Perception of social prosperity in indigenous tourism destinations in Mexico: The mediator effect of competitiveness of the destinations

Ramos-García, Jorge Luis; Vargas-Chanes, Delfino; Toledo-López, Arcelia Article Perception of social prosperity in indigenous tourism destinations in Mexico: The mediator effect of competitiveness of the destinations Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Ramos-García, Jorge Luis; Vargas-Chanes, Delfino; Toledo-López, Arcelia (2023) : Perception of social prosperity in indigenous tourism destinations in Mexico: The mediator effect of competitiveness of the destinations, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, pp. 1-22, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/294537 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Perception of social prosperity in indigenous tourism destinations in Mexico: The mediator effect of competitiveness of the destinations Jorge Luis Ramos-García, Delfino Vargas-Chanes & Arcelia Toledo-López To cite this article: Jorge Luis Ramos-García, Delfino Vargas-Chanes & Arcelia Toledo-López (2023) Perception of social prosperity in indigenous tourism destinations in Mexico: The mediator effect of competitiveness of the destinations, Cogent Business & Management, 10:2, 2235105, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 14 Jul 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 839 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE Perception of social prosperity in indigenous tourism destinations in Mexico: The mediator effect of competitiveness of the destinations Jorge Luis Ramos-García 1 *, Delfino Vargas-Chanes 2 and Arcelia Toledo-López 3 Abstract: In this study, the relationship between community social capital and social prosperity is analysed, as well as the mediatory effect of competitiveness in indigenous tourism destinations from the perspective of the residents in indigenous communities. The sample was 103 people from 10 communities that are recognised as indigenous communities as affiliates of the Red Indígena de Turismo de México A. C. (RITA) (Indigenous Network of Tourism in Mexico). The analysis of the data and proof of hypothesis was carried out through partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The discoveries show that the competitiveness of the destinations has a mediatory effect between the community social capital and the perception of social prosperity. It was found that the indigenous people perceive Jorge Luis Ramos-García ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jorge L. Ramos-García is an independent researcher with a doctorate in Tourism Management by Universidad Autónoma de Occidente and a master’s degree at Instituto Politécnico Nacional in México. His research topics are tourism destination competitiveness, community social capital, social prosperity perception and sustainable tourism management. Passionate on finding different ways to support the tourism development of indigenous communities. Delfino Vargas-Chanes Researcher-Professor at Programa Universitario en Estudios del Desarrollo (UNAM). Has a doctorate degree in sociology from the Iowa State University, with master’s degrees in Sociology and Statistics (UNAM). Its substantive areas are the study of inequality, poverty, and advanced methodologies for social research. Arcelia Toledo-López Researcher-Professor at Instituto Politécnico Nacional, México. Her research interests are business strategies and organizational behaviour of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Latin American context, with an emphasis on understanding and explaining the organizational behaviour and results of MSMEs that operate in subsistence markets and fragmented industries. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT The study presents a relationship analysis between community social capital, competitiveness and social prosperity in indigenous tourist destinations. The results of the study revealed that social capital affects in a positive way the development of competitive management factors. Indigenous tourism destination management is the result of the experience in the management of common goods, such skills in combination with collective actions help communities to be competitive in the tourism market. The benefits derived from the tourist activity are called social prosperity and it is perceived by the increase in wealth distribution, improvement of the quality of life and the management of environmental practices in which communities are involved to maintain and preserve the natural and cultural resources of the destination. Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 1 of 22 Received: 14 March 2023 Accepted: 06 July 2023 *Corresponding author: Jorge Luis Ramos-García, Independent researcher, 51 East Liberty St. unit 2215, Toronto M6K 3P8, Canada E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Virginia Barba-Sánchez, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha - Campus de Albacete, Spain Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. social prosperity through the competitiveness of the destination given that said competitiveness has various effects; more tourists have arrived at the destination, the tourist activities that benefit the local economy have been better managed, the creation of new businesses and jobs, entrepreneurship, investment in infrastructure, improvement in access to public services, and care for the natural resources of the communities. This competitiveness is directly influenced by the community social capital of the indigenous tourism destinations. Subjects: Rural Development; Development Theory; Environment & the Developing World; Politics & Development; Sustainable Development; Tourism Keywords: community social capital; tourism destination competitiveness; social prosperity; indigenous tourism; structural equation modelling 1. Introduction In indigenous communities, tourism plays an important role. The communities that were previously dedicated to agricultural, agroforestry, and pisciculture activities found a way to diversify their economic activities through tourism (Musavengane & Simatele, 2016; Situmorang, 2018). Ecotourism, community-based tourism, nature-based tourism, and indigenous tourism, have developed as a response to international agreements for the sustainable use and leverage of natural and cultural resources in the name of conservation (Espeso-Molinero & Pastor-Alfonso, 2020; Romão et al., 2021). For decades, indigenous people have had little access to tourist activities and thus little access to the benefit of the tourism industry (Hinch & Butler, 2009; Pereiro, 2016; Scheyvens et al., 2021). After years of exclusion and exploitation of their culture as a tourist attraction (product), the indigenous communities have become indigenous tourism destinations, where the indigenous residents have direct and collective participation in management activities for tourism development. Indigenous tourism has been an option for economic development and the cultural and natural revival of indigenous towns (Hinch & Butler, 2009; Hoque et al., 2020; Pereiro, 2016; Ruhanen & Whitford, 2019; Scheyvens et al., 2021). Indigenous communities’ cultural wealth and biodiversity are their main competitive advantage in the tourism industry (Hinch & Butler, 2009; W. Liu et al., 2016). The sustainable development projects for tourism have given indigenous tourism a way to alleviate the poverty in indigenous regions, and empower indigenous people in tourist activities. This is done through entrepreneurship and the creation of small businesses in order to obtain economic income, whilst also utilising and conserving their culture and natural resources (Hoque et al., 2020; Ruhanen & Whitford, 2019; Scheyvens et al., 2021). This study is developed in the context of indigenous communities in Mexico which are recognised as indigenous tourism destinations following their legal framework in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2007) which permits the free development of economic, cultural, social, and spiritual activities under a scheme of self-determination. In this context, indigenous communities have shown interest in developing tourism starting many years ago, derived from impositions and restrictions on the use of natural resources, a policy imposed by the Mexican government in 1986. Some communities began the sub-division of their lands in order to convert them into Protected Areas (PA), and utilise them in the context of tourism under legal schemes of associations, cooperatives, and community-based businesses. This was done through forms of organisation of community or collective social capital. Musavengane and Simatele (2016), indicate that the communities that have suffered racial segregation or socio-economic exclusion are more disposed to generating different types of social capital as a means of support in order to advance towards development and sustainability. Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 2 of 22 This investigation is developed in 10 tourism destinations in indigenous communities pertaining to the Indigenous Network of Tourism in Mexico (RITA). RITA is a civil non-profit organisation made up of 32 organisations from the indigenous movement of Mexico. RITA, along with indigenous communities, seeks to contribute to community development for the sustainable preservation and utilisation of natural and cultural resources in the form of rural and indigenous tourism. The form of the community organisation is one of the attributes of the indigenous communities of Mexico that has contributed to the consolidation of tourist activities in these communities. Nunkoo (2017) and Musavengane and Simatele (2016) refer to the fact that in this type of community, both their governance and social capital play a relevant role in identifying the explicit and implicit values that are developed in the social interaction of indigenous people. The indigenous communities of Mexico have, throughout the years, tried to promote their community development through tourist activities that utilise their biocultural richness through the collective management of community-based resources. It is known that the development of indigenous tourism contributes to the economy, the conservation of culture, and the natural resources in indigenous communities, and as a consequence, the wellbeing and standard of living of indigenous residents (Chin et al., 2017; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Hinch & Butler, 2009; Hoque et al., 2020; Ruhanen & Whitford, 2019; Scheyvens et al., 2021). However, little is known about the competitiveness of indigenous tourism destinations and the social prosperity that has been generated in these indigenous communities from the perspective of indigenous residents, who are the main beneficiaries and/or victims of tourist activity (X. Chen et al., 2020; Ngo & Pham, 2021). Analysing the competitiveness and social prosperity of the destination from the perspective of the indigenous residents contributes toward understanding how indigenous people have developed capacities and strategies for tourism management in order to administer the benefits that tourism brings to the culture, natural and territorial resources of the destinations (Chin et al., 2017; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999). Chin et al. (2017) indicate that the perception and attitudes of the local communities on the development of tourism influence its success or failure. Thus, the way in which indigenous people collectively think, organise, and manage their natural, cultural, and economic resources is the basis for the development of tourism in the destination (Chin et al., 2017; Ngo & Pham, 2021; Pereiro, 2016; Scheyvens et al., 2021). For Rastrollo-Horrillo and Rivero Díaz (2019), there is an academic gap in the way that the influence of social capital on the innovative behaviour of tourism entrepreneurship is analysed. This is closely related to the competitiveness of the destination, and as a response, the perception of social prosperity (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; García-Sánchez et al., 2019; Mintchev & Moore, 2017). Chin et al. (2017) refer to achieving destination competitiveness with the cultural and natural advantage through creating competitive strategies based on the natural and cultural resources in order to attract more visitors, improve the tourism infrastructure, and make the most of the economic performance of indigenous communities. Therefore, the objective of this investigation is to analyse the relationship between community social capital and social prosperity, and the mediatory effect of the competitiveness of indigenous tourism destinations from the perspective of the residents of indigenous communities. This study aims to contribute to the literature on the development of indigenous tourism with a study with a quantitative focus, from the perspective of the residents that is measured through empirical indicators of social capital, competitiveness, and social prosperity of the indigenous tourism destinations. This has been widely studied through different focuses. As such, generating information for the makers of public policy and social promoters that promote the development of indigenous communities and areas through tourism, as well as promoting indigenous and rural areas where industrialisation isn’t an option for economic development. Another aim is to see tourist activities as an alternative for development through the utilisation and management of their biocultural richness and community resources. The rest of the document hereafter is structured thusly: first, with the revision of the literature regarding community social capital, competitiveness of the destination, and social prosperity. An Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 3 of 22 investigation model is constructed, as is a hypothetical model of the study. Then, the methodological design of the investigation is described. Finally, the results, discussions, conclusions and implications of the study are given. 2. Community Social Capital (CSC) Social capital (CS) is considered to be a multidimensional element that is difficult to define due to the variety of contexts in which it applies. One of the main contributors on CS is Putnam (1993, pp. 1–2) “. . . it refers to the characteristics of social organisation, such as networks, norms, and confidence that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit [in a community]”. The study reconsiders the concept of CSC, now from the economic perspective, as a factor created by residents within a community that has positive effects on obtaining a common result, and that additionally is quantifiable (Ooi et al., 2015; Ramón-Hidalgo & Harris, 2018). It is underlined that this focus can be applied in any context in order to develop activities that are demanded by globalisation in the consequent reduction of poverty (Prayitno et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2017), social wellbeing (Brownett, 2018; Shoeb-Ur-Rahman et al., 2020), improving quality of life (Rastegar et al., 2017), social prosperity (Hong, 2009; Mintchev & Moore, 2017), innovation, and shared knowledge in the context of tourist clusters for medium and small businesses (Kim & Shim, 2018). This focus has provided empirical evidence of benefits for the entrepreneurs in local communities, as well as in populations that face challenges in improving their basic services and social prosperity (Ali & Yousuf, 2019; Kwon et al., 2013; L. Zhou et al., 2017). The multidimensionality of CSC is diverse; some investigators mention that confidence and reciprocity, horizontal and vertical networks, shared norms, collective action, community participation, and social cohesion are some of the dimensions that can identify CSC (Coleman, 1988; Mintchev & Moore, 2017; Nunkoo, 2017; Putnam, 1993; Shoeb-Ur-Rahman et al., 2020). As such, the dimensions of CSC in this theoretical framework refer to the prerequisites that should be considered in order to achieve the objective of community social capital in its descriptive phase of the process, and the mechanisms that help to generate factors that make an indigenous tourism destination competitive and sustainable, as such describing their relationship with social prosperity. Thus, the theoretical perspective of dimensionality is framed by confidence, as mentioned by various authors (Beyer, 2014; Nunkoo, 2017; Thöni et al., 2012), social networks (Hwang & Stewart, 2017; López-Rodríguez & Soloaga, 2012; L. Zhou et al., 2017), community participation (Kieffer, 2018; J. Liu et al., 2014; Musavengane & Simatele, 2016; Prayitno et al., 2019), and norms (Ostrom, 2014; Ramón-Hidalgo & Harris, 2018; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000; Young et al., 2001). From here, it is considered that this kind of community social capital is developed through community cooperation and the participation of indigenous people for the sustainable development of indigenous tourism. This is referring to community social capital that is manifested by both social networks that culminate in the confidence and reciprocity of indigenous residents, and norms that govern communities for the control of their territorial, natural and cultural resources. 3. Tourist Destination Competitiveness (TDC) Competitiveness is a recurring theme in various industrial and service contexts, as its adaptive characteristic is considered to be a multifaceted and multidimensional focus (C.-M. Chen et al., 2016; Porter & Linde, 1995). These characteristics mean that competitiveness, with all its attributes, can be extrapolated in the context of tourism. Previously, groups of interest in the destination sought to position themselves in the tourism market through natural or cultural attributes (comparative advantage). However, making these attributes accessible and knowable requires management and cooperation between the interested parties, which is framed by the competitive advantage (Chin et al., 2017; Gratzer & Winiwarter, 2003; Vodeb, 2012). Porter (1990) indicates that management is a focus that finds itself directly related to innovation and, as such, to competitiveness in the industry. Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 4 of 22 From the context of tourism destinations, one of the models derived from Porter Diamond is the Calgary model, which groups the factors which serve as determinants for TDC (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Dwyer & Kim, 2003a; Mazanec et al., 2007). The model groups three large constructs: endowed resources (comparative advantage), destination management (competitive advantage), and the macro and micro environment (moderating factor), which affect the first two constructs. In a similar way, the Integrated Destination Competitiveness Model (Armenski et al., 2017; Dwyer & Kim, 2003b; Dwyer et al., 2014) is one of the models that groups four main determinants of competitiveness: resources (endowed, created and supporting), destination management, demand conditions, and situational conditions (Dwyer et al., 2014). The tourism competitiveness models generally integrate similar factors, but they depend on the size of the industry (macro or micro) to determine which dimensions are the most adequate for building up the competitiveness of the destination (Cibinskiene & Snieskiene, 2015; Crouch, 2007; Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; Dwyer et al., 2014; Y. Zhou et al., 2015). The focus on the sustainable tourism destination competitiveness establishes that tourism in natural environments wagers on the natural conservation and improvement of the residents’ wellbeing without compromising the natural and cultural resources of the present, so that future generations continue to enjoy the benefits and have a better life (Brundtland, 1987; Mika & Scheyvens, 2022). The resources of the communities are their main source of competitive advantage for the development of rural and indigenous tourism, which is why it is important to involve them in its conservation, as is managing the cultural and natural resources to make them attractive destinations to visitors (Aseres & Sira, 2020; Campón-Cerro et al., 2016; Chin et al., 2017). Thus, the performance of the destination will manifest itself through the general satisfaction of visitors, which consequently generates recommendations of the destination and the preference of tourists, which leads to more incomes and better life conditions for the residents (Aseres & Sira, 2020; Campón-Cerro et al., 2016; Chin et al., 2017; Hanafiah et al., 2017). Thus, the theoretical and empirical relationship on how to make an indigenous tourism destination competitive lies in not only the quality of the natural or cultural resources, but in how they are managed by the indigenous people, how the communities organise themselves, and how they come to understand the target market (Buhalis & Laws, 2001; Mariani et al., 2014; Zehrer & Hallmann, 2015). Following this logic, it is discerned in the literature on competitiveness that the different community management practices largely depend on the context in which they are developed (Mendola & Volo, 2017; Nadalipour et al., 2019). 4. Social Prosperity Of The Tourism Destinations (PROSP) Social prosperity is a focus that is derived from the predominant economic model and which has been associated with developed economies (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003), which seek, through the business-state relationship, to favour direct foreign investment and the creation of infrastructure, in addition to providing basic services of quality (Fritz & Koch, 2014; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). Prosperity is a subject that speaks to the elimination of poverty and hunger, creating material conditions that guarantee a dignified life for the poorest people, in a fairer world (Northrop, 2014). It attempts to eliminate the big differences between the rich and the poor, which generate social conflicts in communities, and that have a dispersion effect on the most vulnerable places in society (op cit). Social prosperity in tourism has been considered to be a concept that depends on the competitiveness of the tourism destination (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999; García-Sánchez et al., 2019; Goodwin, 2011). This departs from the fact that the competitiveness of the destination is built through factors that modify, develop, create, and reinforce the management of natural and sociocultural resources, public services, and infrastructure, which contribute towards attracting tourists to the destination. Consequently, the competitiveness of the destination influences social prosperity, as it Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 5 of 22 improves economic income, conserves tourism resources, and generates job opportunities, social wellbeing, and quality of life for the residents (Fritz & Koch, 2014; Upadhayaya, 2019). Some authors mention that the quality of life (Kubickova et al., 2017), social well-being, wealth distribution (Liburd et al., 2012), ecological sustainability, social inclusion (Fritz & Koch, 2014), and sustainable practices in the tourism destination (Nilnoppakun & Ampavat, 2016), are underlying dimensions of the social prosperity. 5. Hypothetical model The extensive benefits that CS offers to people, communities, and businesses that are involved in the tourism industry have been documented by various authors. For example, Guo et al. (2018) analysed the relationship between social capital and the resilience of two tourism communities in China, Dujiangyan, and the National Park of the Jiuzhai Valley; they found a positive effect between CS and resilience. In another similar context, social capital has served to empower social or gender groups that find themselves disadvantaged when carrying out some economic activities in established markets, leading to the associationism of these groups in the informal product market in tourism destinations (Griffiths et al., 2009; Ooi et al., 2015). CS positively influences collective entrepreneurship through various forms of CS in order to develop tourist activities and take advantage of the natural, cultural, and created resources in a sustainable way (Nunkoo, 2017; Rastrollo-Horrillo & Rivero Díaz, 2019). Under this perspective, Barba-Sánchez & Molina-Ramirez are situated within the framework of entrepreneurship in indigenous communities in relation with social capital. The contributions are particularly relevant given that recent scholarship indicates that entrepreneurship, including social entrepreneurship, can positively affect the livelihoods of indigenous communities in Mexico. The theory of social capital suggests that emotional support from close networks has been identified as a significant factor that can contribute to the success of indigenous ecotourism businesses. Furthermore, entrepreneurship has been found to function as a survival strategy for these communities, and the mobilization of social capital can enhance the prospects for successful entrepreneurship. Support for social entrepreneurship initiatives can thus play a crucial role in promoting sustainable development and poverty reduction in Mexico, by facilitating the creation and strengthening of social networks that can support these initiatives (Barba-Sánchez & Molina Ramírez, 2015; BarbaSánchez & Molina-Ramirez, 2016; Barba-Sánchez & Molina-Ramírez, 2014). Wszendybył-Skulska et al. (2016) study the impact that CS has on the management of TDC in countries in the European Union. They developed a Pearson correlation and regression analysis between the CS elements and the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI), and showed that a direct and statistically significant linear correlation exists. This means that as social capital is invested in tourism destinations, the capacity to innovate and the management of competitive factors increase. The long-term competitiveness is determined in large part by a balance between cooperation, the competence of businesses or lenders of tourism services (Corte & Aria, 2016; Czernek, 2013; Fehr & Schmidt, 1999), and the capacity to innovate in developing tourism products (Kim & Shim, 2018; Rastrollo-Horrillo & Rivero Díaz, 2019). Additionally, emphasis on the management of tourism from both perspectives (supply and demand) is required in order to shape the future of developing sustainable tourism and obtaining a long-term competitive advantage (Dwyer et al., 2009). Experience has shown that businesses cannot establish a sustainable tourism industry without cooperation, support, and the participation of stakeholders (J. S. Chen, 2015; Woo et al., 2018). In the current context of tourism, it bears mentioning that CS acts as a factor that facilitates or inhibits the success of planning of tourism destinations (Soulard et al., 2018). Additionally, from this point of view, if a geographic location has the characteristics to be able to identify as a tourism destination and wishes to gain competitive advantages, this necessitates the Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 6 of 22 development of tourism products with a strong image. They must also be bought by demand, but not only pertain to securing immediate economic profitability, but also to securing that the development of tourism activities, from the perspective of the tourists and residents, be comprised of sustainable practices that result in competition (Genç, 2014; Marzo-Navarro et al., 2015; Nilnoppakun & Ampavat, 2016). The empirical contributions show that the different types of CS positively support the increase of the perception of social prosperity (Mintchev & Moore, 2017; Prasad Shrestha, 2019), quality of life (Rastegar et al., 2017), and economic development (Ali & Yousuf, 2019; Engbers et al., 2016; Kay, 2006). Derived from the above, the conceptual hypothetical model (Figure 1) is proposed. It is expected that CSC is positively related to PROSP (β2), in that the relationship between CSC and TDC can have a direct and positive relationship (β1), whilst TDC is positively and directly related with PROSP (β3). Finally, the mediator effect of TDC in the relationship between CSC and PROSP (βind) is also expected. Thus, hypothetical relationships are proposed in this conceptual research model (Figure 1). 6. Methodology The investigation was quantitative with a transversal and exploratory study type. The data were collected in 10 indigenous communities in Mexico that are renowned as indigenous tourism destinations (Table 1) pertaining to the Red Indígena de Turismo de México (RITA) (Indigenous Network of Tourism in Mexico), which makes up 32 indigenous tourism destinations. Figure 1. Research conceptual model. CSC = Community Social Capital, PROSP = Social Prosperity, TDC = Tourism Destination Competitiveness. Table 1. Sample location (communities) as indigenous tourism destinations State Indigenous tourism destination Colima La Becerrera El Carrizalillo Estado de México San Juan Teotihuacán Guerrero Grutas de Cacahuamilpa Michoacán San Juan Nuevo Cherán Isla Yunuén Morelos Amatlán de Quetzalcóatl Los Laureles Oaxaca Capulalpám Puebla Cuetzalan Source. Self-made with data from RITA. Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 7 of 22 prediction errors are summed, as is the final Ǫ 2 value (1-SSE/SSO). The results report that Ǫ 2 >0 for both endogenous constructs (PROSP and TDC). This indicates an average predictive relevance with Ǫ 2 >0.25 and Ǫ 2 <0.50 (Hair, Hult, et al., 2019). On a different note, the final evolution of the model is assessed through the q 2 index, which shows the size of the Q 2 effects. Firstly, the relationship between CSC and PROSP was calculated in order to obtain the includedQ 2 and excludedQ 2 values of an endogenous latent variable (PROSP). The values of the first blindfolding analysis of the CCR table were taken, which represent (1-SSE/ SSO) to includedQ 2 (Table 6). To obtain the excluded Q 2 , according to Hair, Hult, et al. (2019, p. 264), a “model reestimation after deleting a specific predecessor of that endogenous latent variable” is performed. This is to say that for the PROSP variable, which has a score of (0.404) from the first blindfolding analysis, CSC was erased from the model in order to obtain the excludedQ 2 before calculating the model once again. For obtaining excluded Q 2 from TDC for PROSP, the same procedure of variable elimination and recalculation of the model was followed (Table 7). These values are considered to be the inputs for calculating the sizes of the q 2 effect. In order to obtain the q 2 values, the following formulas were employed, and were calculated manually. In this case, CSC acted only as an exogenous latent variable, whilst TDC served as both an endogenous and exogenous latent variable at the same time. The excluded value of TDC was calculated: Table 7. Excluded Q 2 values Total SSO SSE 1-SSE/SSO TDC—PROSP 288 264.681338 0.080968 CSC—PROSP 255 161.64966 0.36608 Notes: Source: Self-made with results from the Blindfolding analysis with SmartPLS 3. Table 6. Values of Ǫ2 included Total SSO SSE Q2(1-SSE/SSO) PROSP 166 98.838 0.404 TDC 249 167.547 0.327 Notes: Source: Self-made with results from the Blindfolding analysis with SmartPLS 3. Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 14 of 22 In accordance with the results of the size of the effects, and following the practical rules derived from the bibliographical revision, it was observed that the q2CSC !PROSP = 0.063 effect shows a small effect. The following effect, q2TDC !PROSP = 0.541, shows a big effect. 8. Discusions The theoretical concepts of CSC and TDC were used to describe how the community residents of indigenous tourism destinations perceive social prosperity. Especially in Mexico, many indigenous communities face challenges in improving the perception of prosperity and bridging the poverty gap. In indigenous tourism destinations, the natural and cultural resources are managed from the principles of the common or collective goods; indigenous communities manage tourism activities and the benefits they get from them. The collective actions on community-based resource management help preserve and take advantage of natural and cultural resources sustainability and contribute to attracting tourism and generating socio-economic benefits for the residents. Indigenous entrepreneurs create products, services and/or small businesses taking advantage of collective and common resources. They operate from social and community rules and norms and must contribute to community development and sustainability. The findings refer that indigenous communities managed their entry into the tourism market as an alternative to obtaining an economic income; they took decisions on this tourism project through community participation (collective action). They have an organisational structure based on values, implicit and explicit social norms that come from trusted social relationships, and reciprocity among community residents, which leads to community participation in tourism activities for the benefit of the population. Residents are organized to conserve and take care of natural and cultural resources, from living to public places, through environmental and social practices, like waste classification, conserving water, and preserving indigenous culture, language, and traditions. In this study, the indigenous tourism destinations have an infrastructure for access to provide tourism and hospitality services. In these destinations, due to the internal policies of the indigenous communities, the introduction of transnational businesses that offer tourism or hospitality services is prohibited. These aim to protect the local culture, natural resources, and economy. The infrastructure of basic services has been constructed with the government’s and indigenous residents’ economic contributions. Destinations promote strategies for community participation through networks with governmental and non-governmental organizations to improve community quality of life and tourism development. The networks that have come about outside, with other member communities and with associations like RITA, have been able to establish contacts and generate faith in asking for financial and technical support. This aids in the acquisition of specialised equipment or the construction of cabins and restaurant services in order to offer hospitality and food services to tourists. The technical support offers training and certifications in the management and conservation of natural and cultural resources for tourism activities. For example, they have created well established routes and itineraries which reduce the impact brought about by a tourism overload, in addition to policing and prohibiting the extraction of flora and fauna. Tourism destination competitiveness has a mediator effect between CSC and PROSP in the context of indigenous tourism destinations associated with RITA. CSC positively influences developing capacities management to adopt collective strategies for tourism management and natural and cultural benefits that make a destination competitive. Community confidence, norms, and participation strengthen a community. Developing internal policies can lead to control, protection, and preservation of the economy and cultural and natural resources and increase confidence and reciprocity among residents. Efficient management of these community-based resources generates destination competitiveness. Thus the increase of the perceived benefits of management and supporting social prosperity in indigenous communities. These findings agree with Chin et al. (2017; Mendola and Volo (2017), and Nadalipour et al. (2019). Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 15 of 22 The perception of social prosperity depends on the mediation effect of TDC between CSC and PROSP. When the residents generate community confidence, norms, and participation in direct relation to the management of tourism activities, they perceive an increase in the quality of life due to the actions, arrangements, and management that are developed for the benefit of the local community, for the tourism development. An example would be the distribution of public services that tourists use in some form. Wealth distribution is also perceived due to the increase in income and the creation of job opportunities that arise due to tourism activities. It was also perceived that the quality of life has gradually improved and that the involvement of conservation practices and the utilisation of natural resources provides a positive perception of social prosperity. CSC’s direct effect on PROSP was not significant, contrasting with the reviewed literature. RITA’ indigenous tourism destinations, the community social capital by itself does not increase residents’ perception of the social prosperity of indigenous communities. The management of tourism destination resources is required; they must be efficiently managed to achieve competitiveness for residents to perceive social prosperity. This finding differs from the results of Mintchev and Moore (2017), Prasad Shrestha (2019), Rastegar et al. (2017). 9. Conclusions, implications, and limitations of the study Tourism destination competitiveness plays an essential role in that the residents perceive the benefits of the tourist activities developed in their communities. Community social capital is critical to indigenous tourism destination competitiveness. Trust, reciprocity between residents, and community participation for tourism management, conservation, and efficient use of cultural and natural resources influence the generation of collective strategies to get competitiveness. The basis of tourism development in indigenous communities is community social capital and the collective action system to manage common resources. The norms and internal community policies regulate the behaviour of unsustainable tourism practices in destinations. Networks outside the community strengthen management capacities for tourism development, competitiveness, and sustainable benefits for indigenous communities. Sustainable tourism development in indigenous communities is an alternative to reducing poverty levels. The arrival of visitors to indigenous tourism destinations generates local economic benefits, promotes entrepreneurship, jobs, and investment in tourism infrastructure that benefits the community, and improves access to public services (public transportation, energy, water supply, public health, infrastructure transportation, recreational facilities, among others) and ensures the protection of natural and cultural resources in communities. Management practices and transparency for managing resources and benefits of indigenous tourism increase the positive perception of social prosperity. In indigenous tourism destinations, residents perceive an improved quality of life, income, and access to public services and sustainable practices. The study’s implications are directed toward the literature on indigenous tourism and tourism destination competitiveness, public policy, and practitioners. Tourism development in indigenous communities is based on confidence and reciprocity between residents, internal and external networks, and community participation to manage destination resources, which are crucial to a sustainable community. Destination competitiveness plays an essential role between confidence and perception of social prosperity. The quantitative measurement from primary sources statistically validated this relationship in the context of indigenous tourism. The management of environmental benefits, the management of cultural benefits, and the management of the destination are components of TDC. For policymakers, indigenous tourism development is a strategy for the sustainable well-being of communities with natural and/or cultural resources as a source of comparative advantage. They require support and management to develop infrastructures that attract and facilitate the arrival of visitors and contribute to community development. Community participation in the management of collective and common goods is vital to control and protect the rights and autonomy of indigenous communities. Practitioners must know about community social capital before entrepreneurship in indigenous tourism development projects. Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 16 of 22 It is noteworthy to highlight that prevalent forms of entrepreneurship encompass a range of activities, including fod services, the trade of handicrafts, the desing and marketing of environmentally-friendly or sustainable properties, the production and distribution of food products (both locally and internationally), and the provision of adventure tourism experiences such as zip-lining, rappeling and rock climbing. Consequently, these entrepreneurial initiatives necessitate a variety of certifications, which are administered by governmental bodies within the Mexican State, notably the Ministry of Tourism and the National Institute of Indigenous People. The limitations of this study are on the sample technique, which was limited to indigenous tourism destinations associated with the RITA network that manage collective or common resources, this technique does not seek representation or statistical inference to the population. We would like to highlight that our study did not gather specific information regarding the various activities undertaken in these destinations. Our focus was exclusively on collecting data necessary for the construction of relevant variables within the framework of the research. For future research, we suggested exploring destinations with both public and private resources, and/or outside the RITA network, with large sample sizes to eliminate selection bias and contribute to the knowledge generation on the mediatory effect of the destination competitiveness in indigenous tourism development. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Red Indígena de Turismo de México (RITA), and the communities that participated in the study, for the support provided to conclude this research. Author details Jorge Luis Ramos-García 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2306-5635 Delfino Vargas-Chanes 2 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6046-3643 Arcelia Toledo-López 3 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2328-5438 1 Independent researcher, Toronto, Canada. 2 Programa Universitario En Estudios Del Desarrollo, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, USA. 3 Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Oaxaca de Juárez, México, USA. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Citation information Cite this article as: Perception of social prosperity in indigenous tourism destinations in Mexico: The mediator effect of competitiveness of the destinations, Jorge Luis Ramos-García, Delfino Vargas-Chanes & Arcelia ToledoLópez, Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105. References Ali, A., & Yousuf, S. (2019). Social capital and entrepreneurial intention: Empirical evidence from rural community of Pakistan. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1). https://doi.org/10. 1186/s40497-019-0193-z Armenski, T., Dwyer, L., & Pavlukovi, V. (2017). Destination competitiveness: Public and private sector tourism management in Serbia. Journal of Travel Research, 57 (3), 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287517692445 Aseres, S. A., & Sira, R. K. (2020). Estimating visitors’ willingness to pay for a conservation fund: Sustainable financing approach in protected areas in Ethiopia. Heliyon, 6 (8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04500 Barba-Sánchez, V., & Molina-Ramirez, E. (2016). Social entrepreneurship in Mexico. Social Enterprise - Context-Dependent Dynamics in A Global Perspective. https://doi.org/10.5772/62744 Barba-Sánchez, V., & Molina-Ramírez, E. (2014). Entrepreneurship as a survival-seeking strategy for indigenous communities: The case of indigenous ecotourism SMEs in Mexico. Handbook of Research on Strategic Management in Small and Medium Enterprises, 398–420. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781-4666-5962-9.ch019 Barba-Sánchez, V., & Molina Ramírez, E. (2015). Efectos del apoyo emocional de las redes cercanas al emprendedor indígena sobre el éxito de la nueva empresa ecoturística en la mitad sur de México. Cuadernos de Turismo, 36(36), 79. https://doi.org/10. 6018/turismo.36.230891 Beyer, B. F. (2014). Taking Knowledge to Mexican Rural Communities: How to Bridge the Gap Between Research and Education. Procedia - Social & Behavioral Sciences, 152(0), 105–107. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.163 Brownett, T. (2018). Social capital and participation: The role of community arts festivals for generating well-being. Journal of Applied Arts & Health, 9(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1386/jaah.9.1.71_1 Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future—call for action. Environmental Conservation, 14(4), 291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900016805 Buhalis, D., & Laws, E. (2001). Tourism distribution channels : Practices, issues and transformations. Continuum. Campón-Cerro, A. M., Hernández-Mogollón, J. M., & Alves, H. (2016). Sustainable improvement of competitiveness in rural tourism destinations: The quest for tourist loyalty in Spain. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(3), 252–266. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.04.005 Chen, J. S. (2015). Tourism stakeholders attitudes toward sustainable development: A case in the Arctic. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 225–230. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.08.003 Chen, C.-M., Chen, S.-H., Lee, H.-T., & Tsai, T.-H. (2016). Exploring destination resources and competitiveness–A comparative analysis of tourists’ perceptions and satisfaction toward an island of Taiwan. Ocean & Coastal Management, 119, 58–67. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.09.013 Chen, X., Zhang, C. X., Stone, T., & Lamb, J. (2020). Existentially understanding tourism in locale: Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 17 of 22 A dwelling perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 80(April 2019), 102828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2019.102828 Chin, C., Lo, M., Mohamad, A. A., & Nair, V. (2017). The impacts of multi-environmental constructs on tourism destination competitiveness: Local residents’ perceptions. Journal of Sustainable Development, 10(3), 120. https:// doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v10n3p120 Cibinskiene, A., & Snieskiene, G. (2015). Evaluation of city tourism competitiveness. Procedia - Social & Behavioral Sciences, 213, 105–110. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.411 Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780243 Corte, V. D., & Aria, M. (2016). Coopetition and sustainable competitive advantage. The case of tourist destinations. Tourism Management. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.12.009 Crouch, G. I. (2007). Measuring tourism competitiveness: Research, theory and the WEF index. Proceedings of the ANZMAC Annual Conference, Dunedin (University of Otago), New Zealand (pp. 3–5). Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0148-29639700196-3 Czernek, K. (2013). Determinants of cooperation in a tourist region. Annals of Tourism Research, 40(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.09.003 Dwyer, L., Cvelbar, L. K., Mihalič, T., & Koman, M. (2014). Integrated destination competitiveness model: Testing its validity and data accessibility. Tourism Analysis, 19(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3727/ 108354214X13927625340073 Dwyer, L., Edwards, D., Mistilis, N., Roman, C., & Scott, N. (2009). Destination and enterprise management for a tourism future. Tourism Management, 30(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.002 Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003a). Destination competitiveness: A model and determinants. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13683500308667962 Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003b). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369–414. Engbers, T. A., Rubin, B. M., & Aubuchon, C. (2016). The currency of connections: An analysis of the urban economic impact of social capital. Economic Development Quarterly, 31(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/08912424166666 Espeso-Molinero, P., & Pastor-Alfonso, M. J. (2020). Governance, community resilience, and indigenous tourism in Nahá, Mexico. Sustainability, 12(15), 5973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155973 Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868. https://doi.org/10.1162/ 003355399556151 Fritz, M., & Koch, M. (2014). Potentials for prosperity without growth: Ecological sustainability, social inclusion and the quality of life in 38 countries. Ecological Economics, 108, 191–199. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.021 García-Sánchez, A., Siles, D., & Vázquez-Méndez, M. D. M. (2019). Competitiveness and innovation: Effects on prosperity. Anatolia, 30(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13032917.2018.1519179 Genç, R. (2014). Sustainable strategies for destination management. Acta Universitatis Danubius, 10(3), 91–101. Goodwin, H. (2011). Tourism and poverty reduction: Pathways to prosperity. Tourism Management, 32 (5), 1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010. 06.018 Gratzer, M., & Winiwarter, W. (2003). A framework for competitive advantage in tourism. Competitive Advantage in SMEs Organising for Innovation and Change, 15–33. http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/~ww/ enter2003.pdf Griffiths, R., Horsfall, J., Moore, M., Lane, D., Kroon, V., & Langdon, R. (2009). Building social capital with women in a socially disadvantaged community. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 15(3), 172–184. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2009.01742.x Guo, Y., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, C. (2018). Examining the relationship between social capital and community residents’ perceived resilience in tourism destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(6), 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582. 2018.1428335 Hair, J. F., Hult, T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Castillo, J., Cepeda, G., & Roldan, J. L. (2019). Manual de partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (Segunda ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/ 10.3926/oss.37 Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 Hanafiah, M. H., Hemdi, M. A., & Ahmad, I. (2017). The influence of tourism core resources on travel and the tourism competitiveness index and tourism performance. Balancing Development and Sustainability in Tourism Destinations. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-981-10-1718-6_34 Hinch, T., & Butler, R. (2009). Indigenous tourism. Tourism Analysis, 14(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.3727/ 108354209788970117 Hong, W.-C. (2009). Global competitiveness measurement for the tourism sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 12 (2), 105–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13683500802596359 Hoque, M. A., Lovelock, B., & Carr, A. (2020). Alleviating Indigenous poverty through tourism: The role of NGOs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1860070 Hwang, D., & Stewart, W. P. (2017). Social capital and collective action in rural tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 56(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0047287515625128 Kay, A. (2006). Social capital, the social economy and community development. Community Development Journal, 41(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi045 Kieffer, M. (2018). Turismo Rural Comunitario y organización colectiva: un enfoque comparativo en México. PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 16(2), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.25145/j. pasos.2018.16.030 Kim, N., & Shim, C. (2018). Social capital, knowledge sharing and innovation of smalland medium-sized enterprises in a tourism cluster. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(6), 2417–2437. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-20160392 Kubickova, M., Croes, R., & Rivera, M. (2017). Human agency shaping tourism competitiveness and quality of life in developing economies. Tourism Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 18 of 22 Management Perspectives, 22, 120–131. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.03.002 Kwon, S.-W., Heflin, C., & Ruef, M. (2013). Community social capital and entrepreneurship. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 980–1008. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0003122413506440 Liburd, J., Benckendorff, P., & Carlsen, J. (2012). Tourism and quality-of-life: How does tourism measure up? In Handbook of Tourism and Quality-Of-Life Research, 105–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-22880_7 Liu, J., Qu, H., Huang, D., Chen, G., Yue, X., Zhao, X., & Liang, Z. (2014). The role of social capital in encouraging residents’ pro-environmental behaviors in community-based ecotourism. Tourism Management, 41, 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2013.08.016 Liu, W., Vogt, C. A., Lupi, F., He, G., Ouyang, Z., & Liu, J. (2016). Evolution of tourism in a flagship protected area of China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(2), 203–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015. 1071380 López-Rodríguez, P., & Soloaga, I. (2012). Capital social Y política pública en méxico (Centro de Estudios Económicos, ed.) México D. F.: Colegio de México. Recuperado de https://libros.colmex.mx/wp-content /plugins/documentos/descargas/ CapitalsocialypolíticapúblicaenMéxico.pdf#page=18 Mariani, M. M., Buhalis, D., Longhi, C., & Vitouladiti, O. (2014). Managing change in tourism destinations: Key issues and current trends. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(4), 269–272. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.11.003 Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M., & Vinzón, L. (2015). Sustainability indicators of rural tourism from the perspective of the residents. Tourism Geographies, 17(4), 586–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14616688.2015.1062909 Mazanec, J. A., Wober, K., & Zins, A. H. (2007). Tourism destination competitiveness: From definition to explanation? Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507302389 Mendola, D., & Volo, S. (2017). Building composite indicators in tourism studies: Measurements and applications in tourism destination competitiveness. Tourism Management, 59, 541–553. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.011 Mika, J. P., & Scheyvens, R. A. (2022). Te Awa Tupua: Peace, justice and sustainability through indigenous tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(2–3), 637–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021. 1912056 Mintchev, N., & Moore, H. (2017). Community and prosperity beyond social capital: The case of Newham, East London. Critical Social Policy, 37(4), 562–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018316683461 Musavengane, R., & Simatele, D. M. (2016). Communitybased natural resource management: The role of social capital in collaborative environmental management of tribal resources in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 33(6), 806–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2016. 1231054 Nadalipour, Z., Imani Khoshkhoo, M. H., & Eftekhari, A. R. (2019). An integrated model of destination sustainable competitiveness. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 29(4), 314–335. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-12-2017-0086 Ngo, T., & Pham, T. (2021). Indigenous residents, tourism knowledge exchange and situated perceptions of tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2021.1920967 Nilnoppakun, A., & Ampavat, K. (2016). Is Pai a sustainable tourism destination? Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 262–269. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30322-7 Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modelling, Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-072015-0302 Northrop, E. (2014). Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a finite planet. Eastern Economic Journal, 40(3), 440–442. https://doi.org/10.1057/eej. 2013.22 Nunkoo, R. (2017). Governance and sustainable tourism: What is the role of trust, power and social capital? Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(4), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.10. 003 Ooi, N., Laing, J., & Mair, J. (2015). Social capital as a heuristic device to explore sociocultural sustainability: A case study of mountain resort tourism in the community of steamboat springs, Colorado, USA. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(3), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2014.957211 Ostrom, E. (2014). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 6(812), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19390459.2014.935173 Pereiro, X. (2016). A review of Indigenous tourism in Latin America: Reflections on an anthropological study of Guna tourism (Panama). Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(8–9), 1121–1138. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09669582.2016.1189924 Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations (first free). Free Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781-349-11336-1 Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. V. D. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97 Prasad Shrestha, D. (2019). Prosperity and social capital: Is social capital declining in Nepal? BYAVASTHAPAN, 1–7. Prayitno, G., Sari, N., & Putri, I. K. (2019). Social capital in poverty alleviation through Pro-Poor Tourism concept in Slum Area (Case Study: Kelurahan Jodipan, Malang City). International Journal of GEOMATE, 16(55), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.21660/2019.55.37152 Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 13(13), 35–42. http://www.citeulike.org/group/1702/article/ 1032759 Ramón-Hidalgo, A. E., & Harris, L. M. (2018). Social Capital, political empowerment and social difference: A mixed-methods study of an ecotourism project in the rural Volta region of Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(12), 2153–2172. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669582.2018.1546711 Rastegar, M., Hatami, H., & Mirjafari, R. (2017). Role of social capital in improving the quality of life and social justice in Mashhad, Iran. Sustainable Cities and Society, 34(May), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scs.2017.05.024 Rastrollo-Horrillo, M. A., & Rivero Díaz, M. (2019). Destination social capital and innovation in SMEs tourism firms: An empirical analysis in an adverse socio-economic context. Journal of Sustainable Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 19 of 22 Tourism, 27(10), 1572–1590. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09669582.2019.1648481 Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH. Recuperado de. http://www. smartpls.com RITA. (2022). Red Indígena de Turismo de México. Recuperado de http://www.rita.com.mx Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. CABI Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996646. 0000 Romão, J., Okada, M., Machino, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2021). Destination management and sustainable tourism development through the common lens of the commons. Region, 8(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10. 18335/region.v8i1.286 Ruhanen, L., & Whitford, M. (2019). Cultural heritage and Indigenous tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 14 (3), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X. 2019.1581788 Scheyvens, R., Carr, A., Movono, A., Hughes, E., HigginsDesbiolles, F., & Mika, J. P. (2021). Indigenous tourism and the sustainable development goals. Annals of Tourism Research, 90, 103260. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.annals.2021.103260 SEDESOL, & PNUD. (2006) . Encuesta Nacional sobre Capital Social en el Medio Urbano. MÉXICO. Shoeb-Ur-Rahman, M., Simmons, D. G., Shone, M., & Ratna, N. (2020). Co-management of capitals for community wellbeing and sustainable tourism development: A conceptual framework. Tourism Planning & Development, 17(2), 225–236. https://doi. org/10.1080/21568316.2019.1600161 SIC. (2021). El sistema de información cultural de México. Recuperado de https://sic.cultura.gob.mx/lista.php? table=grupo_etnico&disciplina=&estado_id Situmorang, R. O. (2018). Social capital in managing mangrove area as ecotourism by Muara Baimbai Community. Indonesian Journal of Forestry Research, 5(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.20886/ijfr.2018.5.1.2132 Soulard, J., Knollenberg, W., Boley, B. B., Perdue, R. R., & Gard, N. (2018). Social capital and destination strategic planning. Tourism Management, 69(May), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.06. 011 Thöni, C., Tyran, J. R., & Wengström, E. (2012). Microfoundations of social capital. Journal of Public Economics, 96(7–8), 635–643. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jpubeco.2012.04.003 UN, G. A. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples : Resolution/adopted by the General Assembly. C. Lennox & D. Short, Eds. UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION. Routledge, 2015. Identifiers: LCCN 2015036734| ISBN 9781857436419 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780203119235 (ebook): RoutledgeRecuperado de Retrieved April 23, 2022. https://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html Upadhayaya, P. K. (2019). Tourism stimulated prosperity and peace in provincial destination: An appraisal of far West Nepal. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Education, 9, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.3126/jthe.v9i0. 23678 Vodeb, K. (2012). Competitiveness of frontier regions and tourism destination management. Managing Global Transitions, 10, 51–68. http://ideas.repec.org/a/mgt/ youmgt/v10y2012i1p051-068.html#refs%5Cnhttp:// www.fm-kp.si/zalozba/ISSN/1581-6311/10_051-068. pdf%5Cnhttp://www.fm-kp.si/zalozba/ISSN/15816311/10_115-117.pdf Willaby, H. W., Costa, D. S. J., Burns, B. D., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2015). Testing complex models with small sample sizes: A historical overview and empirical demonstration of what Partial Least Squares (PLS) can offer differential psychology. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.008 Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249. August. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225 Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2018). Tourism impact and stakeholders’ quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(2), 260–286. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1096348016654971 Wszendybył-Skulska, E., Marakova, V., & Hadzik, A. (2016). The impact of social capital on management of competitiveness of tourism destinations. Przegląd . . ., 68–76. https://scholar.archive.org/work/opgi75ikdbhbta2ic j7em7lpsu/access/wayback/https://tnoikpo.pro-linuxpl. com/index.php/plik/5e092496f2ca3/po.2016.02.10.pdf Young, P., Young, H., & Anderson, E. (2001). Social norms. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151 Zehrer, A., & Hallmann, K. (2015). A stakeholder perspective on policy indicators of destination competitiveness. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(2), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jdmm.2015.03.003 Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., & Lei, W. (2017). Social capital and its contingent value in poverty reduction: Evidence from Western China. World Development, 93, 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.034 Zhou, L., Chan, E., & Song, H. (2017). Social capital and entrepreneurial mobility in early-stage tourism development: A case from rural China. Tourism Management, 63, 338–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2017.06.027 Zhou, Y., Maumbe, K., Deng, J., & Selin, S. W. (2015). Resource-based destination competitiveness evaluation using a hybrid analytic hierarchy process (AHP): The case study of West Virginia. Tourism Management Perspectives, 15, 72–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tmp.2015.03.007 Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 20 of 22 Appendix 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Community Social Capital (CSC) Tourism Destination Competitiveness (TDC) Social Prosperity (PROSP) Skewness −0.630 −1.455 2.000 −0.944 0.510 Kurtosis 0.285 Media 7.575 7.92 7.656 Variance 1.246 1.347 1.687 TRUS α = 0.837 NATR α = 0.842 DoW α = 0.840 λ1 0.555 λ36 0.446 λ76 0.801 λ2 0.812 λ37 0.652 λ77 0.794 λ3 0.530 λ38 0.767 λ78 0.602 λ4 0.734 λ39 0.82 λ79 0.512 λ5 0.794 λ40 0.768 QoL α = 0.901 λ6 0.570 CULR α = 0.672 λ80 0.547 λ7 0.524 λ41 0.475 λ81 0.546 λ8 0.440 λ42 0.698 λ82 0.684 λ9 0.451 λ43 0.656 λ83 0.742 NRMS α = 0.845 λ44 0.384 λ84 0.783 λ10 0.670 λ45 0.493 λ85 0.373 λ11 0.633 DEVR α = 0.791 λ86 0.658 λ12 0.762 λ46 0.378 λ87 0.729 λ13 0.718 λ47 0.507 λ88 0.479 λ14 0.604 λ48 0.480 EVNP α = 0.792 λ15 0.599 λ49 0.548 λ89 0.568 λ16 0.690 λ50 0.701 λ90 0.655 SNW α = 0.854 λ51 0.843 λ91 0.844 λ17 0.723 λ52 0.627 λ92 0.812 λ18 0.752 λ53 0.385 Community Social Capital (CSC) Tourism Destination Competitiveness (TDC) λ19 0.554 TDM α = 0.893 λ20 0.569 λ54 0.708 λ21 0.356 λ55 0.687 λ22 0.771 λ56 0.619 λ23 0.772 λ57 0.773 λ24 0.360 λ58 0.691 λ25 0.593 λ59 0.772 λ26 0.517 λ60 0.791 λ27 0.276 λ61 0.698 PoC α = 0.806 λ62 0.708 λ28 0.547 λ63 0.391 λ29 0.702 MoEVB α = 0.775 λ30 0.509 λ64 0.238 λ31 0.653 λ65 0.384 λ32 0.317 λ66 0.403 (Continued) Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 21 of 22 (Continued) Community Social Capital (CSC) Tourism Destination Competitiveness (TDC) λ33 0.661 λ67 0.784 λ34 0.053 λ68 0.749 λ35 0.361 λ69 0.621 MoSCB α = 0.834 λ70 0.696 λ71 0.611 λ72 0.610 λ73 0.753 λ74 0.730 λ75 0.739 Note: α= Cronbach´s alpha coefficient. Extraction Method: maximum likelihood; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. It used SPSS ver. 22. Ramos-García et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2235105 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2235105 Page 22 of 22