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

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

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

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

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

#### **1. Introduction**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### *2.1. Study Area*

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

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

The area of interest (AOI) covers an area of 4675.6 km2 . There are 11 villages in the district. The population of the district as of January 1, 2018, was 29,421 people. The region specializes in gold mining, grain production, livestock farming and processing of agricultural products. The industry focus is agrarian-industrial. A railway passes through the territory of the Shortandy region in several directions: Almaty-Petropavlovsk, Kokshetau-Kyzylorda, etc., roads of international, republican and regional significance, which makes it attractive both for the development of industry and agriculture. The hydrographic network is represented by 11 lakes and several small drains, the flow of which is insignificant. The main water artery flowing through the territory of the district is the Damsa River [53–55].

#### *2.2. Data*

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

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

#### *2.3. Methods*

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

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

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

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

#### **3. Results**

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

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

due to pasture ploughing (Table 3). From 1992 to 1998, there was only a slight tendency to reduce pastures and increase arable lands. Noticeable increases in the share of arable land began in 1998. The territories occupied by arable land from 1992 to 2008 increased by 1.4 km2 , and from 1992 to 2018 by 16.5 km2 .

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

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

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

Over the same period (1992–2018), the rangelands AOI decreased by 20.5 km2 , of which 16.5 km2 became arable land. A typical example of the expansion of the sown area due to the ploughing of pastures is shown in Figure 4.

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

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

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

Urban areas occupy only 0.67%–0.72% of the entire territory of the district. From 1992 to 1998, until the city of Akmola was declared the capital of the republic, the area of the urbanized territories of the district remained unchanged. From 1998 to 2008, the built-up area of the district increased by 2.0 km2 . From 1992 to 2018, the total built-up area increased by 3.1 km2 compared to the beginning of our observations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### **4. Discussion**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### **5. Conclusions**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### **References**

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

*Article*

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

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

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

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

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

#### **1. Introduction**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### *3.2. Applied Methodology*

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### **4. Results**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, 35% of the interviewees think that there are adequate distribution channels, although some of them point to the fact that despite being adequate, they are insufficient [I3: *"Well, they are few, let's say adequate, perhaps, but insu*ffi*cient* . . . *"*; I8: *"The Slow Food market is the only one. There are very few stores and groups that have this kind of products that are big and don't let the little ones in. In my product distribution, most of the sales are direct... I have a Facebook page and there are stores interested in selling my products, but what about the stores?... I give leaflets to the stores, but* . . . *the employee* . . . *doesn't care if the product is sold or not. I mean, we have to fight* . . . *"*; I20: *"I can say that there are channels, but not enough* . . .  *I can buy vegetables in this or that market... the movement has already started, but it's not enough yet"*].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I19: *"Yes, but they buy Coca-Cola.  I'm not a millionaire and I can do it, but, why? Because I don't spend on other things: I don't have Skype, I don't have* . . . *".*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.8. Existence of Bureaucratic Obstacles to the Agroecological Enterprise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.10. Are Young People Encouraged to Pursue Agroecological Entrepreneurship?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### **5. Discussion**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### **6. Conclusions**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### **Appendix A**

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

**Table A1.** *Cont*.

Source: [62].

### **References**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Own elaboration.

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

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

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

Source: Own elaboration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

č

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

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

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