrumental methods for studying changes in land use in combination with the use of SDI remains open.

Based on the foregoing, the goal of our research is a comprehensive assessment of the sustainable development of the Shortandy region, which is the PUA of the metropolis Nur-Sultan, using instrumental and statistical indicators of sustainable development. The research objectives are the development of spatial and temporal LULC maps for determining changes in land use trends, as well as assessing the level of sustainable development of the Shortandy district based on a multi-step transformation of the currently available initial statistical indicators of sustainable development in the fields of ecology, economics and social conditions.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

#### *2.1. Study Area*

The research area is the Shortandy district, Akmola oblast, which is located on the northern border of the city Nur-Sultan which isthe capital of Kazakhstan (Figure 1), where lack of free space is a problem, as in many other metropolises.

**Figure 1.** Digital elevation map [52] of the Shortandy district.

The area of interest (AOI) covers an area of 4675.6 km<sup>2</sup> . There are 11 villages in the district. The population of the district as of January 1, 2018, was 29,421 people. The region specializes in gold mining, grain production, livestock farming and processing of agricultural products. The industry focus is agrarian-industrial. A railway passes through the territory of the Shortandy region in several directions: Almaty-Petropavlovsk, Kokshetau-Kyzylorda, etc., roads of international, republican and regional significance, which makes it attractive both for the development of industry and agriculture. The hydrographic network is represented by 11 lakes and several small drains, the flow of which is insignificant. The main water artery flowing through the territory of the district is the Damsa River [53–55].

#### *2.2. Data*

Landsat data 5 and 8 [56] for 1992, 1998, 2008, 2018 were used to study land use changes in the AOI. The Metadata of images are: LT51550241992155ISP00; LT51560241992162ISP00; LT51550241998267BIK00; LT51560241998258BIK00; LT51550242008103BJC01; LT51560242008126KHC01; LC81550242018146LGN00; LC81560242018185LGN00.

To assess the sustainability of the development of the district, we used statistical data obtained from the relevant internet resources of Kazakhstan [57,58], as well as from the official data provided by the "Republican Scientific and Methodological Centre of the Agrochemical Service" of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (RSMCAS).

#### *2.3. Methods*

Methodology for classifying land use, it's accuracy assessment and land use map generation is described in our previous work [41], which used the methodological approaches and solutions given in [52,56,59–62]. Methods of assessing sustainable development include four steps (Figure 2) [63].

**Figure 2.** Methods of assessing sustainable development [63] of Shortandy district.

Table 1 shows the three groups of SDIs we used: economic, social, and environmental.


**Table 1.** Indicators for the assessment of sustainable development of Shortandy district.

#### **3. Results**

#### *3.1. Land Use Changes in Shortandy District*

The land use classification of the Shortandy district for the period 1992–2018 indicates the presence of noticeable changes in land use (Tables 2 and 3). Agricultural land occupies the bulk of the AOI (~96%, with arable land ~66% and pasture ~30%), which is clearly seen in Figure 3. In 1992, arable lands and pastures amounted to 95.83%; in 1998, 95.84%; in 2008, 95.71%; and in 2018, 95.61% (Table 2). From the above data, it can be seen that there was a gradual increase in the area of arable land mainly

due to pasture ploughing (Table 3). From 1992 to 1998, there was only a slight tendency to reduce pastures and increase arable lands. Noticeable increases in the share of arable land began in 1998. The territories occupied by arable land from 1992 to 2008 increased by 1.4 km<sup>2</sup> , and from 1992 to 2018 by 16.5 km<sup>2</sup> .


**Table 2.** Characteristics of land use changes in Shortandy district.

**Table 3.** Land use area difference of Shortandy district between 1992–2018.


**Figure 3.** Land use map of Shortandy district.

Over the same period (1992–2018), the rangelands AOI decreased by 20.5 km<sup>2</sup> , of which 16.5 km<sup>2</sup> became arable land. A typical example of the expansion of the sown area due to the ploughing of pastures is shown in Figure 4.

**Figure 4.** An example of change the area of arable land in Shortandy district (**A**) from1992 (**B**) to 2018 (**C**).

The area of water bodies over the years of research remained virtually unchanged and remained at the level of 2.7%.

Forests in the study area occupy less than one percent (0.79%–0.81%). It was noted that the area used for growing trees markedly increased, mainly due to the planting of new forest stands [64].

Urban areas occupy only 0.67%–0.72% of the entire territory of the district. From 1992 to 1998, until the city of Akmola was declared the capital of the republic, the area of the urbanized territories of the district remained unchanged. From 1998 to 2008, the built-up area of the district increased by 2.0 km<sup>2</sup> . From 1992 to 2018, the total built-up area increased by 3.1 km<sup>2</sup> compared to the beginning of our observations.

The overall classification accuracy of land use varied between 92.2%–95.0%. The Kappa coefficient for classified images in 1992 was 0.85; in 1998, 0.83; in 2008, 0.89; and in 2018, 0.89, which indicates the reliability of our land use classification (Table 2).

#### *3.2. Analyze of Sustainable Development of Shortandy District*

The results of the calculation of SDI are shown in Table 4. In general, there are positive changes intheeconomicandsocialSDI, whichis possible due to strong growth offixed assets in agriculture and industrial production of Shortandy district.

**Table 4.** The individual integrated sustainable development indicators (SDI)of Shortandy district in 2007–2017.


The limitation of the period of assessment of sustainable development from 2007 to 2017 is due to the lack of SDIs that have been conducted hitherto unsystematically on the scale of not only the Shortandy district but the whole republic [65].

In the social sphere, individual indicators are also improving. However, their pace of development is slightly lower than the economic sector. The best SDI in the social sphere was achieved in 2014, after which stagnation was observed.

It should be noted that, according to RSMCAS, an increase in the amountof arable lands is observed, where there is no restoration of soil humus. For example, the weighted average humus content in AOI soils decreased by about 30% compared with 1989, and this process has not completely stopped. At the same time, in recent years, there has been a tendency to increase in the study area soils the mobile form of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which is apparently due to the intensive use of arable land, where it is difficult to obtain high yields without fertilizing.

Evaluation of individual SDI study area allows building hypothetical sustainability testing grounds based on local criteria over some of the years (Figure 5).

**Figure 5.** Polygons of sustainable development of Shortandy district in 2007–2017.

In general, the nature of the change in the size and shape of landfills convincingly indicates a steady increase in integrated economic, social and environmental indicators. Forms of test polygons are quite smooth, but not always an ideal triangle. This indicates an uneven change in one or another integral indicator over years or measured periods of time, which is quite logical. In this regard, a relatively small deviation of the triangle of 2007 and 2017 towards environmental indicators can be noted, which indicates a noticeable criticality of this indicator in comparison with the economic and social characteristics of the sustainable development of the Shortandy district.

A comprehensive integral indicator of sustainable development of AOI is shown in Figure 6.

**Figure 6.** The dynamics of the complex SDI of Shortandy district in 2007–2017.

Changes in the comprehensive indicator of sustainable development, which combines all three integrated indicators of economic, environmental and social development, indicate a positive trend. During the estimated period, the process of improving all three sides of development was generally going on, although these dynamics slowed down in the period from 2014 to 2017.

The analysis allows us to conclude about the positive dynamics of the integral index of stability of the Shortandy district. Such changes are primarily associated with a relatively high level of investment in the economy of the study area.

#### **4. Discussion**

Comprehensive studies aimed at assessing the sustainable development of PUA, which can be divided into two large groups. The first group is land use research using the advantages of instrumental methods (RS and GIS), the second is the widespread use of knowledge-based on transformed statistics in the field of economic and social sciences, as well as environmental protection.

To evaluate changes in land use, RS is presented as a tool to obtain information about an object or a phenomenon at a distance and in a non-destructive way to conduct a spatiotemporal analysis of long-term trends in land use development [22,66]. However, not one of the land use features is measured directly using RS instruments. The relationship between what is measured (radiation) and the characteristics of the land use must be modelled to deduce the last from the first. Therefore, the use of RS to study land usechanges is always accompanied by an assessment of classification accuracy [67].

Interest in the instrumental assessment of land use is very high, since it has moved to a new level [29] and, due to its unique characteristics, can be extremely useful for assessing the sustainable development of territories: local, national, regional and global.

One example in this regard is the Polish Coordination of Information of Environment (CORINE) Land Cover, which assessesthe period from 1990 to 2018 [68]. Interpreting changes in the time horizon, one can obtain information on change trends, which is a valuable guide for the further development of sustainable development policies [22]. This is evidenced by the increase in the depth of land use analysis, associated with sustainable development goals [31,69]. Of considerable interest is the study of processes and determination of sustainable development paths in PUAs, which are caused by modern trends in the growth of urban population in the world [2]. Researches by instrumental methods of specific PUAs are carried out from the following positions: assessing the risk of competition for land-based on spatial indicators [70] the impact of urban expansion on the intensity of agricultural land use [71] and their losses [72,73]; urban planning and management policies [74]; valuation of ecosystem services [75]; assessment of degradation and loss of productive agricultural land [76]; search for driving forces affecting land use [77], etc. Those instrumental approaches to land use assessment can identify the main trends in spatial changes in PUAs for making objective decisions on sustainable development of PUAs.

At the same time, without the use of sustainable development indicators (SDI), based on the transformation of the initial statistical data in the field of economic and social sciences, as well as environmental protection, it is impossible to objectively assess the sustainability of rural development [63], including PUAs.

To this end, a single SDI metadata catalogue and international guidelines have been developed [78]. SDIs have many functions and can lead to more effective decisions by simplifying, refining and making summary information available to politicians. SDIs can help measure and calibrate progress toward sustainable development goals, and can also provide early warning to prevent economic, social and environmental failures [79].

The concept of sustainable development is an attempt to combine growing concern about a number of environmental problems with socio-economic problems [80], which are difficult to accomplish using only instrumental methods. The science of sustainability is based on the study of interdisciplinary connections and combines natural, social, humanitarian, engineering and other sciences to assess the long-term integrity of the environment [81]. For example, in order to identify mechanisms for sustainable development of PUAs, the processes driving the current global land grabbing are analyzed [82]. The expansion of cities to arable land may be accompanied by a decrease in the sustainability of the development of PUAs [83]; therefore, this problem becomes one of the key research areas, as it is associated with food security [84]. It is argued that a general agricultural and/or socio-economic profile may not be sufficient to understand sustainable development between urban and rural areas and suggest stricter definitions [85], as well as a new approach [86] aimed at identifying the socio-economic consequences of this process. Diversification in suburban agriculture [87], as well as an approach based on smart specialization [88], etc., can play a positive role in increasing the sustainability of the development of PUAs.

Researchers studying the problems of sustainable development of rural areas of Kazakhstan so far consider solutions to this problem at the level of the whole country. For sustainable development, countries propose diversification of the economy [42]; the development of "clean" production, the rational use of natural resources with the maximum possible preservation of the environment through improved technologies [37]; the development of industrial and social infrastructure [89]; solving the problem of accessibility and data quality [90]; studying the positive foreign practice of regulating land relations [91]; and taking into account economic, social, environmental and institutional factors of each region of the republic and choose adequate indicators [92].

For the quantitative assessment of sustainable rural development using indicators of sustainable development, two main approaches are distinguished [93–95]: the creation of separate indicators combined into a system [93,94] and a single integrated indicator [92].

In this regard, international guidelines will serve for national SDI kits, which should be developed taking into account the availability of relevant statistics and reflect the specific situation in countries and specific administrative-territorial units of the country. Therefore, Kazakhstan joined the development of initiatives and measures for sustainable development goals (SDGs) within the framework of the 2030 Agenda [43] and began to collect information according to sustainable development goals indicators [95].

At the same time, the historical imbalance, when a country consumes resources disproportionately compared to their production, is the basis for future problems of sustainable development of Kazakhstan. Calculations showed that reaching the trajectory of "sustainable development" can be ensured if the coefficient of resource utilization is 53%, but not lower than 43% [96]. When forecasting sustainable socio-economic growth, Kazakhstan adheres to three scenarios: optimistic, basic and pessimistic [97]. The forecasted values of Kazakhstan's sustainable growth for 2020–2024, when estimated according to the basic scenario, assumed an oil price of \$55 [98]. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth was projected at 4.1% in 2020. In 2024, it was supposed to reach 4.7%. For five years, the average annual GDP growth rate would be 4.4%. The pessimistic forecast [93] is associated with a decrease in oil prices, which are formed on world markets [99], and the COVID-19 virus epidemic has also added to it [100]. During this period, the government of Kazakhstan is considering the worst option for socio-economic development [101]; the results of such a forecast are not yet available to us. It should be emphasized that in the case of a pessimistic scenario, the adoption of anti-crisis measures is envisaged [97]. They cover measures to ensure macroeconomic stability, including monetary policy instruments, targeted measures to support the real economy, small and medium-sized businesses, and social security. At the same time, depending on the specifics of the crisis, the measures will be revised and adapted to current realities and sustainable development will continue, but its pace will decrease.

The forecast for sustainable development in Russia and Central Asian countries for the future is being formed as in Kazakhstan [102,103]. That is, the sustainable development of Kazakhstan's closest neighbours also depends on the prices of world markets.

It is quite interesting to consider the comparative aspects of the official sustainable development index between Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation [104]. During 1990 and 2015, the sustainable development index in Russia was constantly higher than in Kazakhstan. This indicates the need for close attention of the government of Kazakhstan to the problem of sustainable development in its republic since the country has already joined the goals of sustainable development 2030.

Thus, the presented material shows that for the most objective assessment of the sustainability of the development of PUAs, it is necessary to use an integrated assessment using instrumental studies of multi-temporal LULC changes and SDI statistical indicators. An example of such an approach already exists [22,35,36,38,105]. However, most of these studies are related to the study of urbanization of cities, and the ways of integrating the results of the LULC study with all three SDI groups (economic, environmental andsocial) for rural areas remain insufficiently studied.In this paper, we also tried to supplement the dynamics of spatiotemporal changes in LULC with SDI analysis using the example of the Shortandy district. In general, the results show the usefulness of the chosen approach, where the development trend of land use and the degree of PUA stability are comprehensively determined. At the same time, due to the limited information on SDI that Kazakhstan has just begun collecting, our work should be considered as an initial step in the chosen areas of research. Nevertheless, the results obtained are of significant value for local and republican bodies interested in developing sustainable development plans.

#### **5. Conclusions**

As a result of the studies, a comprehensive assessment of the development of the Shortandy region, which is the PUA of a fast-growing metropolis, was carried out. As a result, information was received:


The study of changes in the land use structure in the AOI from 1992 to 2018 using digital maps revealed an intensification of land use in the study area due to the constant increase in the share of arable land in the LULC structure.

Using the methodology of multi-step conversion of source statistical data into individual, integrated and aggregated of sustainable development indicators revealed that in the last 10years (from 2007 to 2017) there has been a steady development of AOI.

Thus, we have shown that the integrated use of instrumental data and systematic statistical indicators allows us to assess the tendency of land use and the sustainability of the development of a particular agricultural region as a whole. At the same time, due to a lack of initial statistical indicators for AOI, we were not able to evaluate the entire study period covered by the land use study (1992–2018). As a result, we should have limited ourselves to SDI analysis only from 2007 to 2017 with a relatively small number of indicators. Nevertheless, the information obtained in our work is valuable material for interested authorities to plan their activities in the field of sustainable development of a specific PUA. In addition, our approach gives other researchers the opportunity to expand their research in the field of assessing the sustainable development of specific territories, such as the Shortandy district.

The future problems of sustainable development of Kazakhstan are based on the historical imbalance when a country consumes resources disproportionately compared to their production. When forecasting sustainable socio-economic growth, Kazakhstan adheres to three scenarios: optimistic, basic and pessimistic. In all scenarios, sustainable development will continue, but its pace will vary depending on the specifics of the crisis.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, O.A.; methodology, O.A., C.A.; validation, A.S.; formal analysis, A.S., Z.T., S.M.; investigation, M.A., N.M.; writing—original draft preparation, O.A., C.A.; visualization, M.A., N.M.; supervision, O.A.; project administration, O.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by The Committee of Science of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan under grant number 242 of 03/27/2018 and The ERASMUS+ Programme of the European Union within the framework of the Project "New and Innovative Courses for Precision Agriculture" (NICOPA) (project reference number 597985-EPP-1-2018-1-KZ-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP). However, this document reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

**Acknowledgments:** We express our sincere gratitude to the collective of "The Republican Scientific and Methodological Centre of the Agrochemical Service" of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan for providing information on soil indicators of the Shortandy district from 2007 to 2019.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

*Article*

## **Agroecological Entrepreneurship, Public Support, and Sustainable Development: The Case of Rural Yucatan (Mexico)**

**Rocío Blanco-Gregory 1,\* , Leonor Elena López-Canto <sup>2</sup> , María Victoria Sanagustín-Fons <sup>3</sup> and Violante Martínez-Quintana <sup>4</sup>**


Received: 1 September 2020; Accepted: 20 October 2020; Published: 23 October 2020

**Abstract:** This paper offers an approach to Yucatecan social reality in terms of entrepreneurship and the process of creating companies dedicated to the production and/or commercialization of agroecological products, considering its contribution to sustainable rural development. The key actors' perspective towards the existence of policies that favor land sustainability, assist in the development of rural areas and their population, and support these business initiatives is also presented. Likewise, it illustrates the small entrepreneurs' standpoint on the role of public institutions in promoting wealth generation and sustainable development in lower growth areas, such as the state of Yucatan, in Mexico. A qualitative methodology was used for this research, based on in-depth interviews with a group of businessmen and -women from the region. The main results give a pessimistic view of institutional concern regarding both production and consumption of agroecological products and, therefore, the promotion of these enterprises for the socioeconomic development of Yucatan. From these findings, we detect: (a) A policy of scarce support for this type of production, due to political priorities; (b) inadequate management that prevents the consolidation of certain structures needed to support agroecological enterprises; (c) a lack of confidence in the Yucatecan government, which does not promote or support a social network of collaboration between agroecological producers and marketers; (d) a difficulty in undertaking agroecological enterprises because of social and cultural norms and poor environmental awareness among the population; (e) significant training deficiencies among entrepreneurs in agroecological agriculture; (f) absence of adequate distribution channels for agroecological products; and (g) excessive bureaucratic obstacles through laws that hinder entrepreneurial processes.

**Keywords:** entrepreneurship; agroecological production; sustainable development; public institutions; rurality

#### **1. Introduction**

In order to combat the decreasing population of rural areas, it is of considerable importance that public institutions encourage entrepreneurial initiatives that generate wealth and employment in a sustainable manner. Such measures would prevent the depletion and degradation of these areas and contribute to the development of the territories in accordance with their natural resources and biodiversity [1,2].

The neoliberal economical model has caused enormous damage to the planet. Governments in rural areas are faced with the dilemma of either maintaining the current paradigm or transitioning to a new one based on a notion known by multiple names: Organic, biological, ecological, or biodynamic agriculture [3].

Since its emergence in the early 1980s, the concept of agroecology has evolved both in approach and analysis. In its beginnings, this term referred to "the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems, or the science of sustainable agriculture" [4] (p. 599), encouraging farmers to substitute the inputs and practices of conventional industrial farming and move towards certifiable organic production systems. By the end of the 1990s agroecology was conceived as a way of building relationship-based market systems that are equitable, fair, and accessible for all, focusing on political economy: "The approach is grounded in ecological thinking where a holistic, systems-level understanding of food system sustainability is required" [4] (p. 599). Today, agroecology is both a new discipline and a practice "seeking to develop food and fiber production in a sustainable manner. At the same time, it is a broader social movement integrating politically the social actors who promote institutional and social changes towards sustainable agriculture" [5] (p. 485). The aforementioned paradigm shift implies, for national governments and public institutions, a transformation in perception of the countryside and its inhabitants. This transformation must be manifested in the promotion of agroecological entrepreneurial initiatives that contribute to sustainable territorial development.

This document presents the results of a study on entrepreneurial initiatives in the agroecological sector of the Mexican state of Yucatan. These initiatives function as a sustainable development option for entrepreneurs by contributing to the preservation of their lands, the improvement of their quality of life, and the adoption of a natural and healthy food culture.

In Yucatan, agroecological products are those derived from chemical-free agriculture and farming, that is, natural products subjected to a natural production process that respects the cycles and elements provided by nature [6]. This type of merchandise could include both those with and without organic qualifications. It is pertinent to mention this since only a portion of the agroecological produce is certified as organic by the Mexican government's Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA). The "Organico SAGARPA México" seal is the accreditation granted to products that meet quality, health, and food safety guidelines; it also guarantees consumers that the Mexican standards established in the Organic Products Law have been complied with [7].

The role of institutions is fundamental, not only in the economic aspect by implementing policies to promote this type of entrepreneurial projects, but also in the educational and social aspect by generating awareness among the population that sustainable development implies the moderate and rational exploitation of natural resources, taking care to preserve them for future generations.

Mexico's agroecology sector has experienced dynamic growth since 1996 (the organic surface area, the number of producers, and the foreign exchange generated have grown at an annual rate of over 25% concentrated in the Mexican states of Oaxaca and Chiapas, the poorest in the country). However, organic agriculture in the country has only developed due to the efforts of the producers themselves [3]. The meagre support of official institutions, a condition known as "institutional inertia" or inability to assimilate change, which also occurs in the state of Yucatan, is particularly noteworthy [8]. Despite the existence of a robust legal framework in Mexico on this matter, laws have not translated into sufficient institutional support [9]. The small-farming systems deal with "technical problems such as pests and disease as well as the lack of markets and opportunities for commercialization . . . there is also evidence of failures by the government in terms of the lack of public policy and programs geared toward promoting and incentivizing the use of these agroecological systems" [10] (p. 342).

The objectives of this study focus on ascertaining the existence of effective support for agroecological production by public institutions at a national level in Mexico, but, mainly, in the state of Yucatan. In this sense, we were keen to learn our witnesses' opinion regarding: (a) The existence of government policies that favor this sort of production, or, on the contrary, if there are many bureaucratic or legal obstacles for the regulation of these activities; (b) social and cultural norms embedded in the population to benefit such initiatives; (c) whether the entrepreneurs' training is sufficient for the development of this type of business, and the main training deficiencies of the producers; (d) the presence of production, distribution, and sale channels; (e) their promotion through public institutions; and (f) the population's income and environmental awareness as elements that facilitate and enable these activities.

Based on this introduction, this article is structured in five further sections: Section 2, a theoretical framework on agroecological entrepreneurship and production that refers to: The entrepreneurial process, the role of public institutions in this process, the consideration of elements which favor agroecological entrepreneurship (the training of entrepreneurs, the population's income, and environmental awareness) and, finally, agroecological production and the Slow Food market in Yucatan. Next, Section 3 presents the materials and methods used in the study, explaining the geographical context in which the research has been developed and the methodology that has been applied. Section 4 presents the results obtained from the subjects who have been studied. Section 5 provides a discussion of the results obtained; and, finally, Section 6 describes the conclusions reached and sets out the limitations of the study, as well as future lines of research that could be established.

#### **2. Entrepreneurship and Agroecological Production**

#### *2.1. Entrepreneurship and the Business Creation Process*

In view of the consequences of globalization, in Yucatan, as in many regions of the world, there is an increasingly important movement that strives for the preservation of the environment from a perspective of sustainable local development. Consumers now respond to different visions of politics and consumption, culture and economy [11]. Thus, nowadays the revival of varieties of plants and foods threatened by agricultural standardization resulting from the extensive use of conventional practices [12] has gained popularity amongst consumers who reject the assimilation of intensive agriculture due to its negative impact on society and the environment [13]. From the perspective of New Institutionalism (NI) based on social actors [14–17], the aforesaid situation has led to the creation of a new institutional field [18], a concept based on Dimaggio and Powell, who described a set of "organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies and other organizations that produce similar services and products" [19] (p. 148). The Slow Food movement is positioned in such an institutional field as a result of the incorporation of new actors and the creation of an extended collective identity. Now, it includes not only gastronomes, but also social justice activists and environmentalists [18]. Within this context, there is a movement among local entrepreneurs who have incorporated this vision of sustainability, i.e., agroecological products, into their productive processes.

Entrepreneurship implies the entrepreneur's vision, the creation of new economic opportunities and the introduction of their ideas into the market, facing uncertainty and taking decisions related to the location, form, and use of resources and institutions [20] (p. 18).

Although entrepreneurs are usually studied in a business context, several of their theoretical principles such as networks, resource mobilization, business representation are also valid for other kinds of organizations [21], for example, in the areas of education, culture, and agroecology. Specialized literature distinguishes between traditional business-related entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship [22]. The latter is characterized by a concern for aspects that go beyond private profit, mobilizing resources in areas with low productivity to strengthen the economy through job creation for local residents [22,23], and also to preserve the environment.

Regardless of the entrepreneur's orientation (traditional or social), the result of their initiatives tends to crystalize into the creation of a company. This process is a complex phenomenon, contextualized around specific moments and environments in which social, cultural, and economic factors interact [21,24–27].

Following the above, Kantis et al. [27] defined three stages in the company creation process: The *project gestation*, the *set-up*, and the *initial development of the firm*. In each of these phases, certain

main factors that affect the critical events of the said phases can be identified, all of which are shown in Figure 1.

**Figure 1.** Entrepreneurial process. Source: Partially adapted from [27].

The growth of small successful businesses into large-sized organizations implies several administrative and organizational adjustments for their creators [28]. Their ability to face these adjustments is crucial to the survival and success of their companies.

#### *2.2. The Role of Public Institutions in Entrepreneurship*

For agroecological enterprises to become a clear and solid reality, they require a series of conditions and factors that enable them to do so. Knowing that the public administrations' relationships with, and support for entrepreneurial projects can be identified as one of the said major factors, it is vital to address the following question: Which significant aspects should prevail in their promotion of entrepreneurship? (i) transparency, trust, and institutional responsibility; (ii) support for entrepreneurial leadership, especially female leadership; and (iii) technological commitment.

First and foremost, relations with public administrations should be based on transparency and trust [29]; they should be directed towards providing essential support to micro-enterprises so that they get to be implemented. A study conducted by Ramírez et al. [30] in Mexico showed that when the government generates support structures by investing, funding, and training in this type of business, the results, even in cases of extreme vulnerability, are overwhelmingly positive. In addition, these highly profitable social projects contribute to alleviating poverty even if maximum levels of competitiveness are not achieved. Nevertheless, in reality this support does not occur exactly as described above. There are diverse political priorities and management gaps that prevent the consolidation of precise entrepreneurship support structures (co-working spaces, soft micro-credits, tax facilities, and exemptions, etc.).

Furthermore, public institutions should potentialize female entrepreneurial leadership, given that it effectively responds to the demands of competitive and rigorous environments that require perseverance, effort, a certain degree of pragmatism, and ultimately unity [31]. Although this leadership ideal should be contingent on socioeconomic situations and contexts, the fact is that women respond more and

better, as has been demonstrated in recent studies oriented towards the institutionalization of female entrepreneurship [32].

Finally, technological incorporation allows the local/rural entrepreneurial processes not only to have access to structural economic support, but also to become the center of a global perspective, thanks to the existence of social media. For this purpose, the role of public administrations is still crucial to supplying the indispensable infrastructures that facilitate online interconnections. New unexplored paths are opening up in the rural sphere. It might even be possible to overcome the rural-urban dichotomy that constantly emerges in connection with certain weaknesses and deficiencies made explicit by the inhabitants. Taking advantage of technology requires institutional support, education, and training of the population, as well as essential attitudinal changes so that individual action is oriented towards collectivity and its benefits are evident. Considering new consumption habits, new forms of leisure, and methods of selling and buying, there are experiences in this area which demonstrate that agricultural and livestock producers can be geolocated through mobile telephony (see Figure 2). Thus, producers who can promote their products, their retail outlets, and surroundings are identified and localized [33].

**Figure 2.** Luraki APP. Source: [33].

*2.3. Entrepreneur Training, the Population's Income, and Environmental Awareness as Elements that Favor Agroecological Entrepreneurship*

Entrepreneur *training* is directly associated with the factors and conditions enabled by public administrations in agroecological entrepreneurship projects. Moreover, the modernization of globalized economies and their labor markets allows the acquisition of wealth, which determines the different *incomes of the population*. It is this population which finds in the transformation processes of the agri-food system the option to choose natural products from organic farming over products derived from modern industrial agriculture. The public institutions that promote the industrial or ecological agriculture sector [34] and those consumers who decide to buy agroecological products play a very important role in this alternative.

The disjunctive between industrial agriculture and ecological agriculture opens two pathways for entrepreneurial training. A first training, related to traditional agriculture, incorporates processes that need large areas, sophisticated machinery, and the utilization of chemical products (synthetic fertilizers and chemicals). It implies some environmental impact (especially pollution of soil, aquifers, and water resources) besides the devastating effects on living beings such as the decline of bee populations [35]. However, a second training scheme, linked to ecological agriculture, must incorporate traditional techniques that, by definition, do not include chemical products. This training is complemented and enriched by a variety of studies in Good Agricultural Practices, Masters degrees in the Organization and Control of Cultivation Operations and in Cultivation Techniques, Masters in Agri-food Biotechnology, Agricultural Engineering and Agri-food, and the use of ICTs and modern marketing techniques.

Certainly, *environmental awareness*, among both entrepreneurs and the general population, has a favorable influence on agroecological entrepreneurship. It encourages the adoption of conscious food consumption habits (related to questions of how much, how, when, and where). It also influences concerns regarding distancing from traditional diets and good health, problems related to food abundance and globalization—studied by the Sociology of Food—[36] and rural gastronomic tourism, which promotes local culture and proposes the experiential component of food as a tourist product, and indeed the main attraction of a destination [37] (p. 175).

Definitely, this environmental awareness was progressively established as the liberal economic model changed to a new cyclical model of nature. In this new model, a green and circular economy with eco-intelligent mobility, an endogenous development, a sustainable management, a sustainable touristic product, and the fight against climate change took center stage [38–42].

In its report "The new Rural Paradigm: Politics and Governance" [43], the OECD seeks to explain the paradigm shift in implemented rural development policies. It takes into account the diversity of rural regions, their problems (migration, ageing, deterioration of skills, decline in labor productivity), as well as the exploitation of available opportunities and assets. In the context of this paradigmatic change, agroecological entrepreneurs tirelessly promote and develop their projects.

#### *2.4. Agroecological Production and the Slow Food Market in Yucatan*

In Yucatan, traditional agricultural activities such as the *milpa* and beekeeping are sustainable development strategies that have allowed the preservation of a portion of the region's forests. For this reason, it is still possible to find Mayan biocultural heritage, where production practices reflect traditional knowledge and belief systems that revolve around agroecology [44]. This is not the case in other areas of Mexico, where extensive cattle farming, and commercial crops have replaced them, eroding this patrimony and generating social conflicts as a result of globalization and neoliberal markets.

Specifically, the agricultural system of the milpa is based on polyculture: Combining corn, sweet potato, pumpkin, and various types of legumes. In Yucatan one third of the land is still dedicated to the milpa [45].

However, the sustainability of the milpa system is threatened by the shortening of fallow periods and the ever-decreasing diversity of crops integrated into the system.

The lack of interest and support from public institutions means that most of the public policies applied to the rural sector have contributed to aggravating the environmental and socioeconomic problem of the Mayan milpa. The solutions that have been implemented to modernize the milpa system have been exogenous and poorly adapted to local conditions in the area, such as the use of chemical fertilizers and hybrid corn seeds [45].

In this context of socio-environmental conflict in Yucatan, movements and support networks have emerged to vindicate agroecological models and traditional sustainable production practices.

At the same time, following the international *Slow Food* movement that emerged in Italy in 1986, the Mexican state of Yucatan saw the birth of *Slow Food Yucatan*, which promotes local food production, the preservation of rich regional culinary traditions, and healthy eating. This, in turn, provides economic benefits for local producers and health benefits for consumers of these types of products.

The *Slow Food* organization is located in 130 countries across five continents and is recognized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a non-profit organization [46].

*Slow Food*'s "Earth Markets" project consists of bringing together markets around the globe that offer healthy, quality food at a fair price, through direct contact with consumers, and guaranteeing environmentally sustainable methods [47]. Today there are 57 markets in 17 countries.

Established in 2010 by the *Slow Food Yucatan Convivium* in Mexico, the Earth Market "Mercado Fresco" is held every Wednesday and Saturday in the Plaza Colón, a small square in Merida, the state capital.

The Market has been included in "*Slow* Yucatán: Development of a good, clean and fair food system, based on the sustainability model of the international project *Slow Food Movement*", funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF). One of the objectives will be to use *Slow Food* Earth Markets to consolidate networks of local producers through the marketing of their products.

In this sense, the *Slow Food* movement could play an important part in Yucatan by acting as a nexus for the exchange of experiences among agroecological producers. The "Mercado Fresco" is not a conventional market. It is linked to the slow and healthy food movement and its participants must abide by increasingly strict guidelines not only for their own benefit and that of their consumers, but also for the sake of achieving greater visibility for these microenterprises, since for some of them this market is their only distribution channel.

Just over fifty food producers participate in this market. Most of them are Mexican, but there are also Italian, French, American, German, Chilean, and Brazilian entrepreneurs who have chosen to settle in Merida because of its quality of life. Fifty percent of the entrepreneurs are dedicated to primary activities: They produce eggs, milk, vegetables, etc., and the other half are processors because they cook their products. The market offers fruits and vegetables (spinach, lettuce, bananas, tropical fruits, pumpkins, carrots), pork, and sausage from a hairless pig (a local breed of pigs), dried meat, quail, eggs, butter, goat cheese, confectionery and baked goods, fruit juices, preserves, coconut milk, etc. Traditional local dishes are also for sale, as well as Korean, German, Italian, and Arabic specialties prepared by members of immigrant communities.

Thanks to the great variety of food products on offer, the market attracts many visitors, including chefs and students of gastronomy. The *Slow Food Yucatan Convivium* organizes various workshops for members of the public interested in subjects such as cheese production with raw milk, making bread with natural yeast, the principles of organic agriculture, etc.

The subjects interviewed in this research are entrepreneurs who participate in Yucatan's "Mercado Fresco" Earth Market.

#### **3. Materials and Methods**

#### *3.1. The Study's Geographical Context*

The study was carried out in the state of Yucatan. Yucatan is one of the 32 federal entities that constitute the Mexican Republic. The specific case study area is Merida, the state's most populated city, and its capital. While the commercial center is located in Merida, where entrepreneurs market and distribute much of their produce, in large part, most of the agroecological enterprises (farms, especially agricultural and livestock) are located in small municipalities located around the capital (see Figure 3).

The state is located in the southwest of the country, on the peninsula of the same name, which also includes the states of Campeche and Quintana Roo. Yucatan consists of seven regions: West, Northwest (where Merida is located), Center, Central littoral, Northeast, East and South, with a total of 106 municipalities altogether.

**Figure 3.** Geographical location of the State of Yucatan (Mexico) and main municipalities. Source: https://www.mapade.org/yucatan.html.

#### *3.2. Applied Methodology*

Themethodology appliedin the design of this research consisted of conducting semi-structuredinterviews with Yucatecan entrepreneurs in the agroecological production sector. The results have been processed through a content analysis of the transcripts of these interviews (coding, categorization, thematization). The study of these texts was hermeneutical in character as well as interpretative-comprehensive [48]. This places us in a different situation compared to the observed social reality, considering latent meanings and freely expressed subjectivities. In parallel, a quantification of the responses was carried out to observe certain social trends within the group of entrepreneurs interviewed. This qualitative research has great importance due to the peculiarity and value of the informants' contributions, as well as the free and spontaneous manifestation of their opinions, which leads to a methodological induction that enriches the research topic.

The sample was selected based on convenience, targeting those agroecological entrepreneurs who attended the *Slow Food* Market in the capital of Yucatan on a weekly basis to exhibit and sell their products—some of which were organic—and expressed their willingness to collaborate in this research. The sample consisted of twenty people and was distributed as follows: Nine male and eleven female entrepreneurs, with the majority of the enterprises being led by women. The geographical area where the fieldwork was done was the state of Yucatan, specifically, in Merida and other nearby municipalities. The interviews were conducted between March and April of 2017 in a personalized manner, through audio recording, and annotating of the relevant aspects for the research.

The interview script addressed thematic issues regarding entrepreneurship initiatives in local agroecological production in the main municipalities of Yucatan. Questions were asked about such aspects as:


The set of variables considered relevant for the investigation (Figure 4), based on which the microentrepreneur sample was obtained, are the following:


**Figure 4.** Selection of variables used in the study. Source: Own elaboration.

The main characteristics of the entrepreneurs interviewed are summarized in Appendix A.

#### **4. Results**

#### *4.1. Factors Which Generate Obstacles and*/*or Support for the Production and Consumption of Agroecological Products*

The research question is: What have been the effects of public policies on the development of agroecological production in the Yucatecan market? Specifically, it is about trying to determine if the public administration and the national and state governments in Mexico, but fundamentally in the state of Yucatan, really and effectively support the production and consumption of agroecological products.

4.1.1. Existence of an Effective Government Policy to Support Agroecological Production and Consumption

About 60% of informants state that there is a policy of little or some support for this type of production [I20: *"Some, and that's it. There isn't an o*ffi*ce, as such, that is organized like in Chiapas"*; I7: *"There's some support* . . . *it just doesn't reach the real people"*; I11: *"Some support, but I don't think it's in the*

*government's interest"*]. In this sense it can be deduced, as Ramírez et al. [30] pointed out, that there are other political priorities as well as inadequate administration that impede the consolidation of certain structures that are needed to support the ventures, and that the informants notice their lack.

On the other hand, 40% strongly deny that there is any effective governmental support [I2: *"No, write 'double No'"*; I5: *"It doesn't exist...these plans stay on paper, nothing else"*].

If we look at the theory of New Institutionalism (NI) based on social actors [14–17], discussed above, and at the creation of a new institutional field, mentioned by authors such as Van Bommel and Spicer [18] and Dimaggio and Powell [19], it highlights the creation of a collective identity (producers and consumers) around the development of social enterprises [22,23]. Unfortunately, according to the entrepreneurs interviewed, public policies to support this type of enterprise have not yet been implemented.

4.1.2. Promotion and Governmental Support for Collaboration Between Ecological Companies in the Agro-Livestock Sector

In relation to this issue, the consensus (65%) of the interviewees is that the government of the state of Yucatan does not have a policy to promote and support the social network of the agroecological producers/marketers. Therefore, it is unable to encourage collaboration between these companies. As Schwentesius et al. [3] asserted, agroecology in Mexico has developed fundamentally through the effort of the producers themselves. In view of this dynamic, the public administration's failure to provide support due to its inability to assimilate the changes (*institutional inertia*) has become evident [8]. In this regard, some of the informants' comments confirm these facts:

I6: *"Yes, they have it; no, they don't apply it. We'll have gone to two or three fairs where the municipal president congratulates us* . . . *and walks away".*

I12: *"In fact, there was a desire to organize the organic production system* . . . *There are intentions, but nothing's consolidated yet".*

I19: *"I've been here for 6 years, and I've never been invited to an ecological producers' meeting; from my perspective, I don't think that promotion policy exists".*

From these statements, one can observe the lack of confidence in relations with public administrations, especially when it comes to providing entrepreneurs in this sector with the essential and necessary support for collaboration and coworking among themselves, as Sanagustín-Fons and Brunet-Icart [29] indicated.

4.1.3. Do Yucatecan Social and Cultural Norms Favor Agroecological Enterprises and Consumption?

It is also interesting to understand what the small entrepreneurs think about Yucatecan society, in order to evaluate if the social and cultural norms that guide their habits and traditions do favor this type of initiative. In this sense, the panorama presented by their opinions is quite pessimistic, since 60% of them argue that they do not favor them "at all" and 30% believe that social norms favor them "somewhat", both in organic consumption and production.

I1: *"What I have modified, as a social or cultural norm is saying that it's Yucatecan production* . . . *promoting local consumption. 5 years ago, I was in an association called 'Merida Verde'* . . . *and I worked in the area of responsible consumption in schools, and the answer was that it's very expensive, I'm not going to stop eating a pork sandwich because you tell me that it harms me* . . . *".*

I3: *"No, no, no. Not at all* . . . *At least 90% of the production involves agrochemicals. And a very small fraction of it is organic, and it's the same for the population* . . . *My son just came from Europe. He was working there, and he came back.* . . . *yesterday he said: 'we're having salad', and I said: 'hey where are my beans and my tortillas?' He said that there were some for me, but for them, just natural stuff* . . . *".*

The above demonstrates the way in which Yucatecan habits and traditions represent a huge obstacle to incorporating different food consumption habits based on an awareness of how, how much, when and where we consume. In turn, this results in nearly non-existent concern for the abandonment of traditional and healthy diets. As argued by Díaz Méndez and Gómez Benito [36], together with the great influence of fast and unhealthy food advertising, these issues (that are and have been the subject of study in the Sociology of Food) de facto greatly hinder the development of agroecological entrepreneurial initiatives.

On the other hand, tourist development linked to local gastronomy (based on an appreciation of each region's cultural assets) can be an encouraging factor. This implies the dissemination of culinary traditions, identifying the experiential component of the food as a tourist product and as the principal attraction of a destination [37].

4.1.4. Entrepreneurs' Self-Evaluation of Their Agroecological Entrepreneurial Training and the Areas in Which They Detect Greatest Training Deficiencies

As argued by Kantis et al. [27], the development of skills or competencies is a crucial activity for the entrepreneur in the gestation stage of the project (see Figure 1). When analyzing the production and marketing training of entrepreneurs for these agroecological initiatives, it is significant to consider that when they self-evaluate, or assess fellow entrepreneurs in the Yucatecan sector, 80% of them admit that their training is insufficient and that there are many deficiencies in different aspects of their training: [I13: *"Mexico had, many many years ago, agroecological production. Now the new generations, with the introduction of agrochemicals and technological packages, no longer have the same training as former producers. SAGARPA (Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food) tells them: 'here's your technological package and we'll support you if, and only if, you buy these agrochemicals from us'. Then, lifelong farmers, they all* . . . *didn't use pesticides* . . . *and what happened?* . . . *the way they worked the land was changed"*; I19: *"In the Faculty of Agronomy you are taught organic agriculture by the same teacher who teaches chemistry, and that they don't have experience producing organics* . . . *"*]. That is, it is confirmed by these declarations that the conditions and factors that public administrations make possible in entrepreneurial projects are associated with the entrepreneurs' formation. Therefore, if the State further encourages aids for agrochemical production, evidently most entrepreneurs will educate themselves in traditional production and will not acquire knowledge in organic production.

Now, regarding the areas in which the main formative deficiencies are detected, it is evident that there is a generalized problem among the agroecological producers of the area, since they pointed out deficits in all of the issues contemplated in this research. As previously noted [35], this training is linked to ecological agriculture and at the same time, is enriched with the use of ICTs and modern marketing techniques and studies on Good Agricultural Practices, along with training in Agri-food Biotechnology, Agricultural Engineering, Agri-food, Organization and Control of Crop Operations and in Crop Techniques. According to the producers', their least developed training area is ICT Management and Handling Techniques (80%), followed by Marketing Techniques (75%), and lastly, knowledge about Producer Support Programs (70%). Only slightly more than half of the interviewees (55%) referred to a lack of knowledge in Production Techniques. Their interesting statements testify as follows:

I12: *"As far as production techniques are concerned* . . . *most of the current producers only know how to mix agrochemicals... They lack knowledge in informational techniques; although currently, many are supported by their children. I believe that the producer, as such, does not use them much: email, social networks, etc. I think they also lack knowledge about the support channels for the producer and this is an important issue. Because they are more reactive than proactive* . . . *".*

I10: *"They lack knowledge about the support channels for producers and* . . . *this would be due to a lack of infrastructure, sometimes the network crashes and makes it very di*ffi*cult for them to access these channels".*

I14: *"I've occasionally heard of support calls launched by the government and then* . . . *they don't know where to go or where they can request it".*

I19: *"In terms of knowledge about support channels for producers* . . . *I lack information and I guess the rest of us do too".*

After examining the above statements, the absence of government support is corroborated by: (a) The aforementioned "institutional inertia" when faced with applying strategies that, far from favoring, worsen the environmental and socioeconomic problems of traditional agricultural techniques such as the Mayan milpa in the rural sector [45]; and (b) insufficient transparency in informing producers about possible aid for their agroecological ventures [29].

4.1.5. On the Existence or Lack of Adequate Distribution Channels for Agroecological Products

Kantis et al. [27] emphasized that market entry is a key aspect for entrepreneurs in the initial stages of their projects (see Figure 1), which implies identifying distribution channels for their products. Astier et al. [10] indicated that, in Mexico, the small-farming systems deal with the lack of markets and opportunities for commercialization. In this sense, the issue with distribution channels for this type of product was found to be more serious in urban areas, with the exception of large cities such as the capital of the country. In light of the data provided by the informants, in small cities such as Merida there are no organically specialized supermarkets, just a few stores. This, in addition to the low demand for agroecological produce makes it impossible to cover large volumes of products, which in turn makes it difficult for producers to supply these products to the entire population. In this regard, 60% of our informants think that the distribution channels of agroecological products are inadequate [I12: *"Most of the organic production will be able to develop more in the rural area, but how do you get the products into the city? Sometimes it has happened to me that* . . . *I have to send the product by bus and not everyone is willing to absorb the cost of transportation; and then the distribution* . . . *"*; I13: *"* . . . *only in the big cities are there organic 'supers'... In the southeast there aren't proper channels"*; I15: *"As there isn't enough demand, few channels remain, and two or three other stores have the same as I do* . . . *"*; I18: *"No, because the channels are too closed* . . . *So, everything ecological and organic is* . . . *labeled as expensive"*; I19: *"There are very few stores and they aren't well prepared to receive these products (refrigeration systems, etc.)"*].

On the other hand, 35% of the interviewees think that there are adequate distribution channels, although some of them point to the fact that despite being adequate, they are insufficient [I3: *"Well, they are few, let's say adequate, perhaps, but insu*ffi*cient* . . . *"*; I8: *"The Slow Food market is the only one. There are very few stores and groups that have this kind of products that are big and don't let the little ones in. In my product distribution, most of the sales are direct... I have a Facebook page and there are stores interested in selling my products, but what about the stores?... I give leaflets to the stores, but* . . . *the employee* . . . *doesn't care if the product is sold or not. I mean, we have to fight* . . . *"*; I20: *"I can say that there are channels, but not enough* . . . *As a consumer, six years ago* . . . *there were no flea markets, there was nothing, and now* . . . *I can buy vegetables in this or that market... the movement has already started, but it's not enough yet"*].

#### 4.1.6. Relation between the Population's Income and the Consumption of Agroecological Products

The population's income has also been considered a key factor in furthering the consumption of agroecological products. As Kantis et al. [27] stated, it is related to the identification of business opportunities in the gestation stage of the project (Figure 1). In this regard, the informants believe that income is fundamental for the consumption of these products, especially in the area under study and nearby municipalities. Indeed, national competitiveness has become a central concern, both in advanced and developing countries, particularly in the face of the challenges of an increasingly open and integrated world economy [49]. The modernization of economies and their employment markets are the decisive factors that allow the creation of wealth, which will in turn determine the different incomes of the population. It is important to note this, since it has an impact on the choice, within the processes of change in the agro-alimentary system, between consuming natural products from ecological agriculture, and products from modern industrial agriculture. On this point, a quarter of the interviewees think that in Yucatan the income of the population is rather low and does not favor the said consumption at all, with 70% of the answers leaning towards it being slightly favorable, but not much.

It is pertinent to remember that the population's income varies depending on the specific zone within the study area. This means that the consumption of said goods will develop further in those areas where acquisitive power is higher, rather than in other areas which suffer a much poorer economic level. Moreover, the amount of organic production—which is much lower than the conventional production—increases the price of these products much more, making it difficult for a large part of the population to consume them. For example, a significant consumer sector of the said produce is foreign residents living in the state, who can afford to buy these products more often because of their income, unlike the local population. On this subject, the entrepreneurs corroborate this with their statements:

I1: *"Merida is divided in two; If we're speaking about the north zone yes, if we talk about the south zone, it is of very low purchasing power".*

I20: *"I think that some. In Merida, for example, my market is divided a lot into north, south and* . . . *, People from the north don't pay attention to the price and other things. In my store I try to compare the prices of non-organic products and from those prices my organic products will remain reasonably priced for the majority* . . . *There are middle class people who can access my products, because they say: 'it's not that di*ff*erent from the normal product and I can pay the extra cost'".*

I5: *"No, because organic products are expensive, and our level is pretty low. The majority of the public is low-income locals. The people who come here are people who have money or are foreigners with a di*ff*erent cultural level as well".*

However, in some cases entrepreneurs alluded to the existence of sufficient purchasing power to buy these products, which is, however, wasted on the consumption of unnecessary and sometimes unhealthy goods due to a cultural issue:

I19: *"Yes, but they buy Coca-Cola. I think that the power exists, I mean, you decide what to eat. I'm not a millionaire and I can do it, but, why? Because I don't spend on other things: I don't have Skype, I don't have* . . . *".*

4.1.7. Relationship between the Population's Environmental Awareness and Agroecological Product Consumption

Another important indicator would be to know if the environmental awareness of the population also favors the consumption of agroecological products. If that is the case, then logically, as argued by Sassatelli and Davollio [11], and Díaz Méndez and Gómez Benito [36], it would be a favorable factor for agroecological entrepreneurship, for the adoption of different and beneficial food consumption habits, for raising awareness of the abandonment of traditional and healthy diets, as well as for the valorization of local gastronomic tourism. These benefits would be expressed in a new economic model linked to the cycles of nature, where the sustainable management of products is prioritized, turning them into ecological and tourist products while at the same time respecting the environment [41,42]. In fact, more than half of those interviewed conclude that the population's level of environmental awareness favors the consumption of these products slightly, while 30% think that it does not. There is much work to be done in order to create environmental awareness among Yucatecans: Often they consume in imitation of foreigners, not because they really believe in these principles:

I4: "... Since many locals see that there are foreigners buying here, they say: 'it must be good'... It's more of an imitation..."

I3: *"It doesn't favor it, but the younger generations are integrating more and more. It's small but growing".*

I19: *"No, they're still cutting down trees. I mean, they're just getting started, but it's 1% of the population".*

I18: *"A little, nothing more. Because most consumers of this type of product, here in Yucatan, are not Yucatecans, perhaps 30% are, but the vast majority of consumers are foreigners".*

I20: *"Just a little. It's awake, but we're still missing it. There are people who, out of conscience, do care where the food comes from* . . . *and that it is not transgenic".*

4.1.8. Existence of Bureaucratic Obstacles to the Agroecological Enterprise

Sassatelli and Davollio [11] noted that the lack of institutional support for agroecological companies translates into numerous bureaucratic obstacles faced by small-farming systems, which is confirmed by the testimonies of the interviewees. The vast majority of small entrepreneurs (65%) agree that there are many bureaucratic obstacles in the entrepreneurial process when it comes to creating this type of business (whether they are producers or marketers of agroecological products). These considerations are also an important generator of either obstacles to or support for organic production and consumption, since it is understood that bureaucratic obstacles hinder the creation and development of companies in this sector. Here, we are referring to the transparency and trust that public administrations should demonstrate in order to provide a solid support that generates dynamism in the processes of entrepreneurship [29], while at the same time generating support through funding and training mechanisms [30]. In this regard, entrepreneurs highlight these obstacles:

I4: *"There are obstacles: you need contacts in the government to get that financial facility or to get that loan; not just anyone gets that chance* . . . *I've heard that a lady was given the opportunity to put her habanero peppers there and she subleased that land, and she just gets money from another company that's giving its own money".*

I15: *"I'll give you an example: my husband has a farm where he's planting. It's sustainable land where there's land conservation and planting, and for this there are procedures and more procedures. So, every so often you put in your papers to ask for support, and maybe one year they'll give it to you, but maybe next year, when you've already gathered everything, they will tell you: 'I'm not going to give it to you, because a series of steps weren't fulfilled'* . . . *and they hold you back".*

In other cases, informants state that, rather than government obstacles, there is a lack of interest in and concern for this type of activity, since traditional agrochemical production is more profitable.

I10: *"Well, I'd say that there's no interest, that is, the government doesn't encourage it and that's an obstacle in some way. The government supports big initiatives like a wind farm, but if you say: 'we're going to plant millions of hectares of organic* . . . *', it says: 'ah, well, I don't have any money', right?".*

I13: *"* . . . *just no information, no support for ecological production, no organic culture, no initiative. SAGARPA isn't organized, there's no organic department* . . . *"*

4.1.9. The Role of Legislation in the Creation of Agroecological Enterprises

Pulido Secundino and Chapela y Mendoza [9] point out that although in Mexico there exists a robust legal framework for agroecological matters, the existing regulations have not crystallized into the necessary institutional support. This is confirmed by the informants' opinions. The majority of those interviewed (75%) believe that the laws and regulations of Mexico and the state of Yucatan in particular, do not favor the launching of these businesses in any way.

I2: *"Laws facilitate conventional production more, obviously, but the law doesn't say I'm going to provide agrochemicals for the farmers and transgenic seeds* . . . *that's politics. It's government policies".*

I5: *"No. I studied certifications and all that for a while, and I think it gets too complex for anyone".*

I12: *"Right now legislation is changing, but in the direction of sustainable production policies that avoid deforestation, not so much towards organic production".*

I14: *"No, regulation is only done under pressure from the U.S. So, the only reason why a Mexican o*ffi*cial lifts a finger is because of pressure from other countries, because if the FDA had not pushed Mexico to have legislation regarding its products, the domestic product would have stagnated* . . . *so, basically they did it out of necessity* . . . *not out of ecological interest in taking care of our land; they don't care and the only reason they give support* . . . *is because if they don't give the people crumbs, they are going to rise up, and that doesn't suit them".*

4.1.10. Are Young People Encouraged to Pursue Agroecological Entrepreneurship?

Among the factors that generate support or create obstacles to agroecological production, whether or not to promote the initiation of young people in this type of enterprise is a question of special relevance. It has been stated that one of the relevant aspects that should prevail in the promotion of entrepreneurship by public administrations is support for female entrepreneurial leadership [31,32], but in addition, it is considered equally necessary to support youth leadership in ecological entrepreneurship. This is because the new techniques of production and cultivation of these products require fresh labor, new ways of thinking, and minds trained in the new skills required by these agroecological activities, since we are talking about quality products and higher demands due to an increasingly competitive and environmentally committed setting.

From the opinions expressed by the interviewees, it seems that their views regarding this aspect are more positive, as 35% of them think that the involvement of young people is very much favored and 45% say it is somewhat favored. Some arguments corroborate these percentages:

I1: *"Yes, now the state government is starting. For two years now, it has been working with the IYEM (Yucatecan Institute of the Entrepreneur) and is pulling in many young people. In fact, Montse (one of the interviewees) participated a year or two ago".*

I2: *"* . . . *I'd say yes. Almost everyone who's starting out is young".*

I12: *"Yes. I think so, somewhat. It's an alternative that supports the field, because, unfortunately, the average age of producers is well over 60, so the young people should inherit it".*

Other testimonies suggest that entrepreneurship is being encouraged, but at a general level and not specifically in the ecological sector:

I3: *"Fortunately, entrepreneurship in general has been increasing... ecological entrepreneurship less so. This is because there is already an institute that's about ten years old that promotes calls for entrepreneurship from any type of company, but happily, there is a small part of those entrepreneurships (10% or 20%) that are ecological".*

I20: *"There's a lot for them to entrepreneur, but in general, and in terms of ecological issues, it's very limited. There are, rather, entrepreneurial forums, and yes there have been success stories like Blanca's (informant)".*

Finally, a few opinions state that aid does exist to favor entrepreneurship, but, at the same time, there is a greater abandonment of the countryside by young people in the search for jobs in the service sector and in more urban environments.

I10: *"Yes, it's very favored. Right now, there's a lot of support until the age of 29. But the young people aren't interested in the countryside, there's a total detachment from it".*

I14: *"Yes. The Mexican countryside has been abandoned little by little because there has been more education in the rural areas, so* . . . *people go to the cities, little by little they leave the countryside.* *From Piste to Quintana Roo, all the little towns are practically empty of young men in the countryside because they go to Cancun and Playa del Carmen to work in the hotels or go to the U.S. to work. So, all this is caused by consumerism and public mismanagement in our field, because the opportunities were very unequal".*

These opinions suggest that the public administration is promoting entrepreneurship among young people, but not specifically for projects to create agroecological businesses. Once again, this inaction pushes different organizations and movements, such as the Milpa Collective (to which one of our informants belongs), to take the initiative in promoting agroecological practices for the cultivation of endemic species in Yucatan, as well as the exchange of knowledge and products among farmers and friends [44].

4.1.11. Frequency of Fairs and Events Organized by Public Institutions for the Exhibition and Sale of Agroecological Entrepreneurs' Products

On this subject, we have analyzed how often events (fairs, exhibitions, etc.) are organized by public institutions, considering them as support mechanisms for agroecological entrepreneurs to publicize their products, boost their sales possibilities, and market penetration. On this occasion, only a quarter of those interviewed stated that this type of event is organized frequently, as opposed to almost three quarters of them who thought that these events were held, but only occasionally. Furthermore, although some recognize their frequency, these events are not exclusively related to the production and consumption of organics, due to the strong presence of conventional products, techniques, and machinery used for agrochemical production, which is the most developed in current agricultural markets. The interviewees also reported a lack of commitment to this type of product and, therefore, the lack of involvement in finding ways to reach new markets and customers [I2: *"Yes, there are fairs, which are not very successful, because they are lousy, as they are dedicated to inviting producers and charging them. They are not dedicated to advertising, to finding key clients, key entrepreneurs, places where a new production can be started, where the producer can meet the consumer. They put a spectacular ad on the radio, and they sell it to you as the business opportunity of a lifetime; it costs a fortune to put a stand in a fair"*; I19: *"There is the Expo Campo, but it has one pavilion, for organic, and it has the whole convention center for tractors, machines, agrochemicals*, etc. *In fact, an organic fair, organized by the Government, has never existed!"*].

#### **5. Discussion**

In this research, Yucatecan producers and farmers feel that the government does not support them enough. This opinion is in line with the study conducted by Valdés et al. [50] in the same Mexican region. This demonstrates that, although efforts have been made in many countries to support small producers' participation in the ecological agriculture market, here there is widespread skepticism among the population. To improve the producers' chances of accessing larger markets, cooperatives or farmers' organizations have been recommended and established, often with the support of the government or non-governmental organizations (NGO). The purpose of this research is to fill a gap: To give a voice to the most important social actors, and to record their perception of the lack of institutional support for agroecological entrepreneurship.

Similarly, the results that come from the analysis contained in this paper highlight the role played by some associations and networks, but our interviewees say that the results are unsatisfactory, because the support provided and the competitiveness achieved are not sufficient. Zabala [51] has also worked on the process of building a national agroecology plan in Uruguay 2002–2016, which is both a challenge and a matrix of change for family-produced products, the population's health, and environmental awareness. In this new scenario, family producers are establishing alliances with different NGOs and national and international Civil society organizations to defend their rights and traditions.

A study developed by Fisher [52] shows that, over the past few centuries in Yucatan, Mayan farmers have practiced milpa agriculture (i.e., slash and burn) in ways that have the potential to be either sustainable or unsustainable, depending on whether or not the leaders' policies created institutional support for farmers to implement a full range of traditional ecological knowledge. These findings are consistent with this inquiry's conclusion that some support programs are only related to the will of the government, not to the real needs of Yucatecan farmers. What Yucatecans really need is more support to learn technologies and open markets, rather than ecological, traditional agriculture. The situation in regards to the entrepreneurial training of the interviewees is very deficient, since the State promotes aid for traditional production, but not for organic production. On another note, *female* and *youth entrepreneurship* are more likely to be promoted by Public Administrations in ecological enterprises. The aforesaid highlights the importance of entrepreneurship-oriented training for local administrations in Spain, such as the Alcorcon City Council—Madrid, which offers courses for entrepreneurs in ecological farming [53]; or the Barcelona Provincial Council, which supports and cooperates with municipalities working in social agriculture [54]. As in this research, researchers such as Keleman [55], have shown that, in other Mexican territories such as southern Sonora, agricultural support is mainly oriented towards high-tech production, and that there are structural barriers to small farmers' access to research and development institutions.

The *social and cultural norms* of the Yucatecan population studied here have little influence on entrepreneurship and are a barrier to the incorporation of healthy consumer habits, making it difficult to develop entrepreneurial projects in agroecological products intended for this population. Now, the *environmental awareness* level of the population in general and of producers in particular, and the *consumption of agroecological products* are perceived as favorable for consumption and entrepreneurship, although there is a long way to go before achieving this mentality. On this subject, Pietrykowski [56] and Gómez Cruz [57] revealed the value of agroecological products, and the development of the domestic market just as an organic movement gets consolidated, for example, in the EU in the 1990s. Interest in the production of agroecological (particularly organic) products and the development of the *Slow Food* market assisted in the defense of food biodiversity and gastronomic culture, in which Mexico is beginning to stand out as a producer and exporter.

In tune with our research, we also stress the value of the agri-food sector and the environmental awareness that is being emphasized by the COVID-19 crisis [58]. In these times a new sustainable socioeconomic model is being imposed: One that interweaves individual responsibilities with ecology and is capable of promoting the agricultural, livestock, and fishing sectors, so as to avoid the risk of a crisis in food stocks and in rural life [59].

Finally, the rather *low-income level* in the city of Merida influences the consumption of ecological farming products, the latter being higher at upper economic levels and lower at low levels. This reality alludes to Pierre Bourdieu's theory of the fields [60], where each field is constituted as a space of conflict between subjects who are confronted by the goods offered by that field, generating different schemes of behavior and social practices [61].

Valdés et al. [50], with whom our research agrees, proposed that due to the socio-economic profile of Yucatan and the social structure of agriculture, this region is suitable for investigating the potential of ecological agriculture for offering profitable employment to smallholders. Then, this becomes the basis for adequately conceptualizing support policies.

Paths are being created for further research and in-depth study of the issues addressed, for two reasons: (i) Firstly, because of the high agricultural potential of the Yucatan peninsula, which provides the relevant bioclimatic space for the foundation of a possible specific biodiversity laboratory, which would also include an analysis of its social system, and (ii) secondly, because of its complex and unequal socio-political structure, which necessitates an improvement of its governance networks in the specific field of agroecological entrepreneurship, especially taking into account the growing role of women and the incorporation of young people as powerful agents of change and socio-economic consolidation.

#### **6. Conclusions**

As a result of this research and other similar studies, it has been detected that within a consumer trend called *Slow Food*, since 2008, a movement has been developing in the Mexican state of Yucatan. This social movement is propelled by local entrepreneurs who offer natural products, incorporate a vision of sustainability, and consequently can be classified as agroecological. These are entrepreneurial initiatives whose aim is not to compete in large production circuits, but to establish themselves in a market niche represented by a different consumer profile from the traditional one, a profile which forms part of the well-known trend of *responsible consumption*.

Based on this reality, and mindful of the objective of this research, the entrepreneurs involved were asked for their point of view regarding the existence of public policies to support sustainable business initiatives that contribute to the development of rural areas and their population. Here, we have provided a response to a serious social problem generated by poverty which is caused, among other reasons, by lack of water in a particular geographical area, as is the case in the state of Yucatan. This study illustrated, through the theory of New Institutionalism (NI) based on social actors, how such rural development is promoted, based on informal and bottom-up groups action. A conceptual model depicted in Figure 5 shows how these groups (entrepreneurs who come together weekly in a pseudo-organized *Slow Food* market in Merida) are aligned in a model for governance. The institutional inertia of public bodies, in terms of their tendency to resist change, has led to the emergence of agroecological entrepreneurship initiatives in response to a significant social concern. Therefore, we have given a platform to the protagonists, whose most substantial comments have been set out in the results.

**Figure 5.** Conceptual model of new institutionalism and public policies. Source: The authors, adapted from [16].

The entrepreneurs who participated in the research have described, from their perspective, the role that public institutions play in promoting wealth generation and sustainable development in less developed areas, as is the case in most Yucatecan municipalities. In this regard, a series of conclusions have been drawn:

There is clearly a policy of little support for this type of production, due to the existence of other political priorities and inadequate management, which prevents the consolidation of certain structures needed to support agroecological entrepreneurship, and which our informants find absent. The generalized feeling is that few events are held in the state (fairs, exhibitions, etc.) and they are

not exclusively focused on organic farming but primarily on conventional production. This situation indicates a lack of commitment from the institutions to agroecological entrepreneurs in finding potential markets and clients for them.

We also detect a lack of confidence in the government of the state of Yucatan, which does not have a policy to promote and support the social network of producers/marketers of agroecological products, and therefore does not encourage collaboration between different companies.

There are great difficulties facing the development of entrepreneurial initiatives in agroecological products, which are caused by social and cultural norms related to food consumption, along with the low level of income among the citizens in general. At the same time, it is necessary to mention another aspect linked to the consumer, and that is the lack of environmental awareness as a contributing factor to the fact that there is still much to be done to increase the consumption of this type of product.

On the other hand, many entrepreneurs themselves argue that there are numerous deficiencies in training or knowledge regarding ecological agriculture (covering the areas of management, ICT management, marketing or production support channels, and production techniques). These are caused by the lack of government support for this form of production. Such a situation leads to entrepreneurs who are more educated in conventional agricultural production, in which there is more support and backing from institutions.

Regarding the supply chain, the general feeling is that there are no adequate distribution channels for agroecological products, and those that do exist are insufficient for the distribution of products to a large majority of the population.

Finally, a major obstacle for the start-ups is the number of bureaucratic barriers reported by entrepreneurs in the sector. They exhibit a lack of trust in public administrations, which is reinforced by legislation that significantly hinders the processes of business creation. However, in the opinion of the informants, it should be noted that there is a commitment to youth entrepreneurship (although not exclusively in the agroecological sector). This is perhaps due to the growing abandonment of the countryside by young people who prefer to see their future in an urban environment, often focused more on the service sector.

Yucatan is a state with a great potential for sustainable rural development based on agroecological production. Having heard the informants' voices, our recommendation to public institutions is to make a firm and efficient commitment to this sector, if it is to become a reality.

The limitations of this study are defined by the need for a deeper, qualitative look at the discourse of those who develop public policies to support entrepreneurs, in order both to observe the phenomenon in a holistic manner, and also to establish differences in terms of the relevance and real influence of said policies.

The study's own limitations suggest future lines of research. In addition to considering entrepreneurship from a gender perspective, right from the beginning of the research, social research techniques could be used to achieve relevant and conclusive results in connection with this issue. Finally, the authors propose to continue studying in detail the demand for agricultural products, an issue that has been addressed rather tangentially, and which is a determining factor in the design, implementation, and evaluation of public policies.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, R.B.-G. and L.E.L.-C.; methodology, R.B.-G. and M.V.S.-F.; validation, V.M.-Q., R.B.-G. and L.E.L.-C.; formal analysis, R.B.-G. and L.E.L.-C.; investigation, M.V.S.-F. and V.M.-Q.; data curation, L.E.L.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, R.B.-G. and L.E.L.-C.; writing—review and editing, M.V.S.-F. and V.M.-Q.; supervision, R.B.-G. and L.E.L.-C.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by EUROPEAN COMMISSION Seventh Framework Programme, grant number European Project IRSES-GA-2013-612686 – EcoDry.

**Acknowledgments:** We want to acknowledge all the people who were participating in the interviews in the state of Yucatan (Mexico). Thanks to them this research has been developed. And the institutional support received by the Autonomous University of Yucatan (Faculty of Accounting and Administration).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### *Land***2020**, *9*, 401

#### **Appendix A**


**Table A1.**Characterization of the agro-ecological entrepreneurs interviewed in Yucatan.


**Table A1.** *Cont*.

Source: [62].

### **References**


**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **Intangibles of Rural Development. The Case Study of La Vera (Extremadura, Spain)**

### **Francisco J. Castellano-Álvarez 1,\* , Ana Nieto Masot <sup>2</sup> and José Castro-Serrano <sup>3</sup>**


Received: 4 June 2020; Accepted: 18 June 2020; Published: 20 June 2020

**Abstract:** In the early 1990s, with the Leader Initiative, the European Commission intended to apply a new development model in order to encourage the economic diversification of the rural world. The expectations raised by the first Leader Initiative motivated Spain to approve the Proder Program to allow those regions that had not been beneficiaries of the aforementioned initiative to put similar projects into practice. This kind of program has various characteristics, which have been widely studied from a theoretical point of view. Nevertheless, empirical studies that analyze the relevance of those characteristics (especially the intangible ones) are less frequent. The main objective of this research is, precisely, to study how these intangibles materialize in the implementation of a rural development strategy. For this, a qualitative methodology based on a case study of the La Vera region is adopted. The results show that these intangible characteristics obtain a disparate valuation from the local promoters. While aspects such as the management system or the contribution of these programs to regional identity are well valued, others, such as the participation of the population in development processes, do not seem to reach the expectations. This study gives some proposals for the evaluation of these characteristics.

**Keywords:** Proder Program; management system; economic diversification; bottom-up approach; regional identity

#### **1. Rural Development Programs as Study Area: Context, Novelty and Objectives of the Research**

The European Commission's concern about Rural Development Programs must be framed in the context of the imminent loss of relevance in rural areas that agriculture had previously maintained. In the early 1980s, the European Commission [1,2] proposed deep reforms in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Furthermore, on the basis of several documents, especially "The Future of Rural Society" [3], it simultaneously promoted a debate about rural development policies and the necessity of rural areas to advance from a model based on agricultural development to another oriented around economic diversification.

In the early 1990's, that debate considered the first Leader Initiative [4], whereby a development model was validated that, based on modest investments, would promote development and economic diversification in rural areas. Although such initiatives had a very limited budget, the expectations generated in European rural areas made that these kinds of programs continue to the present day. For this, the European Commission made use of different instruments. In the first stage, the Leader maintained its Common Initiative condition through Leader II [5] and Leader + [6]. Because of these two editions, the implementation of the Leader approach caused a qualitative jump in the

form of a fivefold increase in the number of Local Action Group (LAGs) beneficiaries [7] and notable territorial expansion (more than a half of the European Union's territory). In the 2007–2013 period, the creation of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) [8] and its articulation through Regulations 1698/2005 [9] and 1974/2006 [10] implied the execution and funding of endogenous programs of rural development as an another axis of the aforementioned Fund.

The large mobilization of European rural areas in order to have options in the granting of Leader funds implied that, during the second part of this Initiative, part of the presented proposals did not get passed the selection process. In order to give a response to these territories, some European countries, such as Spain, designed Rural Development Programs following the Leader's model and objectives. This is how the Proder I [11] and Proder II [12] Programs arose, with the objective of the Spanish regions classified as Objective 1 being excluded from the Leader II (1994–2000) and Leader + (2000–2006) selection processes, respectively, thus being able to implement programs oriented towards economic diversification of rural areas. The changes experienced in the implementation of the Leader Initiative in the period 2007–2013 coincided with the end of the Proder Program and the inclusion of most of the territories that had been managing it in the so-called Leader Approach.

Although they do not perfectly align, in essence, the Proder Program's principles and philosophy are inspired by those proposed by the Leader Initiative. The European Association for Information on Local Development (AEIDL) distinguishes up to seven specialties of the model proposed by Leader [7,13]. Amongst them, Proder shares four: relevance given to LAGs as a managing entity, as well as their multi-sectorial, bottom-up, and territorial approach. Taking into account that the proposed case study refers to a region that saw both editions of the Proder Program, this research focuses its analysis regarding these four characteristics. Regarding its community Initiative condition, the European Commission defined three more characteristics in the design of the Leader Initiative (the innovative character of the action, introduction of networking, and transnational cooperation) that do not appear in the Proder Program due to its national character.

Departing from the management model characterized by a decentralized funding system, the LAG appears as the highest decision-making body in the definition of development strategies and awarding grants. Understanding of the relevance of LAGs requires knowledge of every task developed by one of its key parts: The Rural Development Centers (CEDER). Integrated by technical personnel, these structures are responsible for the administration of the program, for the implementation of the agreements adopted by the decision-making bodies, and for advising promoters.

The multi-sectorial character of the Rural Development Programs has a lot to do with the objective of economic diversification. This implies the implementation of activities in several economic sectors, as well as the integration of all of them into a single development strategy oriented towards the creation and conservation in the territory of the highest possible added value.

Local participation, based on including social collectives into the development strategies, is another one of the Rural Development Program's characteristics. Unlike the developmentalist model, which is based on the execution of large-scale action designed and implemented by outsider agents and institutions, the bottom-up approach is centered around development processes that are activated "from bottom to top" and can count on wide social support. LAGs must channel people's participation in these processes, aiming to become a reflection of the society, and are integrated in three sectors: (a) institutional, with the representation of every town of the Association of Municipalities, (b) entrepreneurial, representing entrepreneurs and economic agents, and (c) associative, where cultural, social, ecologist, etc. associations from the territory are represented.

Finally, it is worth noting that territory delimitation is a highly relevant question for Rural Development Programs. These programs evaluate territory not only as a mere sphere of resources and people, but as a factor whose characteristics condition its own competitiveness [14]. The territorial approach is based on a scope of action: The Association of Municipalities. Between a local level (too small) and a regional one (too wide), Rural Development Programs define the Association of Municipalities as "such a territorial area homogeneous enough for sharing problems and solutions" [15] (p.95). Regarding this, it is easy to understand why this paper uses this same geographic area as a research area.

Despite the importance that the Leader approach gives to these four characteristics, measuring the way Rural Development Programmes contribute to them is a challenge. This is because of their intangible or immaterial nature, and the fact that their implementation in a development strategy follows a principle of mainstreaming which is not linked to the implementation of a particular measure or type of investment. These difficulties have meant that the study of intangibles has been relegated to the lines of research of Rural Development Programmes. Researchers in the field have often preferred to focus on other, more quantifiable aspects.

From a theoretical point of view, Shahab et al. [16] propose the need to measure all the impacts that may be generated by the application of a certain policy. In this effort, these authors propose taking into account other evaluation criteria such as efficiency or equity. Guyadeen and Seasons [17] or Oliveira and Pinho [18], while acknowledging the efforts of the scientific literature to broaden the knowledge of evaluation systems, consider that there are still some aspects that have not been sufficiently studied. This research is based on the premise that, in terms of rural development, intangibles would be one of them. Analysis of those immaterial specificities is very complicated [19] and requires going beyond the systems traditionally used by administrations and consultancies to evaluate the implementation of Rural Development Programs [20]. It is in this context where the main objective of this research arises: to study how these intangibles materialize in the implementation of a rural development strategy. The achievement of this objective is based on the formulation of four research questions relating to each of the intangibles analysed: (1) Is the used management system capable for incentivizing investments?; (2) how is the contribution of these programs to the economic diversification of their territories perceived?; (3) have social groups played a relevant role in the program implementation?; and (4) what valuation deserves the interest of these programs for other actions of territory revaluation?

The way this research aims to achieve its objective is another notable novelty of this work, given that the interviews with the private promoters involved in the implementation of the program are the main source of the used information. This approach turns the promoters into the evaluators of the development program. Very often, the interest of researchers in the figure of the promoter has been limited to quantifying their investments, the jobs created and/or consolidated, etc. However, the opinion of these investors regarding the execution of the program has been discounted. This is paradoxical because they are the privileged witnesses of the dynamics generated by the implementation of the programs under analysis.

Having set out the objective and questions of the research, the following section approaches the theoretical framework. Section 3 justifies the choice of the field of study, and provides details concerning the methodological aspects. Section 5 shows the research results related to contributions made by other authors. Finally, the most relevant conclusions are presented.

#### **2. Literature Review**

The materialization of those four intangible characteristics within a rural development strategy cannot be assessed only on the basis of the criteria traditionally used from a quantitative perspective. A review of the literature shows numerous studies that analyze various aspects related to Rural Development Programs based on parameters such as the distribution of investment per inhabitant or per square kilometer, financing by measures, types of promoters, the creation and improvement of employment, incorporation of young people and women into the labor market, etc. In Spain, examples of this type of research can be found that focus on various aspects related to the application of Rural Development Programs in regions such as Cantabria [21], Castilla La Mancha [22], Castilla y León [23], Aragón [24], Andalucía [25], and Extremadura itself [26,27]. Similar studies can also be found in the border areas of Extremadura and Portugal [28] or in other Portuguese regions [29].

On the other hand, the analysis of the impact of Rural Development Programs on the tourism sector constitutes another broad line of research that has usually used quantitative approaches. In addition, in this case, it is possible find very diverse studies based on the experience of the different Spanish regions such as, the Valencian Community [30,31], Murcia [32], Galicia [33], Andalucía [34,35], Extremadura [36], Castilla La Mancha [37,38], and Castilla y León [39]. Internationally, there are countless investigations focused on the analysis of rural tourism impacts in different countries, such as Portugal [40], Italy [41], and Greece [42,43], to name a few.

Investigating the role that LAGs have in investment activation, the proliferation of non-agrarian economic activities, the implication of social collectives on the development process, and repercussions regarding territorial identity due to program implementation requires the use of other research techniques, given the intangible nature of the elements being studied. Beyond theoretical contributions [44] from various perspectives, the analysis of these intangible characteristics has been studied by various authors.

Pérez Rubio [45] analyzed the relevance of intangibles in the processes of rural development in Extremadura (the region to which La Vera belongs). Saz-Gil and Gómez-Quintero [46] analyzed the relevance of social capital as an element of rural development. Esparcia et al. [47] or Moyano [48–50] study this same question and conclude that aspects related to the social dimension, or the interaction between the different institutions and agents operating in a territory, can be crucial in explaining the success or failure of endogenous development processes in rural areas.

Buciega [51] analyzed the role of LAGs as instruments of development and governance in rural areas. On this subject, Esparcia et al. [52] show the tensions that have arisen in the articulation of the LAGs given the interest of the different groups in taking control of decision-making. Alberdi [53] studied the difficulties of the business sector in becoming involved in the operation of the aforementioned cited LAGs. Garrido and Moyano [54] investigated the participation of the population in the Rural Development Programs (a subject which Navarro et al. [55,56] are very critical of). The involvement of the population in rural development processes and the role of LAGs in this task has been analyzed from a variety of perspectives based on the experience of different European countries, by authors such as Osti [57], Lukic and Obad [58], Chmieli ´nski [59] or Marquardt et al. [60]. Among those international case studies, those from Quaranta et al. [61] or Salvia and Quaranta [62] could be mentioned. These works point out the need to rebuild the social capital of rural areas as a previous step before facing the challenge to start a rural development strategy.

Chevalier et al. [63,64] are critical of the excessive regulation introduced in the latest editions of the Leader Initiative and consider that this has distorted the original principles of this Initiative. In line with Esparcia et al. [52], the analysis by Chevalier et al. [63] on the application of the Leader approach in different European regions detects a tendency of local elites, in this case municipal politicians, trying to monopolise the LAGs' decision-making process. The influence that institutional presence has on the management systems of the Leader approach is also analysed by Bruckmeier [65] who, based lisation of this approach has a negative influence on its capacity for innovation.

Shucksmith [66], in his analysis of the Leader approach in the United Kingdom, concludes that the model applied by the Initiative favours those who hold a position of power in relation with those sectors of the population less involved in these development processes. Koneˇcný [67] highlights the great contrasts in the application of the Leader approach between European countries and suggests that the management systems and the operation of the LAGs are one of the differentiating elements in the results obtained by some groups and others. Like Chmieli ´nski [59] or Salvia and Quaranta [62], Koneˇcný [67] suggests that more territorially and socially cohesive spaces present more advantages when it comes to successfully applying rural development strategies.

Regarding the territorial approach and its commitment to the economic diversification of the rural areas, due to the relevance of tourism investments within the development strategy undertaken by the region of La Vera, it is appropriate to refer to works such as those of Muresan et al. [68,69], Abdollahzadeh and Sharifzadeh [70], or Harun et al. [71] in which the perception of rural residents towards the development of the tourism sector is measured.

### **3. Research Scope: La Vera as a Case Study**

Investigations based on the case study method do not justify their representativeness on the basis of a large number of interviews. This quality cannot be justified in statistical terms because the methodology employed circumscribes the fieldwork to the case under study. As noted by Coller [72] (p.56), the representativeness of case studies must be justified in analytical terms, arguing that "the case is appropriate for the type of theoretical discussion that is to be elucidated by its analysis". In this sense, who defend the usefulness of the case study methodology [72–76] point out various aspects that should be taken into account when justifying its use. Among these, the following points should be highlighted: (a) that the chosen case has clear limits; and (b) that it is valid to compare the issue being studied. La Vera meets these two conditions because:

a) It is a territory with clearly defined borders: located in the northeast of the province of Caceres, bordered to the north by the Sierra de Gredos and Jerte river valley, to the east by the provinces of Avila and Toledo, to the south by the river Tietar, and to the west by the region of Plasencia. With a total area of 885.98 km2 and a total of 19 municipalities, La Vera allows to easily delimit the borders of the case under study (Figure 1). The fact that La Vera is located in Extremadura (Spain) is not insignificant, since authors such as González [77] consider this region to be an ideal area in which to analyze the effects of Rural Development Programs on the territory.

**Figure 1.** Boundaries and location of La Vera. Source: Own elaboration.

	- (b1) The existence of valuable resources with great potential for the development of rural tourism, and therefore, economic diversification. These resources include:
		- Natural and landscape resources inherent to the Sierra de Gredos. Depending on their altitude, Gredos possesses emblematic foothills suitable for practicing mountain sports. Their hydrographic network, composed of multiple gorges with pure and crystalline waters, are a major tourist resource in the summer season. Also, the Sierra de Gredos influences the climate of the area creating a microclimate characterized by mild temperatures and abundant humidity that generates a rich landscape.

#### **4. Research Methodology**

In his works about the case study, Yin [75] recommends applying this methodology in situations in which the question to be studied is interrelated with the study context. This is what happens in the case under analysis: it is not possible to de-link the relevance that intangibles have acquired in the development strategy of La Vera, of the different elements inherent in said space (dynamism of the population, professionalism of the technicians responsible for managing the program, pre-existing territorial structure, etc.). The phenomenon to be studied (intangibles) and the context in which they are studied (La Vera) interrelate and feedback each other. This is the reason why numerous authors [78–82] have resorted to this same methodology to study aspects related to the relevance that local people's participation and social capital can acquire in development processes.

The methodology used is an essential factor to understand this research goal in order to going beyond other studies related with Rural Development Programs. Yin [76] argues that qualitative research tools such as conducting interviews can improve the understanding of the information provided by the interviewee by allowing interaction and for an adequate contextualization of their opinions. Based on these premises, this research uses a qualitative methodology based on a broad fieldwork project in which several sources of information are distinguished:



**Table 1.** Representativeness of the selected sample according to the investment.

Source: Own elaboration.

As shown in the table above, the criteria applied allow for a representative sample of the total productive investments to be obtained. However, it should be clarified that, within these productive measures, some projects with a predominantly public character are also addressed. This type of action involves the investment of 827,905.04 euros. If we deduct this amount from the total investment shown in Table 2, the private projects selected in the sample would represent 73.58% of the private productive investment executed.

There are 44 projects included in the research sample. Of this total, 34 interviews were carried out since seven of the businesses had ceased to operate, two had been transferred (meaning that it was no longer possible to access the original developer), and in only one case was it not possible to carry out the interview due to the promoter's lack of interest.

**Table 2.** Number of projects in the sample and interviews conducted.


Source: Own elaboration.

The statistical sample is made up of 44 projects of the 79 projects financed in La Vera with private participation in the study period [83]. These 44 projects represent 55% of the total projects. Furthermore, calculating the n-optimal for finite population and with a statistical sample size of 79 (the projects with exclusively private financing), a sampling error of 9.8% is estimated with a confidence level of 95%. Although this is a case study, the statistical sample size can be assumed to be representative due to the results shown above.

The questionnaire that was used for the interview is structured in four blocks. The first one collects general information about the project; it is in this block where questions related to Proder's ability to incentivize investments are asked, with the main goal of obtaining the appraisal of the promoters regarding the management system used. The second block includes two questions related to the contribution of Proder to the economic diversification and the diffusion effect of the made investments. The third section obtains the interviewee's opinion regarding the articulation of their economic sector; it is a question of knowing if in La Vera there are social groups of a sectoral nature, what is the assessment of the promoters regarding the operation of these associations and what has been their role in the dissemination of Proder grants. Finally, a fourth block includes questions regarding Proder's contribution to other cross-cutting aspects related to the development of the area under study. Between these aspects would include regional identity or the recovery of natural and heritage resources.

Each one of those four blocks was made up of five closed questions. Furthermore, to end the interview, the promoters were asked an open-ended question, where they could reflect or make their assessment regarding the Proder Program. So, the questionnaire used for the interview grouping a total of 21 questions, eight of them are referred to the intangible aspects that focus this research and whose results are presented in the next section.


#### **5. Results and Discussion**

#### *5.1. Suitability of the Management System*

With regard to this first issue, the research seeks to know whether the management system used is capable for incentivizing investments. For it, the interviews to promoters sought to ascertain their opinion with respect to two questions: (a) to what extent they decided to address their investments based on the grant offered to them by the program; and (b) what is their assessment of the management and processing of their project by the LAG technical team.

Koneˇcný [67] suggests that management systems and the operation of the LAGs are one of the differentiating elements in the results obtained by rural development strategies in different territories. The questions raised by this research to the promoters make it possible to go deeper into some factors that could explain why it is like that.

With regard to the influence that receiving a grant might have had on the realization of their investments, as shown in Figure 2, three quarters of the promoters admitted that they would have tackled their projects without the help of Proder. However, most of them also admitted that their investment would have been more modest and longer term. These promoters considered that the subsidy received was the "incentive, the justification, the excuse", for which they decided to make investments that they had been maturing for some time and considered necessary for the expansion and even survival of their businesses. Almost a quarter of the promoters admitted that, in the absence of the Proder aid, they would not have undertaken their projects. It should be pointed out that the vast majority of those who expressed this view were tourism promoters who had made their investments in the first Proder call, in which the co-financing rate for this type of investment was higher.

With regard to the second question, Figure 3 leaves no doubt as to the assessment of the management system proposed. The promoters highlighted the proximity (both physical and human) of the technical team responsible for implementing the grants. This proximity is inherent to the regional dimension of the program and to the relations of proximity that result from it. Almost 60% of those interviewed valued the intervention of the technicians as very positive, stressing that their involvement went beyond mere bureaucratic/administrative assistance.

č

**Figure 2.** Would you have approached your project without Proder help? Source: Own elaboration.

**Figure 3.** What has CEDER's role been in implementing your project? Source: Own elaboration.

#### *5.2. Multi-sectorial Approach*

Through their integrated and multi-sectorial approach, Rural Development Programs raise the need to promote investment in a wide range of economic activities and to integrate all of them within a single development strategy. The clear connection between this approach and the objective of economic diversification has already been noted. The second research question aims to find out how promoters perceive the achieving of this purpose.

The results of the interviews show that a majority of the promoters believed that Proder has contributed to the economic diversification of the area; however, only a small part understood that this was possible given the promotion of investments in various economic sectors. As shown in Figure 4, the vast majority of those who responded positively to the question justified their answer on the basis of Proder's investments in a single economic sector: rural tourism.

No

Do not know, no answer

No, given his specialization in tourism projects

Yes, based on projects in all sectors

Yes, thanks to the rural tourism sector

3

3

3

5

20

2

Incorrect, unhappy with the advice received

Correct, limited to administrative management

Very positive, involvement beyond the administrative

12

20

**Figure 4.** Do you think Proder has contributed to the economic diversification of the region? Through which sectors? Source: Own elaboration.

Closely linked to the multi-sectorial approach, the dissemination effect refers to the capacity of development programs to ensure that the investments made serve as an example and enable other entrepreneurs to undertake new projects. The existence of this dissemination effect is widely perceived by the promoters. It is even significant that most of the interviewees responded positively to the question posed (Figure 5), even though they were not able to give any examples.

**Figure 5.** Do you think Proder has been able to encourage other people to undertake projects similar to yours? Examples? Source: Own elaboration.

In the two questions posed regarding this intangible, the only sector to which the interviewees refer is the tourism sector. In line with the results obtained from other research [68–71], it seems that in La Vera the perception of the promoters with respect to tourism development is positive. As shown in Figure 4, among the promoters, it seems to be a general perception that Proder's projects and investments were concentrated in this sector. Obviously, this concentration of resources in an economic activity is precisely the opposite of what the multi-sectorial approach aims at (in fact, who believed that Proder did not contributed to economic diversification criticized the program's excessive specialization in tourism projects), but this does not prevent the majority of interviewees from positively evaluating Proder's contribution to economic diversification. Therefore, it seems that promoters perceive tourism investments as an element of development and, as shown in Figure 5, to a not insignificant extent, they understand that, in this sector, Proder's investments have had a multiplier effect.

#### *5.3. Bottom-up Approach*

In their analysis of the relevance of social capital in local development processes, Esparcia et al. [47] warn of the need to undertake case studies that will allow a deeper understanding of the issue, especially in those rural areas with a weaker productive fabric. This research could be considered a contribution along these lines. As mentioned, the bottom-up approach seeks to encourage the participation of the population in development processes. Social groups are the agents entrusted with this task. The questions posed with respect to this intangible try to evaluate the role that these groups had in the dissemination and implementation of Proder aid. As shown in Figure 6, the majority of the promoters became aware of the existence of the aid through their own means or thanks to the advice of the Local Development Agents (LDA) of the Local Councils of the zone. The LDAs are municipal technicians who, among other tasks, are in charge of managing the local employment boards developing a brokerage work, as well as advising those other people who try to start a business and need information about the available lines of help.

Only four promoters acknowledged having had knowledge of the Proder subsidies through a social group: Vera Tourism Association (ATURIVE). However, it should be noted that those who accessed the subsidies through this channel were managers or direct relatives of the managers of the aforementioned association.

**Figure 6.** How did you find out about the existence of Proder aid? Source: Own elaboration.

Of the three productive measures, the only one in which there was an entity of a regional nature with the vocation of representing the interests of its sector was that of promoting rural tourism. Most of the tourist entrepreneurs are recognize as being members of ATURIVE. However, Figure 7 shows that only a small part of those interviewed (the association's leaders) consider its operation to be good. On the contrary, the vast majority of the tourism promoters qualify the work carried out by ATURIVE as regular or bad. There were also interviewees were not even able to evaluate the activity of an entity that, in theory, should have stood up and defended its interests.

7

7

2

Good

Regular

Bad

Do not know, no answer

2

They had held management positions at ATURIVE

Through ADICOVER executives

ADICOVER dissemination actions

Own initiative

4

6

6

18

**Figure 7.** How do you value the operation of ATURIVE? Source: Own elaboration.

The scarce valuation of the tourist promoters with respect to the operation of ATURIVE, the anecdotal role of this association as a promoter of the Proder aids, added to the fact that it is their directors (or their direct relatives), the only ones who recognize having had knowledge of the aids through it, put into question the role of this group in the development process. It might be asked whether this is not one of those situations denounced by Esparcia et al. [52] or Chevalier et al. [63] in their study about the application of the institutional model of the Leader approach in various European regions. As it seems happening with La Vera tourist association, these authors denounce the tendency of local elites to "monopolize" the implementation of the development strategies in their respective territories. Results obtained show the difficulties encountered in implementing a bottom-up development model in La Vera. These conclusions would be in line with those obtained by Guiberteau [15], Navarro et al. [55,56], or Cejudo et al. [84], who show a critical position regarding the capacity of LAGs to implement a truly participatory rural development model.

It seems that the fact that businessmen and mayors of the region belong to the decision-making body ADICOVER is a factor in the dissemination of Proder aid. However, thought should be given to the need to establish control mechanisms to ensure that this does not become an element of 'exclusion' for other promoters who, not being part of these LAG management bodies or not having direct relations with the people who do belong to them, wish to have access to the aid on equal terms.

#### *5.4. Contribution of These Programs to Other Aspects of Territorial Revaluation*

As Figure 8 shown, a clear majority of promoters positively valued the effects of Proder on the feeling of belonging to the Association of Municipalities. Often, in the justification of their answers, the interviewees alluded to the promotion campaigns carried out under the rural tourism measure. Also worthy of mention is the recognized contribution of the program to the regional identity, but they point out that this existed prior to Proder. Those who are pronounced in this sense are corroborating some of the arguments used in the methodology section to justify the choice of the La Vera as the case study area.

It was not easy for the private promoters to evaluate Proder's contribution to the conservation of the natural resources and heritage. Almost 40% did not value this issue (Figure 9). Perhaps, the low level of involvement of the promoters in the development strategy is one of the causes that can explain their difficulty to value this issues of general interest linked to the philosophy of the program.

On the other hand, those who considered that Proder had contributed to these aspects highlighted its role in the recovery and signposting of hiking routes, as well as in other actions such as the recovery of small public spaces, the creation of viewpoints, and the adaptation of clean points. Some of those interviewed also highlighted the positive consequences for rural heritage of many of the tourist investments undertaken, given that they involved the restoration of buildings, the recovery of farms, etc.

**Figure 8.** Do you think Proder has reinforced the regional identity? Source: Own elaboration.

**Figure 9.** Do you think Proder has contributed to conserving the region's heritage and natural resources? Source: Own elaboration.

#### **6. Conclusions**

When relating the results of the investigation with those obtained by other authors, it must be kept in mind that the ideas set forth in the previous section are conditioned by the methodology used. This research is a case study, and this constitutes its main limitation, because it limits the analysis of intangibles to a specific area whose characteristics, in turn, influence the phenomenon under study.

Rural Development Programs are an interesting tool for activating and promoting investments in the rural environment; almost half of the interviewees acknowledged that Proder aid was the element that made them decide to make investments that they had been considering for some time. Among the factors that could explain this capacity are the regional dimension of their management systems and the relations of geographical and human proximity that result from this. However, on its own, the regional dimension does not explain the favorable opinion of the promoters regarding the management system. The involvement of the technical team is a factor that, to a certain extent, depends on something "intangible" such as the attitude with which they face the implementation of the program. Something that in one region may be very well valued, in another may not be so well valued. There is a human component to this issue; it would be interesting if the evaluation of these programs introduced greater relevance to the internal evaluation systems that would allow the promoters themselves to indicate their degree of satisfaction with the attention received and the work carried out by the LAG technical teams.

This research is committed to ensuring that the implementation of this kind of program incorporates internal audit systems that evaluate the quality of the procedures used in the implementation of the program. To date, most of the evaluation systems implemented have only focused on performance indicators based on investments made.

The perception of Proder's role in the economic diversification of the region seems to be distorted by an excessive concentration of investments in the rural tourism sector. This could compromise the program's intended multi-sectorial approach and call for flexible financial programming instruments so that the LAGs, as they detect an excessive concentration of projects in one sector, can change the co-financing rates for the others. On the other hand, the results of the research seem to show that the diffusion effect of the investments, their capacity to serve as an example to other entrepreneurs and to promote new projects, is part of the common ideology of the interviewed promoters.

The research results question the relevance of the social groups both in the execution of the program and in the dissemination of its lines of assistance. The implementation of a bottom-up approach, with a transparency principle, would make it advisable to periodically evaluate the percentage of subsidies that go to stakeholders who form part of the LAG's decision-making bodies, or the boards of the associations that have a voice and vote about them. In addition, it would be advisable to make the participation of social groups in the management bodies of the LAGs dependent on the correct functioning of these associations, the proper flow of information between their members, and the maintenance of a dynamic agenda of activities aimed at the whole of the sector that they represent.

On the contrary, a good proportion of the promoters point out the role that the LDAs of the different municipalities had in their projects. Bearing this in mind, and that a good part of the region's Town Councils form part of the LAG's decision-making bodies, it would be interesting to study formulas so that, with this participation quota, the opinion of these technicians is taken into account.

The analysis of the territorial approach shows the interrelations between the intangible aspects studied and the structure of the program. The promoters point out various actions by which they believe that Proder has contributed to strengthening the regional identity. Among these, it is worth highlighting the tourism promotion campaigns or the management system used to implement the grants. In any case, with their answers, the promoters showed that we are dealing with a region with well-defined borders and where, before Proder, there was already a feeling of belonging to the territory. These multiple interrelations between the program's structure and its intangible parameters were also detected when interviewees tried to justify the way in which Proder has contributed to the conservation of the region's natural resources. In this case, the investments undertaken as part of the unproductive measures to enhance local and rural heritage are the most frequently mentioned, although some promoters also mention in their replies the enhancement of private heritage resources resulting from the creation of various tourist accommodation projects.

Without forgetting the research limitations pointed out at the beginning of the discussion section, the research results represent an approach to the evaluation of the intangibles of rural development that can be a useful tool for those responsible for the planning, management, and evaluation of Rural Development Programs.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, F.J.C.-Á., A.N.M., and J.C.-S.; Methodology, F.J.C.-Á.; Formal analysis, F.J.C.-Á.; Investigation, F.J.C.-Á.; Writing-original draft preparation, F.J.C-Á. and A.N.M.; Writing-review and editing, F.J.C.-Á., A.N.M., and J.C.-S.; Project administration and funding acquisition, A.N.M. and J.C.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The dissemination of this work has been possible thanks to the funding granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and by the Junta de Extremadura to the DESOSTE research group through the aid with reference GR18052.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

*Article*

## **Entrepreneurs and Territorial Diversity: Success and Failure in Andalusia 2007–2015**

**Eugenio Cejudo García \* , José Antonio Cañete Pérez , Francisco Navarro Valverde and Noelia Ruiz Moya**

Department of Human Geography, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain; joseaca@ugr.es (J.A.C.P.); favalver@ugr.es (F.N.V.); noeliaruiz@ugr.es (N.R.M.)

**\*** Correspondence: cejudo@ugr.es

Received: 15 July 2020; Accepted: 3 August 2020; Published: 5 August 2020

**Abstract:** Rural Europe today cannot be understood without considering the impact of the EU's Liaisons Entre Actions de Developpement de l'Economie Rurale (LEADER) rural development programme. Although in general it has had a positive impact, research has also revealed spatial and social disparities in the distribution of funds. Our primary source was the files for all the LEADER projects processed in Andalusia between 2007 and 2015. In addition to successfully executed projects, we also focused on "unfunded" projects, those in which, although promoters had initiated the application procedure, a grant was never ultimately obtained. Project failure must be studied so as to avoid biased findings. We then classified these projects within the different types of rural area and analysed the behaviour of the different promoters in these areas. Relevant findings include: project success or failure varies according to the different types of rural area, as does the behaviour of the different promoters; the degree of rurality can hinder project success; young and female entrepreneurs were more likely to fail; the type of promoter is strongly influenced by the distance to cities in that companies and Individual Entrepreneurs tend to invest in periurban spaces, while public sector promoters such as Local Councils are more prominent in remote rural areas.

**Keywords:** neo-endogenous rural development; LEADER approach; rural areas; classification and types of rural areas; good practices; rural depopulation and aging; young and female entrepreneurs; entrepreneurship; funded and unfunded projects; Andalusia

### **1. Introduction: State of the Art**

The current situation of rural areas cannot be fully understood without taking into account the impact of the LEADER programme. LEADER, an acronym for its French title "Liaisons Entre Actions de Developpement de l´Economie Rurale", has been applied throughout the rural areas of the European Union (EU). It was created as a "laboratory" for innovation which could strengthen local capacities and help solve problems in rural areas, via a strongly territorial, "bottom-up" approach. Since it was first established at the beginning of the 1990s, it has become the most emblematic practical application of the recent theories of neo-endogenous rural development on which it is based. The aim of LEADER is to plant the seeds for strong, self-sustaining rural development. The main specificities of this approach are: to promote innovation, above all social innovation; the integrated, multi-sector nature of the projects; the territorial perspective; networking; economic diversification; the bottom-up approach; local decision-making. Originally established as an European Economic Community (EEC) Initiative (1991–2006) implemented through Local Action Groups (LAGs) made up of entrepreneurs, public institutions and civic associations, it was later integrated (since 2007) into the corresponding national and regional Rural Development Programmes, with specific LEADER actions.

Its implementation, with varying degrees of success [1–3], has revealed among other things: the unequal territorial distribution of LEADER funds [4–8]; the development of important social innovation processes in rural areas [9,10]; the varying participation of the different stakeholders as promoters of LEADER projects [11,12]; the vital importance of social capital in rural development processes [13–17]; and the importance for rural development of the promotion and enhancement of natural and cultural heritage, both as cohesive elements of local identity that must be protected and as hugely powerful assets for enhancing rural tourism. These are both emblematic aspects of the LEADER programme. On these lines, various articles have examined the impact of LEADER on for example ways of combining traditional agricultural and livestock practices with agritourism [18,19] wine tourism [20,21], olive oil tourism [22], dehesa grasslands [23], landscapes [24], local skills, knowledge and festivals [25] or the impact on the structure of the rural tourism sector produced by LEADER-related actions, which resulted in an excess supply of accommodation, which was often of poor quality [26]. Other research has focused on the role of LEADER in halting the depopulation of rural areas [27–29], strengthening their level of resilience [30] or simply, as a new methodology for intervention in the development of rural areas [31,32], known as the LEADER approach [33,34].

Both these and many other articles that could be cited centre on LEADER projects that have been successfully carried out and tend to ignore those other projects in which although the promoters had begun the LEADER grant application procedure, a grant was never ultimately obtained. In this article, we will be referring to these projects as unfunded projects. In other words, research on the LEADER programme has tended to focus on funded projects and has largely ignored the projects that applied for but did not finally receive financial support from the programme. We believe, together with Rodríguez et al. [35] (pp. 103–104), that it is also necessary to study issues such as failure, inefficiency and the incapacity to foresee change, so as to avoid biased explanations of social action that tend to marginalise those who do not fit into prevailing success-linked models.

This is why the only research in the literature that deals with the question of unfunded projects, does so indirectly. Dargan and Shucksmith [36] (p. 285) talked about a "project class" made up above all of members of the LAG and well-positioned actors in the public and private sector with substantial financial resources, knowledge and innovation capacity, who control and are well informed about LEADER investments. At the other end of the scale, there are other groups including young people and women, who are less involved even though their projects enjoy certain advantages in the selection and funding process. The authors of [37–40] also made it clear that women are less likely to become rural entrepreneurs, even though they are less afraid of business failure. In spite of this, the LEADER programme has contributed, together with other initiatives, to the creation of new identities and social representations of rural women, which have made them more visible [41] and have enhanced social inclusion in a context in which new socioeconomic and spatial realities are emerging in rural areas of Europe [42,43]. This will lead to the progressive empowerment of women in the personal, family, social and political spheres [44].

Our past research on projects of this kind in Andalusia for the programme period 2000–2006 [45–47] revealed first of all that there was a need to improve management and to update the criteria and the processes for the selection and monitoring of projects. We also found that the number of unfunded projects varies greatly from one territory to the next, a fact which was reflected, in an extreme case, in the considerable number of municipalities in which none of the proposed projects were funded. Another weakness of the LEADER approach was that it did not establish specific measures for areas with low population density to combat the problems arising from depopulation. In general in these areas, neo-endogenous rural development action has not achieved the desired results and at times has even proved unsuitable, missing important opportunities to help reverse depopulation. Finally, the typical profile of the promoters of unfunded projects was that of a young person, and in particular a young woman, who was trying to set up a business. The most common legal forms within which these businesses were established were as self-employed workers, limited companies or business partnerships.

Our proposed field of study is therefore quite original, not only because the subject that we have chosen, namely unfunded projects, has rarely been studied in our field of research, as mentioned above, but also due to the level of detail of the information on which our research is based, the individual files for each project, in a territory like Andalusia, a large region with a population of about 8.5 million people.

In this research our aim is to analyse both the unfunded and the successfully executed projects by looking at the number of projects, and the territories in which they implemented or sought to implement these projects, according to different territorial typologies that enable us to assess and compare their behaviour. Our initial hypotheses are that, on the basis of our previous research studies, the groups with the greatest limitations when it comes to starting a business, including among others individual entrepreneurs and the smallest, most vulnerable companies, will be those least likely to try to set up businesses and most likely to fail. In addition, the participation of the different stakeholders will vary according to the territory in question, with the public sector playing a greater role in less developed areas, and private investors dominating in the areas with more dynamic economies.

#### **2. Sources, Methodology and Study Area**

The basic source we used was the list of projects for which grant applications were processed (12,855) under the LEADER programme between 2007 and 2015. This information was provided by the Department of Agriculture, Fishing and Rural Development of the Regional Government of Andalusia. For comparison purposes, we have separated the projects into executed projects (6225) and unfunded projects (6630). Unfunded projects were considered to be those which, after a grant application had been made and a file had been opened, were ultimately not executed with LEADER funds. This does not necessarily mean that these projects were never carried out as on occasions the promoters decided to renounce LEADER funds so as to qualify for finance from other programmes.

There are various problems involved in working with this source, especially when analysing unfunded projects: missing information as the forms have numerous uncompleted boxes; countless typing errors, mistakes in the coding of some of the variables, etc. We are therefore working with projects in which the information was often not fully filled in or contained errors, only some of which can be corrected, and in the case of the unfunded projects, which were either never carried out or if they were carried out were done so without LEADER funds.

The types of promoters in this study (as listed below in Table 2) are those described in the source and the analysed variable was the number of funded/unfunded projects.

The results of the statistical analysis were input into a Geographic Information System, ARCGIS 10.6, which produced graphic outputs in the form of vectorial plans that were exported to jpg format. We were unable to perform a qualitative analysis regarding the reasons why the promoters of unfunded projects decided not to continue with them.

Although our analyses were conducted at the municipal scale, they were based on individual files, which means that we only studied those municipalities in which files were opened in relation to applications for LEADER grants. Those projects in which it was not absolutely clear in which municipality the project was intended to be carried out were excluded. The results were then aggregated at the regional level in line with the different types of territory established for Andalusia. Adjacent municipalities of the same type were joined together on the map.

The enormous difficulties inherent in establishing a typology of rural spaces in Spain, or in the OECD in general [48], are due to questions such as the availability and reliability of current and historic sources, the scales with which one decides to work, the variables that are used to establish the different typologies (rural, intermediate or urban) or the thresholds which are set to distinguish between them. The Spanish National Statistics Institute (Instituto Nacional de Estadística) uses the total population as a defining variable, establishing a threshold of up to 2000 inhabitants for rural municipalities and up to 10,000 for medium-sized. Municipalities with over 10,000 inhabitants are regarded as urban. This classification is widely used because of the availability and reliability over time of the data, although

certain doubts have also been raised because of the constant need to increase the thresholds to take into account that a municipality may contain various separate centres of population [49]. However, this typology does not always adapt to the peculiarities of the territorial structure, as happens in our study area, Andalusia, in which the typology adapts poorly to a region in which "agri-towns" [50–52] or intermediate towns [53,54] play a very important role.

Following the recommendations of the OECD [55], the European Union established three large territorial categories (mainly rural regions, intermediate regions and mainly urban regions) on the basis of a benchmark population density figure of 100 inhab/km<sup>2</sup> used to distinguish rural municipalities from urban ones. Under this system, the mainly rural regions are those in which over 50% of the population live in rural municipalities; the intermediate regions are those in which between 15% and 50% live in rural municipalities; meanwhile, the mainly urban regions are those in which less than 15% of the regional population live in rural municipalities. This classification could be applicable to NUTS 3 regions. In recent years, interesting proposals have emerged in this regard at the local level. Firstly, Molinero [56] established a rural typology in which population density was the main criterion. This is because population density is a key factor in any rural development policy and since the 1990s has been the most frequently used criterion by the OECD, the EU and the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, as well as by geographers and territorial planners. This classification developed from Law 45/2007 on the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture, which classified as rural all those municipalities with less than 30,000 inhabitants and less than 100 inhabitants/km<sup>2</sup> . This group was then subdivided into three types of rural municipality: deep < 5 inhab/km<sup>2</sup> ; stagnant "5" to "24.9"; and dynamic "25" to "99.9" inhab/km<sup>2</sup> . The application of this classification in rural spaces in Andalusia could be problematic due, as mentioned earlier, to the socio-territorial importance of agri-towns in the region.

Secondly, de Cos and Reques (2019) [57] proposed a typology of spaces based on their territorial and demographic vulnerability using cartographic sources available in GIS format, taking advantage of new European and Spanish legislation enabling access to official cartographic databases in digital format. For this typology, a multi-criterion analysis involving a weighted linear combination was applied. Although the methodology and the resources used appeared to us to involve a very important qualitative leap in an attempt to go beyond classifications based on population or density, the resulting aggregation of results in nine categories according to the degree of vulnerability would be difficult to apply in this research study. In addition, while the notion of territorial vulnerability fits quite well with the real situation in Andalusia, that of demographic vulnerability does not provide such a good fit.

One of the most widely cited proposals for the classification of rural areas in Spain was presented by Reig, Goerlich and Cantarino (2016) [58]. These authors based their proposal on the classification made by the OECD and the EU, which was itself based on population variables such as density, and took the 1 km<sup>2</sup> grid as a spatial reference for analysis. The use of newly available georeferenced data as to exactly where each inhabitant lived within the municipality enabled them to avoid all the distortions caused by calculating the population density on the basis of the total area of the different municipalities, in which there are often large areas with little or no population. They also included, in line with other research work being conducted in the EU, accessibility to urban centres and to services, considering for this purpose the closest towns or cities with a population of over 50,000 people [59]. They also looked at land uses in order to classify intermediate and urban areas into closed and open spaces, and used the time taken to access services to classify rural territories into near (up to 45 min) and remote (more than 45 min). On the basis of this classification and taking into account that our analysis focuses above all on rural areas in that it examines projects linked to the LEADER programme, we decided to modify this classification system, applying as a discriminatory variable the time taken to access services. On this basis, the intermediate municipalities were divided into near and remote, depending on whether or not they were over 30 min from a city (as most are situated in parts of the Guadalquivir Valley with a high population density). In rural areas, a third category was established due to the widely diverse range of situations observed in the different municipalities. These were divided into "near"—those

less than 45 min away from a city—, "remote"—between 45 and 60 min—, and "deep"—60 or more min away—(Figure 1). We believe that with the aforementioned modifications, this is the classification that best adapts to the real situation in Andalusia.

**Figure 1.** Territorial typology of Andalusia (Reig et al.) [58], adapted by the authors.

Table 1 presents various synthetic indicators of sociodemographic aspects of the different typologies. The table was drawn up using data from 2011. This year was chosen as a reference because it falls halfway through the study period (2007–2015) and because census and local registration information is readily available.

After a brief analysis of the data presented, we found that in 2011, 5.9% of the municipalities in Andalusia were urban areas. These covered 6.7% of the total surface area and were home to almost 50% of the population, with very high densities. The population of these municipalities continued to rise over the study period, increasing by 168,940 inhabitants, 48.3% of the total increase across the region. This trend continues the pattern which first appeared in Spain in the 1960s as witnessed by the fact that the population in these municipalities rose by over 40% between 1961 and 2011. These municipalities are generally situated in flat areas at an average altitude of less than 260 m and are very close to areas that provide services at a distance of just 4 min. They have the lowest average age population and a relatively high proportion of the population are over 65. The agricultural sector is relatively insignificant, as can be seen from the number of people affiliated to the agrarian section of the Social Security system, who account for less than 4% of the population in open urban areas.

By contrast, 66.1% of the municipalities are classified as rural. These cover 52.7% of the territory and house 12% of the population (2011). In demographic terms, over the period 2007–2015 the population of these municipalities fell by 1825 people, although the greatest losses were in the regions furthest away from service centres (Regions 6 and 7, Types 6 and 7 of Table 1), and in fact there were gains in the nearest areas (Region 5, Table 1), although these were not sufficient to make up for the losses in the more remote areas. A trend shared by all three types of rural municipality was that their population in 2011 was less than that in 1961 with accumulated losses of over 22.3%. The decline was more intense the more remote the municipality, as can be seen by the fact that almost half the loss of

population took place in Category 7 areas (Table 1). The rural municipalities are normally situated at higher altitudes of between 518 and 718 metres on average and tend to be further away (between 30 and 70 min) from the services provided by towns and cities with populations of over 50,000 inhabitants. These rural municipalities also have the oldest populations with an average age of 46 years old and well over 20% of the total population aged 65 years old or over. Perhaps the most serious statistic in the villages in Category 7 (Table 1) is the aging rate (the ratio between people aged 65 or over and people aged under 15), which is twice the regional average (183 compared to the regional average of 93). As might be expected, the figures for affiliation to the Social Security system clearly reflect the continued dominance of the farming sector, as can also be seen from the number of people claiming the Agricultural Unemployment Subsidy and the Agrarian Income Supplement, benefits received by temporary farmworkers in Andalusia and Extremadura [60–62].

Finally, and so as not to extend this territorial presentation unnecessarily, the intermediate municipalities accounted for 27.9% of the total, 40.6% of the surface area and 38.4% of the population. In general, the variables for the intermediate municipalities range between the other two categories, although we should also highlight Category 4, Remote Intermediate, a category which normally coincides with the agri-towns, located at some distance from the services provided by the city (on average 45 min away). These towns act as capitals of their respective subregions and perform a key function in the provision of basic services and facilities, both public and private, that are highly essential in rural Andalusia.


**Table 1.** Socioeconomic indicators according to territorial typologies.

Source: Instituto de Estadística de Andalucía. The authors.

#### **3. Results**

It is important to remember that we only included those projects in which a particular municipality was mentioned as the place where the project was to be carried out. All projects without a specific location were excluded as were those that were intended to be executed at the sub-regional rather than the municipal scale. This explains why although 12,855 projects commenced the application procedure, in this study we only analysed 11,104 or 86.4% of the total. Of the 1751 projects that were not included in our study, 1271 were unfunded projects and 480 were successfully executed. Another interesting statistic is that 94.6% of the funded projects were promoted by associations including the Local Action Groups (LAG) (This category includes promoter types G, G14 and J (this classification is followed in Tables 2 and 3).). Associations were also the body that initiated the largest number of unfunded projects at 427, or 33.6% of the total. This was followed by Individual Entrepreneurs with 365 unfunded

projects and various different types of private companies (This category includes promoter types A, B, E and F (this classification is followed in Tables 2 and 3).) with 324. Non-profit making associations such as LAGs were therefore the promoter most affected by our decision to analyse the projects at a municipal scale and are therefore somewhat underrepresented in our results. This is because a lot of the projects presented by these kinds of associations were organised at a sub-regional level rather than a municipal level. This under-recording is substantially less significant in the other variables analysed, although it should also be taken into account. Lastly, the results will be discussed on the basis of five large categories of promoters: Private companies (see note 2); Non-profit making associations (see note 1); Local Councils (code P); Individual Entrepreneurs (code PF) and others (This category includes promoter types Q, R, S and U (this classification is followed in Tables 2 and 3)). Later, we will be looking at some of the components of these large categories in more detail.

#### *3.1. Funded and Unfunded Projects. An Overview*

The first variable to analyse was the number of projects in which the application procedure for a LEADER grant was initiated. This was done by the type of promoter and by the type of territory, as established above. The initial objective was to answer the following questions: Do the different kinds of promoter act in the same way? Do participation levels vary from one type of territory to the next? Do the different types of promoter have the same probability of success or failure at the outset of the project? Does this vary according to the territory in which the project is to be carried out? In order to help answer these questions, we created Table 2, which contains the data referring to all the projects initiated and Table 3, which shows the ratios between funded and unfunded projects according to the promoter and territory.


**Table 2.** Total number of funded and unfunded projects.

A. PLCs, B. Limited Companies, E. Business Partnerships, F. Cooperatives, G. Associations and Foundations, G14. LAGs; J. Civil Societies, P. Local Councils, PF. Individual entrepreneurs, Q. Public Bodies. R. Religious Congregations and Institutions, S. Departments of Central and Regional Governments, U. Others. Source: Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Agricultura, Pesca y Desarrollo Rural. The authors.

As regards the number of projects commenced (Table 3), we observed that these were shared out at roughly a third each between three main promoters: Private Companies, 30.8%, Individual Entrepreneurs 29.7% and Local Councils 26.7%. The "Others" category was almost irrelevant at 1.1%, while that of Associations came to 11.6%; although as mentioned earlier, this category was clearly underrepresented. Within private companies, limited companies, often regarded as the poor relations within this group, play a central role as they are responsible for initiating the highest number of projects

with 23.1% of the total. Another trend worth noting was the increasing importance of Cooperatives, although this was less obvious in terms of the number of projects, in which they accounted for just 5%.

If we take the above information about all 11,104 projects and we break it down into executed and unfunded projects, can any differences be observed in terms of the way the different promoters acted in the different territories? In order to answer this question, we have drawn up Table 3, which shows the ratio between funded and unfunded products multiplied by 100 so as to make it easier to understand.


**Table 3.** Ratio of funded to unfunded projects.

A. PLCs, B. Limited Companies, E. Business Partnerships, F. Cooperatives, G. Associations and Foundations, G14. LAGs; J. Civil Societies, P. Local Councils, PF. Individual Entrepreneurs, Q. Public Bodies. R. Religious Congregations and Institutions, S. Departments of Central and Regional Governments, U. Others. Source: Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Agricultura, Pesca y Desarrollo Rural. The authors.

For Andalusia as a whole this ratio is 107, which means that slightly more projects were implemented than were not. When these values are analysed by a promoter, important differences emerge. The promoters that achieved above average rates of implementation and could therefore be considered as being better funded are Cooperatives, LAGs and Local Councils (P). The difference between these groups is important in quantitative terms. Cooperatives and LAGs obtained ratios that were double the average value while the ratio for Local Councils was 21% above average. At the opposite end of the scale, in which there were more unfunded projects than funded ones, the Individual Entrepreneurs and Limited Companies stood out with 17 and 19 percentage points less than the average for Andalusia, respectively. These are private investors, who are vitally important in terms of the number of projects they promoted and above all in terms of the amounts invested and of the associated employment. They are also the ones that take the biggest risks in terms of investment as they are investing their own capital and because they receive proportionally smaller grants compared for example to Local Councils and LAGs.

If we carry out a more in-depth analysis of the behaviour of the promoters according to the different types of territory, various interesting questions come to light. The success/failure ratios for Individual Entrepreneurs were below the regional average of 107 in all the different types of territory, a very clear sign of the weakness of this group when it comes to implementing a project. Their highest levels of failure were located in the intermediate regions, especially Remote Intermediate areas, and in Near Rural areas. These areas were also the ones in which most projects were started. The ratios were higher at the extremes, in particular in Remote and Deep Rural areas in which the fact that there was a small number of projects and of promoters seemed to help more solid business proposals to come to fruition. At the opposite end of the scale in Urban areas, the higher ratio was due to the more dynamic economic environment and to the fact that a relatively small number of projects (144) were commenced. The other large category in which there was a majority of unfunded projects was in private companies, in which there were important internal differences as mentioned earlier. If we look at private companies in general, we observe that the most important differences in their results are due more to remoteness/nearness than to the distinction between rural, intermediate and urban areas. The Near Intermediate municipalities obtained a score of 110 compared to 101 for the remote areas, while in the rural areas the maximum value was 123 for the Near Rural municipalities compared to 78 and 89 for the Remote and Deep Rural areas, respectively. Within this category, limited companies started by far the highest number of projects. They established a general trend but with lower values in all the different types of territories, such that they only surpassed a ratio of 100 in Near Rural areas and even then by very little (101). For their part, PLCs had high levels of success in the execution of their projects in Remote Intermediate and Near Rural areas with 134 and 140, respectively, while their scores were over 50 points lower in all the other types of territory.

In three types of promoters, the number of funded projects was far in excess of that of unfunded projects. These included Cooperatives, linked above all to the farming sector, in which there were twice as many funded projects as unfunded projects with values that were much higher in intermediate and Near Rural areas than the already high average for this category of 195. In Remote and Deep Rural areas the scores were below the average for Cooperatives but were still 40 points above the regional average for all projects (107). The average value for the LAGs was almost 3 times the regional average of 107 and varied enormously between the different types of territories, something which can be explained in part by the small number of projects initiated. In addition, many of their projects were only activated at the end of the programming period, on quite a number of occasions so as to make up for the absence of other promoters by turning to a "reserve stock" of solidly constructed projects for which finance was assured. Lastly, Local Councils showed their highest levels of success in all three types of rural area, reaching their maximum in Near Rural in which there were almost twice as many funded as unfunded projects. This value was notably lower in Remote Rural areas (134) and Deep Rural areas (118), and far lower in the intermediate regions, at just over 100.

In summary, for most of the actors involved, the remoteness and the degree of rurality of the municipalities proved a handicap that made it more difficult for the projects commenced under the aegis of the LEADER programme to be successfully executed; the exception to this rule was Individual Entrepreneurs, an important finding that must be borne in mind.

#### *3.2. Geographical Distribution across Andalusia of the Di*ff*erent Types of Area*

As can be seen in Figure 1, the classification of rural spaces in Andalusia according to the nomenclature proposed by Reig et al. (2016) [58] adapts quite accurately to a territorial structure in which the mountain areas are quite different from those situated in the valleys. The eastern side of the region is dominated by rural areas (Near, Remote and Deep), in sharp contrast to the flat plain traversed by the River Guadalquivir, which is dominated by intermediate regions and even a few urban areas. The latter are mostly situated around the Cádiz metropolitan area and Algeciras.

By contrast, the most strongly rural areas (in their different categories) can be seen in practically all of Sierra Morena, with the exception of a few slightly larger municipalities in the Valle de los Pedroches and Andújar. The rural area covered by the Baetic and Sub-Baetic Cordilleras is also easily distinguishable because it dominates the eastern half of Andalusia.

Calculating the ratio between funded projects and unfunded projects is a way of assessing how effectively the LEADER projects have been managed. The results set out in Figure 2 in relation to Individual Entrepreneurs as promoters can only be described as "disappointing". In practically all types of territories and regardless of their geographic location, there were more unfunded projects (those initiated and processed but ultimately never executed) than funded or executed projects. An even balance between unfunded and funded projects was only observed in Remote Rural areas, in which the ratio was around one, and in the areas classified as Urban, in which it was 1.06.

**Figure 2.** Ratio between the number of funded/unfunded projects initiated by Individual Entrepreneurs according to territorial typology. Source: Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Agricultura, Pesca y Desarrollo Rural. The authors.

This means that in all the territories, regardless of their degree of "rurality", it was self-employed promoters (and within them young people and women), who found it most difficult to implement their projects due to administrative problems, lack of finance, etc.

Figure 3, which refers to public promoters, highlights a completely different situation to that described above. Town Councils promoted more funded projects than unfunded ones. In Near Rural areas the former almost doubled the latter, while in Remote Rural areas, the difference was slightly lower. However, and this is very significant, very similar ratios were observed in Deep Rural areas, often the most depressed regions with worse social and territorial conditions for the funded establishment of private businesses. In these areas in which public investment is urgently required, the proportion of unfunded and funded projects was very similar, as happened in the Near Intermediate areas. In Urban areas there were more unfunded projects than funded ones. This was followed by Remote Intermediate areas, although in the latter the ratio values were very close to 1.

The behaviour of private companies (Figure 4) is clearly associated with the degree of "rurality" of the area in question. The more rural the area is, the higher the proportion of unfunded projects. For Andalusia as a whole, the ratios vary from 0.78 in Remote Rural areas to 1.23 in Near Rural. This confirms once again that proximity to cities is an important factor in the success of LEADER projects. Similarly, in remote inaccessible areas it seems more difficult to bring projects to funded fruition. This map highlights once again the differences between the Guadalquivir Valley and the mountainous areas of Andalusia.

**Figure 3.** Ratio between the number of funded/unfunded projects initiated by Public Bodies according to territorial typology. Source: Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Agricultura, Pesca y Desarrollo Rural. The authors.

**Figure 4.** Ratio between the number of funded/unfunded projects initiated by private companies according to territorial typology. Source: Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Agricultura, Pesca y Desarrollo Rural. The authors.

#### **4. Discussion and Conclusions**

This study, which analyses all LEADER projects for the period 2007–2015, both funded [63] and unfunded, taking projects at the municipal level as a reference, has confirmed previous findings that the participation of the different promoters of LEADER projects varied greatly within the Andalusia region. In addition, and this is the most novel aspect of our research, their intervention varied according to the type of project and the different types of area established. Our results show that the remoteness and rurality of some of the territories made it more difficult for most promoters to successfully conclude the projects they initiated under the LEADER programme, although not all were affected in the same way or to the same degree. Our findings also confirmed that nearness to cities also has a strong influence on country areas in terms of economic activity and income [64]. This is especially evident amongst private sector actors such as companies and Individual Entrepreneurs, who tend to invest in these areas, while the opposite is true for public sector promoters such as Local Councils.

Another important conclusion ratified in this research is the territorial complexity of Andalusia, which is difficult to fit into any general territorial classification system designed for Spain as a whole. This is due above all to the presence of large numbers of medium-sized towns with a strong rural/farming component, known as "agri-towns", so confirming the position defended by Sánchez [54] (p. 189) who argued that these towns are "first and foremost, an opportunity for the territorial development of Andalusia" because they strengthen the hierarchical, balanced structure required for regional development due to their broad spatial distribution and their enormous functional and social diversity, which results in spaces that are highly favourable for business investment and offer a high quality of life for local residents whose numbers continue to grow, so reinforcing the trends that favour the flat areas compared to the mountains, the large compared to the small and the coast compared to inland regions [65,66]. In spite of this, the classification proposed by Reig et al. [58], which we have slightly amended, adapts well to the territorial structure of Andalusia, which is clearly marked by the divide between the mountain areas in the Eastern half in which there are a majority of rural areas with relatively small villages and the flat plain dominated by the Guadalquivir Valley, where most of the intermediate areas, many of which are agri-towns, are located (in general the coastal areas of Andalusia are not considered rural and are not covered by the LEADER programme).

The execution of the LEADER programme (2007–2015) was affected by the economic and financial crisis that erupted in 2008 and continued throughout the programme period. This resulted in a final investment in Andalusia of 514.1 million euros and a subsidy of 209.1 million, a mere 55.4% and 60.2% of the amounts spent during the previous programme period (2000–2006). Likewise, the total number of projects was only 75.8% of those carried out in the previous period. The average investment per project of almost 82,600 euros was also 27% lower.

The difficulties faced by both public and private investors resulted in constant changes in the National Strategic Plan (PEN) and in the different Rural Development Programmes (there were 10 different versions in Andalusia). Some of these changes were forced upon them by changes in European legislation or due to alterations in LEADER Axes 3 and 4 in which the EAFRD funds initially allocated to LEADER (10%) were reduced to the new minimum of 5% established by the EU in 2012 [67]. These issues were also noted by the Court of Auditors of the European Union in its 2010 report [68] on the implementation of LEADER at the beginning of the mainstreaming period. The economic crisis also damaged the capacity of the welfare state to combat poverty and inequality. This had serious effects in Mediterranean areas, which contain some of the most vulnerable social groups and territories in Europe [69]. The austerity conditions imposed on the most affected countries, Spain included, and the preference at European level for flexibility in the labour market, referred to as "flexisecurity", made businesspeople vulnerable to economic flows. At the same time, workers had the moral duty to empower themselves by acquiring the capacity to adapt [70], which, depending on a series of contextual and individual factors, led many salaried workers to become "entrepreneurs out of need" [71].

Our research has also highlighted the importance of PLCs and of limited companies when it comes to promoting rural development. In Spain, limited companies can be set up with less initial share capital (€3000) than PLCs which require a minimum share capital of €60,000, €15,000 of which must be paid up on incorporation of the company; the bureaucratic procedure required to set up a limited company is more flexible, enabling a more family-based ownership structure with relatively few shareholders. Limited Companies are therefore the type of company that best adapts to the socioeconomic reality of intermediate and rural areas. However, for these same reasons they are more likely to fail than PLCs. It could therefore be argued that the patterns observed over the period 2000–2006 have been repeated [12]. These companies have a much greater presence in intermediate areas and in Near and Remote Rural territories, and are less evident in Deep Rural areas. They take advantage of the dynamism associated with urban areas, but the fact that they are easy to set up and do not require much stock capital means that they also top the bill in terms of investment and employment in all the different types of territory.

The role of Cooperatives is also worth highlighting. Firstly, because their results for several variables meant that they were second in importance within the group of private companies, a long way ahead of PLCs. As regards the level of success of the projects they started (as measured by the funded/unfunded projects ratio), Cooperatives came second only to LAGs, the promoters with the highest success ratio, which indicates the firm, solid grounding of their business proposals. Secondly, because of the social, mutually beneficial intentions of these ventures, which enhance the activation and consolidation of social capital, an essential feature of rural development processes [16,72,73]. Finally, because this is evidence of the crucial role in rural development that the modernization and enhanced competitiveness of the farming and agro-industrial sectors have been acquiring since the programme period of 2007–2013 [74]. This has also been reflected in international trade and in key sectors at the national and Andalusian levels, such as fruit, vegetables and vegetable oils—and in particular olive oil—[75] and even in innovation in the rural world [76]. This is manifested for example by the fact that the Gross Value Added (GVA) of the farming sector in Andalusia in 2018 represented 5.9% of GDP, compared to 2.5% in Spain and 1.1% in the EU 28, respectively, and 31.4% of the GVA produced by the farming sector in all of Spain. In addition, the value of agro-industrial production in Andalusia accounted for 25.7% of the total for the industrial sector in the region, which is five percentage points higher than the national figure for Spain as a whole. Similar patterns can be observed in farming employment, which at 8.3% of the total was twice the national and EU28 average, while Andalusia's agro-industry accounted for 24.3% of jobs in the region's industrial sector (Junta de Andalucía, 2019). All these statistics highlight the strong territorial, essentially rural implementation of these sectors. In short, the investments linked to the farming and agro-industrial sector (Measure 411 of the LEADER axes) carried out by Limited Companies, Cooperatives and to a lesser extent Individual Entrepreneurs have proved to be a key factor in rural development in Andalusia over the period 2007–2013, above all due to their strong presence in the inland and mountainous areas of the Penibaetic and Sub-Baetic Cordilleras and at the expense of the Guadalquivir Valley [63].

The dynamizing and rebalancing role that should be played by the LAGs through their initiatives, although very limited by the rules applied during this programme period, was almost irrelevant in the least dynamic areas that most required this kind of intervention. This confirms questions that have already been raised such as the increasingly bureaucratic procedures and the very limited citizen participation in these bodies [77–79], the shortages and frequent turnover of staff, as well as the interference from regional government bodies in the performance of their functions [80], so restricting one of their basic principles, namely subsidiarity [26]. All the above does not release the LAGs themselves from their share of responsibility especially as regards greater inclusion within their decision-making bodies (the General Assembly and the Governing Board) of underrepresented groups such as women and young people [37] and of production sectors such as the farming and agro-industrial sector (Matthews, 2005), which can contribute to the dynamizing role that the LAGs have traditionally performed [81]. It is also important to remember the administrative instability that various LAGs in Andalusia have experienced during this programme period, in which two

LAGs have been wound up (Ronda-Málaga and Almanzora-Almería) and the manager of a third (Apromontes-Granada) has been accused in criminal proceedings.

The crucial role played by public sector actors in rural development is undeniable, especially in rural territories and above all in Remote and Deep Rural areas. However, these public sector players will not be sufficient by themselves to revive the fortunes of these territories. Local Councils, although poorly equipped in terms of economic and human resources, can have an enormous impact on the quality of life in their towns and villages in the sense that they have direct, in-depth knowledge and a comprehensive, overall view of the problems in their communities. On election, most take on a commitment to act to resolve these issues, which at least potentially could make them agents or catalysts for innovation, especially in small and medium-sized municipalities [82,83].

Small municipalities have a potential for innovation that many do not fully materialise. These opportunities include for example soft and intangible innovations, the wellbeing of local communities, skills development for local people, smart specialization strategies, bio-economy, eco-economy, social and cultural innovation, community projects, a territorial approach, linkages between agriculture and the wider economy and the promotion of natural resources [84]. In theory, small municipalities are suitable spaces for innovation but this potential is often frustrated by the very limited capacity of the engines that drive innovation. The end results in terms of innovation are very modest. Improvements could be made by recognising that we are interdependent and extending and enhancing networks based on relationships, exchanges and dialogues that foster ideas and learning; it is also vital to improve local leadership that is capable of bringing together and listening to the different stakeholders and generating synergies between them, a situation in which Local Councils or LAGs could act as bridges between people to multiply ideas and create innovation. Finally, it is essential to encourage a feeling of community, so helping create a more cohesive society that is open to people from outside [85].

Small local councils must assume a key role in the development process, focusing local strategies on discovery rather than on individual innovations. They must also offer their own vision about the particular form of development to be pursued, as to how the economic structure should evolve and the changes required to open up the economy to a new field of opportunities. It is clear that no single municipal government can manage the global challenges of aging population, unemployment and social inequalities by itself. Interaction with other tiers of government must therefore be taken into account when designing a governance structure for local policy. The improvement of public service delivery and the creation of multifunctional and mobile services must also be priority objectives [86]. Finally, institutional support must be given to rural development initiatives and possible strategic alignments must be sought between local, regional, national and supra-national policy agendas, with a view to developing a range of complementary policies [84].

While the participation in rural development of the actors mentioned above is important, the participation of individual entrepreneurs is absolutely essential. As private agents of development, they are more often to be found in the most dynamic areas which have the greatest, most certain investment opportunities. However, we believe that the important thing is their constant presence in rural areas with near average or above average values, even in Remote and Deep Rural areas. A fact that should be emphasised given that these areas are the most vulnerable, least dynamic and generally most neglected by promoters of LEADER projects [4,6,87]. They are also areas in which the population is not only poorer but feels poorer, a fact that highlights the need for territorial policies to take into account the heterogeneous nature of municipalities [88] in the design of these policies in which a greater role must be given to the variables of economic geography [89].

Although it was beyond the scope of this analysis, other recent research studies point to the fact that in addition to the typical profile of a mature woman with a low level of training/education, who is running a family business and has family responsibilities and loyalties that can impinge upon business performance [90] and of the "entrepreneur out of need" to whom we referred earlier, new forms of women entrepreneurs are emerging with links to professional services and rural tourism [91]. These combine with a generation of highly trained young women who have returned to rural areas of

Spain with good communication infrastructures, which they see as suitable places for production and innovation in an effort to halt or mitigate depopulation [92].

However, these encouraging signs should not make us overlook the fact that women and young people are the groups that benefit least from these initiatives. Firstly, they have to overcome a large number of obstacles when trying to start up new businesses within the LEADER programme [93]: they carry out far less projects than their adult, male counterparts; they receive smaller average grants per project and the grants they receive make up a smaller percentage of the total amounts invested. They also have a much lower ratio of funded/unfunded projects. In addition, the traditional division of gender roles remains strong in many rural areas, such that women continue to bear the burden of housework and childcare even when they are the only breadwinners in the family unit [94,95]. These traditional gender roles also tend to channel the projects proposed by women investment into sectors such as tourism, food, social care services and handicraft-related activities. A final, very serious issue in Spanish society today is that the increasingly precarious job market and salary system are no longer the exception and have now become the rule for the majority of the population, especially if you are young and/or a woman [96], a fact that is often reflected in LEADER projects, in which precarious jobs tend to be held by women and young people. These questions in relation to depopulation, women, gender and young entrepreneurs need to be addressed in more extensive future research, in which each issue can be analysed separately.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, E.C.G. and F.N.V.; methodology, J.A.C.P.; software, N.R.M.; investigation, E.C.G., F.N.V. and J.A.C.P.; writing—original draft preparation, E.C.G., F.N.V. and J.A.C.P.; writing—review and editing, E.C.G. and F.N.V.; Visualisation, N.R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This study was carried out as part of the research project entitled "Successes and failures in the practice of neo-endogenous rural development in the European Union (1991–2014)" funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness within its Excellence Programme, CSO2017-89657-P.

**Acknowledgments:** Our special thanks to Nigel Walkington for his extremely in-depth English revision; Enrique Fernández Seguí for his exceptional thorough work, formatting the text; some managers of Local Action Groups for their information/knowledge shared about the projects; the Andalusian Regional Government for the given data. Finally, Ernest Reig, Francisco Goerlich and Ignacio Cantarino, for the support in the establishment of rural typologies.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

*Article*
