1. Entrepreneurship and tourism

In ^{Schumpeter’s (1982}) view, the concept of entrepreneurship is closely linked to innovation, reflected in the introduction of new products, new services or combinations of resources, different production and organizational methods and opening to new market niches (^{Araújo & Júnior, 2018}; ^{Conceição & Costa, 2017}). ^{Santos et al. (2013}) add that the process of entrepreneurship presupposes disruption with the external environment, in a search for new products, new markets and new sources that add value to the customer experience. Entrepreneurship thus presents itself as a fundamental process to boost the development of the territory (region or country), induced by the entrepreneur’s aptitude to perceive opportunities and ability to innovate (Araújo & Júnior, 2018; ^{Chim-Miki et al., 2016}).

Many territories, which aim to attract entrepreneurs, are linked to the definition of strategies that stimulate a culture linked to the development of incentive programmes, which bring together educational, cultural, academic, and entrepreneurial initiatives (^{Jardim, 2019}). They also provide services that boost business start-ups or facilitate the aid and support of growing businesses (^{Brand et al., 2021}). These initiatives are implemented with the purpose of designing beneficial ecosystems for the development of new products and the settlement of people, organizations, and companies, in favor of the economic and social growth of the territory, in general (Jardim, 2019).

Knowing that tourism activity takes place in tourist destinations and that it imperiously relies on their intrinsic characteristics, such as resources and tourist attractions, entrepreneurship can be one of its drivers of evolution. In this sense, according to ^{Araújo and Júnior (2018}), entrepreneurship for its specificities (ability of the entrepreneur to identify and seize opportunities, take risks and innovate), allied to the tourism sector, can be translated into a way to add value to the tourism product (new processes and methods, innovative and creative trends), but also trigger the development of the region (^{Chim-Miki et al., 2016}; ^{Jardim, 2019}; ^{Santos et al., 2013}).

Similarly, the pandemic generated by COVID-19 combined with the globalization and massification of information and knowledge, have led to tourists being much more active and operative in the organization of their trips and more considerate in terms of risk and safety. Consumers, with the proliferation of new communication technologies, are increasingly more discerning in their choice of experiences (^{Pappas & Glyptou, 2021}; ^{Villacé-Molinero et al., 2021}; ^{Xie et al., 2021}). Tourism demand is “confined”, but it has not disappeared. On the contrary, several studies point to the increased value of tourist travel, in a more selective, specific way and with a greater concern for sustainability (^{Ateljevic, 2020}; ^{Bacq & Lumpkin, 2020}; ^{Dias et al., 2021}; ^{Gossling et al., 2020}; ^{Rubio-Mozos et al., 2020}; ^{Sharma et al., 2021}). Thus, if the adaptation to the digital and even the virtual was a concern of 2020 (^{Breier et al., 2021}), human capital, flexibility, creativity, and sustainability are the challenges from 2021 onwards.

Traditional volume growth models seem to be driven by large enterprises that appear not to fit a new logic of development emerging with COVID-19. Innovation and skills should be at the top of priorities for the revitalization of small tourism businesses (^{Dias et al., 2021}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}a; ^{Yachin, 2019}). The pandemic has accentuated some of the sector’s vulnerabilities, notably in business support (lack of strategy and long-term policies) and human capital (precariousness and low wages), providing striking lessons for the tourism industry, policymakers, and researchers on the effects of global change. The COVID-19 crisis should thus be seen as an opportunity to critically reconsider the growth trajectory of tourism and act on the most vulnerable dimensions (^{Gossling et al., 2020}).

As agents of change, entrepreneurs, are the ones best positioned to respond to these challenges, adding value to tourism destinations, boosting job creation, diversity of tourism supply, efficiency in the use of resources and attracting visitors (^{Araújo & Júnior, 2018}). In a post-pandemic context, entrepreneurs may assert themselves as a vibrant instrument for tourism development (^{Kline et al., 2020}) and a pillar for destination differentiation (^{Dias et al., 2021}).

Nevertheless, it is important to note that entrepreneurs seek in this process, equally, reward and satisfaction, which may be of different order (^{Araújo & Júnior, 2018}; ^{Comparin, 2017}). ^{Conceição and Costa (2017}) refer that the archetype of entrepreneurship is differentiated, even in countries with similar economic growth rates, which explains that there are several factors that influence this process. Tourism entrepreneurs are one of the most representative groups of small-scale enterprises, with their own specificities that distinguish them from investors in other areas, which justifies giving them special attention (^{Dias et al., 2022}).

In Portugal, a few studies related to the topic under analysis have been developed. In this scope, Portuguese researchers have mainly focused on entrepreneurship in rural areas (^{Bakas et al., 2019}; ^{Ferreira et al., 2019}), especially in low density areas (^{Dinis, 2021}) or protected natural areas (^{Silva et al., 2022}), with emphasis on the northern region of Portugal (^{Marques & Cunha, 2013}). Furthermore, there has been research on education and entrepreneurship (^{Banha et al., 2022}; ^{de la Cruz del Río-Rama et al., 2017}; ^{de Pinho, 2021}; ^{Pinto Borges et al., 2021}), particularly in the field of attitudes and skills towards entrepreneurship (^{Castro & Ferreira, 2019}). Therefore, it is important to emphasize that no study focuses on the Central Region of Portugal.

2. Motivations for tourism entrepreneurship

The tourism entrepreneur faces a still complex and dynamic process, not only by the panoply of business opportunities that the market allows (^{Dias et al., 2021}, 2022), in various subsectors of products and services (accommodation, catering, recreational activities, transport, among others), but also by the volatility of the needs and expectations of tourism consumers, in permanent and constant change (^{Long, 2017}). It is important not to forget the rigidity or reduced flexibility of the intrinsic characteristics of territories or tourist destinations.

In the whole decision process, whether to become a tourism entrepreneur, the intrinsic factors of the individual are relevant, such as age, entrepreneurial skills, leadership ability, independence, self-confidence or fearlessness (^{Cebola & Proença, 2018}). Not being afraid of failure or having the courage to take risks, as well as academic and professional experience, are personal skills that acquire a leading role in the whole process (^{Pereira et al., 2013}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}b). At the same time, dissatisfaction with dependent employment, the search for personal fulfilment or circumstances such as unemployment, can be facilitating bridges for entrepreneurship because they lead the individual to create their own opportunities (Wang et al., 2019b). In addition, other factors such as encouragement from family and friends (Pereira et al., 2013) or partners (^{Tajeddini et al., 2020}) may also influence this decision making.

In the same sense, factors extrinsic to the individual also influence the decision to become an entrepreneur, facilitating or restricting an entrepreneurial climate (^{Kline et al., 2020}). Dynamic, creative, and enabling environments for the development of ideas, provided with the necessary resources for their implementation such as infrastructure, networks and financial support are other determinants that influence decision making (^{Tajeddini et al., 2020}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}b). Entrepreneurship can also be the consequence of national measures and conditions that are conducive (or not) to investment-friendly environments, the understanding of needs and a set of situations conducive to the emergence of opportunities inherent to the context.

Specifically, in the case of tourism entrepreneurs, Hallak et al. (2015) points out that territorial identity influences their self-efficacy, i.e., if individuals identify with the beliefs, values, characteristics, specificities, and potential of the region, they stimulate their own ability to achieve goals and their personal entrepreneurial skills, as well as a closer relationship with the community. The attractiveness of destinations, existence of tourism resources, community characteristics and economic dynamics of the context, are particularly relevant in the motivation of the tourism entrepreneur (^{Araújo & Júnior, 2018}). ^{Dias et al. (2022}) highlight that the main difference is the approach to performance. That is, while entrepreneurs in other areas seek financial performance, tourism entrepreneurs target other goals associated with lifestyle, environmental or social preservation and even identification with the project development site itself (^{Ateljevic & Doorne, 2000}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}b). For example, ^{Hjalager et al. (2018}) argue that these entrepreneurs are driven by opportunities rather than needs. A possible justification stems from a kind of democratization of access to the sector (^{Bosworth & Farrell, 2011}; ^{Ioannides & Petersen, 2003}), i.e., many of these entrepreneurs are attracted to tourism by the existence of scarce barriers, such as low investments or low need for expertise to start the business (Dias et al., 2021). As a result, these entrepreneurs traditionally have limited experience, lacked specific skills and have modest resources (Dias et al., 2022, ^{Marchant & Mottiar, 2011}). In the same vein, other research developed in Portugal by ^{Dinis (2021}) aiming to understand whether tourism entrepreneurship is a possibility of income for immigrants, attested that lifestyle motivations are not homogenous. The author reveals there is a distinction between socio-ideological motivations (strong commitment with sustainability and connection with nature) and better-quality of life motivations (self-centered, related with the individual concern of searching for a better way of living).

2. Sample

In the period 2015-2020, 201 participants in the Contest and 1395 individuals who had contacts with NAIT were identified. The sample was collected from a universe of 1596 subjects, consisting of 138 valid answers (N=138), according to the assumptions of non-probability sampling by convenience and intentional sampling (^{Aires, 2011}; ^{Coutinho, 2015}; ^{Lopes, 2005}). Although respondents may come from other regions of the country (18.0%) or even from abroad (1.4%), they are predominantly located in the CR (77.5%), following the principle of entrepreneurs’ identification with the identity of the territory where they intend to implement their projects (^{Hallak et al., 2015}) (table I).

Table I Sample characterization (N = 138). 

Most respondents were male (61.6%) and between 45 and 54 years old (34.8%). There were other nationalities besides Portuguese (95.7%), which were grouped in the category “Others” (4.3%), as they represent approximately one individual per country, namely: Brazilian, Italian, French, Angolan, Belgian and Swiss. In terms of academic qualifications, the majority of respondents have higher education qualifications, at Bachelor’s level (5.8%), Degree (44.9%), Master’s (19.6%) and Doctorate (5.8%). The predominant degrees were in economics, business management and administration (18.1%), hotel management, tourism, and catering (17.4%) and engineering (11.6%). Regarding experience in tourism before the beginning of the project, 94 of the respondents had no experience (68.1%) and 44 (31.9%) had already worked in this area. Individual projects (63.0%) or projects carried out by two entrepreneurs (29.7%) predominate. The investments are mainly in tourism enterprises (34.7%), local accommodation (31.9%) and tourist entertainment (16.7%) (table I).

For question three of the survey only the respondents who continued with their project answered, therefore the results of this study refer to the opinion of 121 subjects.

In brief, the CR entrepreneur is male (61.6%), have higher education qualifications, but has no experience in tourism, only a few had already worked in tourism. They are mainly investing in individual projects or with only two entrepreneurs, particularly in the hospitality, local accommodation and tourist entertainment sectors.

3. Instrument

A self-administered questionnaire was constructed to learn about tourism entrepreneurs (Tourism entrepreneurs in the Central Region/Empreendedores turísticos da Região Centro (ETUR C), since research on this domain is scarce and no valid instruments were found for this specific purpose, the creation of the motivational scale was based on several previous works (^{Dias et al., 2021}; GEM, 2019; ^{Long, 2017}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}a.)

The questionnaire comprises 31 questions and is divided into six parts, namely: (i) introduction; (ii) sociodemographic variables; (iii) project characterization; (iv) current situation of the project; (v) motivation to entrepreneurship; and (vi) Turismo do Centro brand. This study focuses on the analysis of the results of the scale “Motivation to undertake entrepreneurship in CR” (ME), composed of 16 items. It was assessed by a five-point Likert scale, ranging from Not at All Important (1) to Extremely Important or Decisive (5) (^{Cunha, 2007}; ^{Dalmoro & Vieira, 2013}; ^{Thayer-Hart et al., 2010}). ^{Gorsuch’s (1983}) assumptions regarding the sample size were respected, with a ratio of 7.6 (i.e., 121 participants/16 items). The items reflect extrinsic facilitators (^{Kline et al., 2020}; ^{Tajeddini et al., 2020}) and intrinsic facilitators of the entrepreneur (^{Pereira et al., 2013}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}b).

4. Procedures

The ETUR C was completed online in the Google Forms platform, and an invitation to complete it was sent through the NAIT’s own email. The invitation explained the research context, topic, and objectives of the study (^{Brewerton & Millward, 2001}). The period for sending the surveys began in January and ran until May 2021, with re-submissions in February and May, making a total of 138 responses. All surveys were considered valid, since the questions had to be answered, an aspect controlled by the computer application itself. Whenever requested, additional clarifications were provided to respondents. Information on the objectives of the study, completion instructions, the voluntary and anonymous nature of the participation, and the guarantee of individual data confidentiality were also in the instructions, guarantying ethical requirements.

5. Data analysis

The analyses were completed using IBM SPSS software. Frequencies were examined in order to eliminate items without variation and outliers analyzed according to Mahalanobis squared distance (^{Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013}). The normality of the variables was assessed by the coefficients of skewness (Sk) and kurtosis (Ku), and no variable presented scores violating normal distribution (|Sk|<2; |Ku|<3). The central tendency measures indicate that the mean scores are close to the median and mode in all items. Dispersion measures reveal that the tendency to respond to items is distributed across almost all options on the scale.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The PCA assumptions were tested through the sample size (minimum ratio of five subjects per item; ^{Gorsuch, 1983}), normality and linearity of the variables, factorability of R, and sample adequacy (^{Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013}). Since we intend to retain independent factors, we have chosen VARIMAX rotation with Kaiser’s normalization.

Reliability was calculated by Cronbach’s alpha (^{Nunnally, 1978}), considering acceptable an α>0,70 (^{Hair et al., 2009}). The composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor were evaluated as described in ^{Fornell and Larcker (1981}).

The assumptions of ^{Field (2006}) and ^{Mayers (2013}) for MANOVA were checked for: (i) independence of the observations; (ii) randomness of the sample; (iii) multivariate normality; (iv) homogeneity of the variance-covariance matrices (Levene and Bartlett’s Sphericity tests). The absence of multicollinearity was also observed (^{Montgomery et al., 2006}).

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (PCA)

Table II presents the communalities, eigenvalues, and explained variance for the rotated component matrix of the seven iterations. Previously, the requirements for reliable interpretation of PCA were assured: ratio of 7.6 subjects/item; correlation matrix differs from the identity Bartlett’s test (X2(66)=517.163, p<0.001) and anti-image (matrix scores between 0.736 and 0.397 (highest score outside the diagonal of -0.206)); and the sampling was adequate (KMO=0.795).

Table II PCA and reliability (α) of the ‘Motivation to invest in the CR’ scale: factor loadings, communalities (h2), eigenvalues, and explained variance (%). 

The construct validity of the “Motivation to invest in the CR” scale revealed four factors, with a total explained variance of 70.05%. The overall reliability is very good (0,807) as well as for the factors F1 (0.772) and F2 (0.798); it’s good for F3 (0.664) and acceptable for F4 (0.414) (table II). F4 was considered acceptable, based on the literature review (^{Gorsuch, 1983}; ^{Maroco & Garcia-Marques, 2006}), as several research highlighted the importance of lifestyle and identification with the project development site itself (^{Ateljevic & Doorne, 2000}; ^{Hjalager et al., 2018}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}b), as one of the main motivations that differentiates tourism entrepreneurs from others. Thus, these results should be interpreted with caution.

The factors F1 “Resources” and F2 “Territorial brand”, so named for grouping items that refer to the tourism potential of the region, identify the extrinsic motivations of the entrepreneur at the level of opportunities (^{Kline et al., 2020}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}a) and the needs of the territory (^{Ateljevic & Doorne, 2000}; ^{Hallak et al., 2015}; ^{Wang et al., 2019b}). In the CR, entrepreneurs highlight the commitment or “bet on tourism development” (mean 4.41) and “heritage and landscape diversity” (mean 4.08) as the most important attributes or features considering the destination resources, and “Tourism of the Center’ brand” (mean 3.79) and “notoriety of the region” (mean 3.61) as significant features in the context of the destination territorial brand. This is aligned with the literature, since several authors stated that local development dynamics, resources, location, and brand awareness emerge as the conditions that most motivate tourism entrepreneurs to invest in their businesses (Ateljevic & Doorne, 2000). In this sense, creating a more favorable business environment requires debureaucratisation, training and rethinking the tourism development model to integrate more sustainable pathways for resources. And, simultaneously, re-evaluate marketing strategies considering segments or niches that enjoy value-added tourism products (^{Gossling et al., 2020}), more aligned with the supply of small tourism enterprises (^{Dias et al., 2021}).

At the level of intrinsic motivations of the tourism entrepreneur, the factors F3 ‘Personal motivations’ and F4 “Identity/Belonging” stand out. Specifically, “health reasons” (mean 3.21) in personal motivations and “Great knowledge of the region” (mean 4.0) in the context of identity motivations or feelings of belonging. These findings corroborate the literature since the identification with the territory (^{Kline et al., 2020}; ^{Pereira et al., 2013}) and personal, family, and social fulfilment (Araújo & Júnior, 2015; ^{Chim-Miki et al., 2016}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}a) also stand out. Lifestyle and prestige (Araújo & Júnior, 2018; ^{Bosworth & Farrell, 2011}; Hall & Rusher, 2004; ^{Hallak et al., 2015}; ^{Wang et al., 2019}b) seem to be aspects that do not influence the investment options of this group of respondents. Tourism entrepreneurs have local attachment or emotional ties to the places where they intend to implement their business ideas. They identify with the territory or its potential and seek to develop their projects in reciprocity of benefits (for themselves and for the territory) (Araújo & Júnior, 2016; Pereira et al., 2013). All these motivations condition the decision making of the tourism entrepreneur and influence the development of their business. However, the literature highlights the so-called external factors, associated with the conditions of the context, as those that may be preponderant in the decision of tourism entrepreneurs to set up and evolve their businesses, in territories with which they identify. This dimension is equally important for tourism entrepreneurs in the CR.

2. Multivariate analysis (MANOVA)

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was carried out to verify differences in participants’ perceptions of the predominant factors that influenced their decision to invest in CR, according to the independent variables (IV): age, nationality, gender, region, education, experience in tourism, type of activity and number of project promoters. The dependent variables (DVs) were the mean scores of the factors of motivation to undertake. When statistically significant differences in the response between groups were found, we also analyzed the univariate effect of the variables (ANOVA), reducing the emergence of type I errors in the study (^{Field, 2006}).

The “Pillai screening” and “Wilks’ Lambda test” were applied to ascertain the homogeneity of variances between groups. According to ^{Mayers (2013}), the “Lambda of Wilks” test is the most recommended test to analyze statistically significant differences in more than two groups of independent variables, considered simultaneously. Heterogeneity and a significant multivariate effect were identified in IVs gender (λ=0.901 F(4, 116)=3.192, p<0.05), region (λ=0.720 F(12, 301.907)=3.325, p<0.05), activity type (λ=0.681 F(24, 388.443)=1.882, p<0.05) and number of project promoters (λ=0.812, F(12, 301.907)=2.056, p<0.05) (table III).

Table III MANOVA results. 

a. Exact statistics

3. Univariate analysis (ANOVA)

The difference in the perception of what motivates entrepreneurs to invest in CR in the groups that showed response variability in the previous analyses (table IV) was tested through ANOVA by taking the mean factor scores. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were found between:

Table IV ANOVA results.