Research Paper SeriesNo. 15A multi-layered approach to social entrepreneurship in ecotourism: The Case of Zamami
Village, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan
Misanori Takahashi †January, 2020

†Graduate School of management, Tokyo Metropolitan University

A multi-layered approach to social entrepreneurship in ecotourism:
The Case of Zamami Village, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan
This study aims to analyse how social entrepreneurs’ embeddedness in multilayered contexts enables them to participate in ecotourism development. Previous
studies have analysed social entrepreneurs’ attempts to construct ecotourism
spaces using a multi-layered approach. However, their approach does not have atheoretical basis for analysing the behaviours of social entrepreneurs embedded
in various contexts. Thus, this study proposes an analytical framework based on
the new institutional theory and the institutional entrepreneurship concept thatconsiders social entrepreneurship in ecotourism in terms of constructing an
ecotourism space. Based on this analytical framework, this study examines thepractices of social entrepreneurs in Zamami Village, Okinawa Prefecture, Japan,
using an interpretative approach. This village was the first in Japan to establish
ecotourism and successfully balanced coral reef conservation and regional
economic revitalization. Semi-structured interviews conducted with social
entrepreneurs in 2003, 2004, and 2007 determined that social entrepreneurs could
achieve the above successfully by embedding themselves in the local historical,
cultural, authoritative, and political contexts. Using this case, this study revealed
the process by which social entrepreneurs acquire motivation for eco-tourism andstrategic action to create an ecotourism space in embedded multi-layered contexts.
Keywords: Social entrepreneurship, ecotourism, multi-layered approach,institutional entrepreneurship, Japan

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to analyse how social entrepreneurs’ embeddedness in
multi-layered contexts—the local cultural and historical context, authoritative context,
and political context—enables them to participate in ecotourism development.
In recent years, social entrepreneurs have drawn attention as agents for theconstruction, maintenance, and expansion of ecotourism (Boschee and McClurg, 2003;
Ahmad et al., 2014; Swan and Morgan, 2016; Chirozva, 2015). In these discussions,social entrepreneurs have been analysed using a multi-layered approach; accordingly,

1they have been perceived as actors empowered to create ecotourism spaces throughtheir embeddedness in diverse contexts: historical, cultural, professional, and political.
However, the multi-layered approach used in previous studies does not have atheoretical basis for analysing the behaviour of social entrepreneurs embedded invarious contexts.
In this study, I propose an analytical framework that examines social
entrepreneurship in ecotourism in terms of entrepreneurs who construct an ecotourism
space by embedding themselves in local historical and cultural contexts, authoritative
contexts, and political contexts. The framework is based on the new institutional theory
and the institutional entrepreneurship concept. Based on this new analytical framework,
this study analyses the case of Zamami Village in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. This was
the first village in Japan to establish ecotourism and successfully balance coral reef
conservation and regional economic revitalization. This case study shows that social
entrepreneurs who are embedded in multi-layered institutional contexts construct anecotourism space by strategically and appropriately involving stakeholders in order tobridge different contexts.
This study offers three major contributions. First, it presents a theoretical basis
for a multi-layered approach to understand social entrepreneurs who constructecotourism spaces. Second, it clarifies the motivations of social entrepreneurs based on
the local cultural and historical context. Third, it reveals the strategic actions social
entrepreneurs undertake, through long-term fieldwork.

Social entrepreneurship in ecotourism
Thompson, Gillen and Friess (2017) noted that ‘ecotourism is a normative concept
defined and driven by generalized principles constituting local livelihoods andconservation of natural and cultural environments’ (p. 258).

2

Nor and Kayat (2006) pointed out three criteria that ecotourism must meet: (1)protection of the natural environment, society, culture, and economy; (2) education ofhost communities, tourists, and businesses; and (3) emphasis on community
participation. Based on these normative concepts, ecotourism represents a new form of
tourism to ensure social, cultural, and environmental sustainability, rather than shortterm and private profits, such as ‘responsible tourism, natural tourism, alternative
tourism, sustainable tourism, and community-based tourism’ (Ahmad et al., 2016, p.39).
In recent years, social entrepreneurs have been attracting attention for theirability to establish, maintain and expand ecotourism. Entrepreneurship was originally
positioned as a major concept in tourism research (Burton, 1998; Crnogaj et al., 2014;
Williams and Shaw, 2011). Entrepreneurs have the ability to develop the naturalenvironment and cultural heritage as part of the tourism industry and to build a businessmodel that can be monetized. Tourism research focused on entrepreneurs as agents ofeconomic growth who generated economic value and jobs. Entrepreneurs have therefore
been defined as actors who identify resource values and business opportunities from thenatural environment and cultural heritage, interpret trends in market needs for tourism,
and build businesses that combine resources and tourists. Antecedent studies haveanalysed the behaviour of tourism guides, business owners, city government officials,
and non-profit organizations (Harvey, 1989; Raco and Gilliam, 2012; Gillen, 2010;
Gillen, Kirby, and van Riems-dijk, 2015).
Social entrepreneurs, however, face a conflict in terms of the inherently different
objectives of entrepreneurship and ecotourism: entrepreneurs are motivated to pursue
private profits, whereas the objective of ecotourism is to ensure social, cultural, andenvironmental sustainability. Bacq and Janssen (2011) defined social entrepreneurshipas ‘the process of identifying, evaluating and exploiting opportunities aiming at social

3

value creation by means of commercial, market-based activities and of the use of a wide
range of resources’ (p. 376) and social entrepreneur as ‘a visionary individual, whose
main objective is to create social value, able at one and the same time to detect andexploit opportunities, to leverage resources necessary to his/her social mission and tofind innovative solutions to social problems of his/her community that are not properly
met by the local system’(p. 382).
In other words, social entrepreneurs are motivated by their social mission andcreate new value by building social enterprises that combine diverse resources (Stryjan,
2006; Nicholls, 2008). The results produced by social entrepreneurs are ‘a virtual blend
of financial and social returns’ (Boschee and McClurg, 2003, p.378), and the profits
generated from these results must be reinvested in the social mission. The main issue
here is whether social entrepreneurs should control the natural environment and cultural
heritage as ecotourism spaces, and control stakeholders (Swan and Morgan, 2016).
For example, Chirozva (2015) demonstrated that the economic well-being andself-reliance of villages in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, which straddles theborder between Zimbabwe and Mozambique, were enhanced through ecotourism.
Social entrepreneurs identified business opportunities with tourists who gathered in thepark. In this case, social entrepreneurs helped prevent the structural exploitation of mass
tourism caused by existing travel agencies and airlines. They were able to occupy thenatural environment, and in the absence of clear legal grounds or government support,
maintain cultural heritage and establish ecotourism in collaboration with local residents.
In the same way, Farelly (2012) presented a new category of indigenous social
entrepreneurs in New Zealand. Indigenous people, who have historically occupied
unique cultures and regions, find business opportunities in tourism. Through their
historical and cultural background, indigenous social entrepreneurs can legitimately

4occupy a particular culture or natural environment in a way that is independent of mass
tourism, and gain the benefits of national independence and protection. Situmorang andMirzanti (2012) also noted that the creation of community-based schools andscholarships in communities within northern Sumatra, Indonesia, as well as culturalprotection programs that provide educational opportunities for local communities, led tothe emergence of social entrepreneurs and the establishment of ecotourism. Here,ecotourism by local residents is legitimised with expertise acquired through schools andeducation. Furthermore, Thompson, Gillen, and Friess (2018) pointed out that the
Malaysian government's tourism promotion policy has attracted a large number oftourists to the Langkawi Islands, while the tension between the conservation of thenatural environment and the commercial use of tourism resources has created ahierarchical relationship between commercial and social entrepreneurs. Here, social
entrepreneurs are born through political struggles based on environmental conservation
as an antithesis to the political background promoting mass tourism.
As described above, social entrepreneurs build ecotourism spaces by straddling
diverse contexts such as historical and cultural, expertise, and political backgrounds andusing them as a source of legitimacy. Of course, promoters cannot rely on only one
context to legitimise the ecotourism space. For example, Ahmad et al. (2014) pointed
out that the homestay program (Rural Master Plan Malaysia) of the village of Sebuyau,
Sarawak, Malaysia, combined local people's will for economic self-reliance andsustainable development; expert and leader education through educational programmes;and support from the authorities, who were invested in the success of this initiative.
They showed that social entrepreneurs could build an ecotourism space by combining
legitimacy with historical and cultural, expertise, and political backgrounds. In other5

words, social entrepreneurs in ecotourism have been analysed using a multi-layered
approach.
The multi-layered approach in previous research has shown that social
entrepreneurs use diverse contexts to legitimise themselves and construct ecotourism
spaces. However, previous research has not provided a sufficient explanation of howsocial entrepreneurs overcome contradictions among diverse contexts. For example,
Lawrence and Wickins (1997) focused on the case of Ecosummer Canada Expeditions,one of the largest ecotourism companies in British Columbia, Canada. This company
offered ecotourism tours and had received support from the World Wildlife Fund in
1990. However, in 1992, on an ecotourism tour, a local guide hired for a journey ran
short of supplies and shot five polar bears to feed the sled dogs. As a result, the World
Wildlife Fund cut off its relationship with Ecosummer Expeditions, and others in thisbusiness field criticized the company saying that the service was contrary to ecotourism
principles. In response, Ecosummer Expeditions announced that the actions of local
Inuit guides fall within the traditional rights of the Inuit to hunt polar bears (Lawrence
and Wickins 1997, 309-311). Thus, there is a contradiction between the local culture
and the idea of ecotourism. Similarly, if the historical background of a region collides
with an education program that trains ecotourism experts, how can social entrepreneurs
respond?

Multi-layered approach for social entrepreneurship
How can the process of building ecotourism by social entrepreneurs embedded in a
multi-layered context be analysed? To answer this question, multi-layered approaches inprevious studies need to have a theoretical basis for analysing these behaviours invarious contexts. This study examines the concept of institutional entrepreneurship(DiMaggio, 1988; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991) through the theory of institutional

6organization and proposes new analytical framework for understanding the practices ofsocial entrepreneurs in ecotourism.

Institutional entrepreneurship
In previous studies, it has been pointed out that social entrepreneurs are heroic actors
with the necessary leadership skills to present a great vision and the negotiation abilities
necessary to create collaborations with stakeholders (Osborn, 1998; Nicholls and Cho,2003; Martin, 2006). To do so, social entrepreneurs must build relationships that are
trusted by stakeholders. Social capital theory points out that the resource mobilization
capability of social entrepreneurs depends on whether they build respectful, trusting
relationships in their embedded networks (Prabhu, 1999; Thompson, Alvy, and Less,
2002). In other words, an actor who has sufficient relational capital can act as a social
entrepreneur in a region or community’s network. In new institutional theory, therelational capital that can be obtained through embeddedness in the network is
described as cognitive legitimacy.
In addition to this cognitive legitimacy, new institutional theory points out
normative legitimacy and regulatory legitimacy as sources of legitimation (Scott, 1995).
Normative legitimacy, which relies on political systems and authoritative systems,
allows actors to prove the correctness of their work through expert and academic
evaluations. Regulatory legitimacy, which relies on administrative and legal systems,
enables resource mobilization from stakeholders through judicial, patent, andadministrative approvals.
Institutional entrepreneurship was proposed as a concept to capture the agency
practice of executing the institutional change (DiMaggio, 1988; DiMaggio and Powell,1991; Lawrence, Suddaby, and Leca, 2011). Since they are embedded in theinstitutional context, entrepreneurs can identify business opportunities by discovering

7

contradictions between institutions (Friedland and Alford, 1991), being fringe players of
institutional contexts (Leblebici et al., 1991), positioning structural holes (Burt,1992), orat moments of deinstitutionalization and change (Greenwood, Suddaby, and Hinings,
2002). Zimmerman and Zeitz (2002), who introduced the institutional entrepreneurshipconcept in entrepreneurship studies, made it possible to explain the emergence ofentrepreneurship from social or institutional contexts. Especially in entrepreneurial
studies, this concept has been used to analyse entrepreneurs who mobilise criticalresources needed to build a new business by combining various legitimacies(Kalantaridis and Bika, 2006; McCarthy, 2012).
In recent entrepreneurship studies, institutional entrepreneurship has
incorporated multi-layered approaches as an ‘understanding of the heterogeneity ofentrepreneurial responses to external conditions, as well as demonstrated how structural
factors influence entrepreneurial processes at the micro-level’ (Wigren-Kristofersen etal., 2011, p.1012). It also helped researchers explain privileged positions in institutions
and social networks, and to understand entrepreneurial behaviours as bridging activities
across institutional boundaries (Anderson, Dodd, and Jack 2012). For example, KarataşÖzkan (2011) looked at the entrepreneurial learning process of five new entrepreneurs
who formed a venture company. They described constructing the venture company as alearning process in which entrepreneurial activity was navigated within the institutional
context surrounding the five new entrepreneurs. Each Individual entrepreneurial
activities were constructed by leveraging their relational capital for gaining advantage
and heterogeneity.
In this way, the institutional entrepreneurship concept has revealed
entrepreneurial activities as practices that can be realised by embedding them in multilayered institutional contexts (Welter, 2011; Welter, Baker, and Wirsching 2019).

8

By contrast, the multi-layered approach in ecotourism studies has revealed theinstitutional context as consisting of the historical and cultural, expertise, and politicalbackgrounds available to social entrepreneurs in ecotourism. However, there is atheoretical problem in previous research as social entrepreneurs embedded in theinstitutional context do not sufficiently explain how they will construct an ecotourism
space. On the other hand, the institutional entrepreneurship concept focuses on
embedding people in a multi-layered institutional context; thus, people can combine
diverse legitimacies to mobilize critical resources for their own business and gain
competitive advantage. Therefore, the activities of social entrepreneurs in ecotourism
will be understood as institutional entrepreneurship in embedding multi-layered
institutional contexts.

Analytical framework
How can social entrepreneurs be analysed using the multi-layered approach?
Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence (2004) conducted a pioneering study of social
entrepreneurship practice based on this institutional entrepreneurship concept throughthe analysis of two patients with HIV/AIDS who were leading the HIV/AIDS PatientGroup in Canada as social entrepreneurs. In the 1980s, HIV/AIDS was an epidemic
disease that was publicly believed to only affect homosexuals and haemophiliacs, andpharmaceutical companies were reluctant to develop therapeutic agents because they
were unlikely to be profitable. In other words, patients with HIV/AIDS were located ina structural hole that had been hampered by the Canadian healthcare system.
Thus, social entrepreneurs leading the HIV/AIDS Patient Group not only
expanded patient mutual aid organizations to national organizations, but also
disseminated through the media that HIV/AIDS was an infectious disease that can affect
all people (cognitive legitimacy). In addition, by sharing the knowledge accumulated

9through the patient groups on how HIV/AIDS is transmitted and how the diseaseprogresses, the social entrepreneurs were able to work with doctors (regulatory
legitimacy) and lobby with politicians who well understood homosexuality or drug
abuse (normative legitimacy); these efforts led them to having national HIV/AIDS drug
development programs. Through this, it can be seen how social entrepreneurs can createa social business to legitimate themselves by being embedded in multi-layered contexts.
Maguire et al. considered the mass media, politicians, parliaments, andgovernment to be multi-layered institutional contexts. In these contexts, social
entrepreneurs can be understood to be combining cognitive, normative, and regulatory
legitimacy to acquire the resources to build, expand, and sustain social businesses. Ifsocial entrepreneurs do not participate in the network within the region or community,
they will not be able to obtain cognitive legitimacy. The scientific and professionalcorrectness cannot be proven, and normative legitimacy cannot be obtained, unlesssocial entrepreneurs connect with the academic world and cooperate with experts.
Without the support of the government and politicians, it is impossible to obtainregulatory legitimacy such as legal reform and the establishment of a licensing system.
In other words, for social entrepreneurs to build, expand, and maintain social businesses,
they need to manage stakeholders with critical resources by embedding themselves in
multi-layered contexts and combining their legitimacies.
Based on this theoretical view, the behaviour of social entrepreneurs inecotourism can be considered under the following analytical framework (Figure 1).
First, it is necessary to construct analytically the multi-layered institutional
contexts.
Based on the cognitive, normative and regulatory legitimacy in new institutional
theory, multi-layered institutional contexts of ecotourism, which have been discussed10earlier, can be organised into three contexts: local cultural and historical context,
authoritative context, and political context.
Local cultural and historical context is constructed by human relationships thathave formed in a specific region over time. Individuals acquire their identity as amember of the region or community through these relationships. It is possible toachieve cognitive legitimacy by utilising interpersonal relationships and the division ofroles established within the relationship (Farrelly, 2012).
Authoritative context is built from professional relationships with those whohave the authority to influence others, such as universities, research facilities, and the
media. Social entrepreneurs gain normative legitimacy by linking themselves toscientific validity and social justice through collaboration with professional groups(Situmorang and Mirzanti, 2012).
Political context is built from the relationship between the legislature, thenational-local government, and political parties. In addition to being able to obtain legal
approvals and go to court through legal procedures, social entrepreneurs are also able togain regulatory legitimacy by creating legal revisions and approval systems that are
advantageous to them through their lobbying activities (Thompson, Gillen, and Friess,2018).
The process of building ecotourism by social entrepreneurs embedded in a
multi-layered institutional context can be considered to involve the following specificsteps: (1) motivating by local economic independence in a multi-layered context, (2)finding the natural environment and cultural heritage as ecotourism resources, and (3)constructing an ecotourism space in which resources are occupied and used sustainably.
This paper presents a case study of ecotourism by social entrepreneurs based on thisanalytical framework.

11

Case Study: Establishment of ecotourism in Zamami Village
Research Method
This study approaches the practices of social entrepreneurs in ecotourism using aninterpretative approach (Anderson and Starnawska, 2008: Leitch et al. 2010).
Interviews help researchers understand the practices of social entrepreneurs inecotourism by offering insight into the context in which they acquired the motivation to
pursue ecotourism, how they extracted business opportunities and resources from thesituation, and how they used the situation to construct a space in which they could
utilise resources.
It should be noted that a researcher who interprets the narratives of the social
entrepreneur is not an observable, objective, and universal fact. The researcher
interprets the phenomenon as a series of context-dependent actions from dialogues withsocial entrepreneurs involved and reconstructs it into a thick description (Geertz, 1973).
In other words, this description is a social reality created through dialogue between
researchers and social entrepreneurs concerned. The theoretical significance ofqualitative research based on the multi-layered approach is that researchers can review
the recognition premises of existing research from dialogues with relevant social
entrepreneurs and aim for theoretical development based on reflection. Also, social
entrepreneurs understand their own practices and use them as the relevant capital to
implement future actions (Gergen, 2009; Steyaert, 2011; Swan and Morgan, 2016).
This study used semi-structured interviews with two social entrepreneurs torecord their stories about the problems and solutions they faced. The interviews wereconducted in three periods: the peak period of the mass outbreak and extermination of
starfish in 2003, the period when a diving business based on self-imposed rules wasstarted under the slogan of ecotourism in 2004, and the period when ecotourism space12

was established in the Kerama sea area by the enactment of the ecotourism promotion
law in 2007. At each point, two social entrepreneurs were interviewed for two to ten
hours; the total interview time reached 40 hours.
In addition, this paper describes the case in the form of interviews with a senior
fisherman in Zamami Village, the mayor of Zamami Village, a researcher from an
institute located in Zamami Village, and the observation of a meeting held in Zamami
Village.

Research site
Zamami Village is located in the Kerama Islands, about 50km west of Naha City byhigh-speed boat. Comprising the islets of Zamami Island, Aka Island, Geruma Island,
Kuba Island, and Yakabi Island, the island has a population of 923 (as of 20191). The
primary industry is marine leisure, mainly for diving. Zamami Village is famous as thefirst successful example of ecotourism in Japan, which was designated in the
Ecotourism Promotion Law in 2007.
Zamami Village has an ideal geographical location to run the diving industry.
The Kerama sea area, where Zamami Village is located, is recognised as having
biodiversity equivalent to the Great Barrier Reef. Zamami Village is 15 minutes away
by plane from Naha City Airport and 50 minutes away if taking a high-speed ship from
Tomari Port. This makes it simple for tourists from Okinawa to enjoy diving andmarine sports in the area. In addition, many diving points in Zamami Village are locatedin the inland sea surrounded by small islands; even when there is some wind and rain,
the islands help keep the waves calm. For this reason, even during the typhoon-prone
summer months, dives in Zamami Village are often included in tours. These favourable
location conditions contributed to the rapid growth of the diving industry in Zamami
Village.

13

There are approximately 40 diving shops in Zamami Village, and about 100,000
tourists visit there each year to see the rich coral reefs2. Diving is a hobby of relatively
wealthy people in Japan; and the annual sales per diving shop is between 10 to 20
million yen3. Many diving shops have Japanese inns, and tourists stay between two
nights and one week to enjoy diving; the direct economic effect is around 4.6 billion
yen4.
The establishment and operation of diving rules, as well as the conservation ofcoral reefs through continuous monitoring and extermination of acanthaster, a natural
enemy of coral reefs, by volunteers from local diving shops, characterize the diving
industry in Zamami Village. From 2002 to 2007, when the control activities peaked dueto the large number of acanthaster, four to ten divers were mobilised per day; between
2000 and 3000 divers were mobilised over a period of one year to exterminate 116,129
acanthaster. Furthermore, in order to realise the sustainable use of coral reefs, rules
were established for the number of visitors per point, mooring methods for ships, anddistance for viewing coral reefs. Business operators on and off the island weresuccessful in complying with the rules when diving in the Kerama sea area.
In this process of organizing ecotourism, the divers of Zamami Village not only
take advantage of the legitimacy of being embedded in the local cultural and historicalcontext of Zamami Village, but they also embed themselves in the authoritative context
created through links with research institutions, and in the political context createdthrough cooperation with local governments who want to promote tourism andenvironmental conservation.
The author started fieldwork in Zamami Village over 10 years, starting in 2003.
This fieldwork covered a total of 50 people, including two social entrepreneurs who
were the leaders of diving associations, divers who are association members,

14

researchers from Zamami Village and neighbouring local governments, universities, andother research institutes.

Motivating ecotourism from embedded Local cultural or historical context
This section will focus on how the two social entrepreneurs in Zamami Village gained
their motivation for ecotourism. These social entrepreneurs were motivated by historicaland cultural contexts to construct ecotourism space. Understanding this requires anunderstanding of the local cultural and historical context in which social entrepreneurs
are embedded from the industrial history of Zamami village before the diving industry
was established.
Until the end of World War II, Zamami Village was one of the largest fishingbases in Japan, boasting a large catch of bonito. Bonito taken in Zamami Village isboiled, dried, smoked, and processed into katsuobushi (dried bonito). Even today,
katsuobushi produced in the vicinity of Zamami Village is branded as kerama-bushi andrecognised as an essential ingredient in Japanese cuisine.
The fertile fishing ground for bonito in the Zamami Village area was discoveredby coincidence when bonito fishermen from the Japanese mainland arrived after a
shipwreck in 1885. The shipwrecked fishermen, after repairing their ships with the helpof the villagers, caught significant numbers of bonito as they returned to the mainland.
Some say that the sales of bonitos after this shipwreck exceeded their annual sales, evenafter deducting the cost of repairing the shipwrecked ship and living expenses in
Zamami.
Seeing these earnings, the people of Zamami Village raised funds in the village
to establish a fishery cooperative in 1900. They purchased four ships and started afishing operation. In 1912, there were ten fisheries cooperatives in the village, and mostof the islanders became union members. In those days, fishery cooperatives were a kind15

of cooperative society similar to the communist system, distributing profits from thebonito industry equally to members of the cooperatives, and undertaking collective
purchase and provision of clothes and food.
Although the profit was distributed equally, the amount was very high for thattime. Before World War II, Zamami Village was able to earn a year’s worth of income
simply by fishing bonito from June to August (the usual bonito fishing season). It wasthen processed into katsuobushi and shipped to major consumption areas such as Tokyo
and Osaka. An elderly fisherman who knew the income at that time said:
If we work for three months, we can spend a year playing at Tsuji5 on Naha.
Zamami's bonito fisherman was very rich, so they could send all his children tohigh school6. After graduating from school, the most important thing about the
future was which fisheries cooperative association we joined in the village.

However, these fisheries cooperatives were dissolved soon after World War II.
This was not due to the war; a lack of resource management meant that the bonito had
been overfished for decades. There were ten unions before the war, but after the war,
repeated mergers and closures meant that there were only two remaining.
Therefore, the fishermen of Zamami Village tried to shift to the pelagic fisheryto the Pacific Ocean in search of a new fishing ground. As they sent young people to afisheries university on the mainland to learn how to fish bonitos in the Pacific Ocean,
the two associations built a large fishing boat for pelagic fishing with ice making andfreezing functions using the funds they had reserved. On their first voyage in 1974,
however, they entered Philippine waters without permission, and their fishing boat was
seized by the Philippine Navy. This incident led to the temporary dissolution of thefisheries association and the loss of the main industries of Zamami Village. For the next
twenty years, young people moved to Naha, Tokyo, and Osaka in search of jobs. By the16

time the diving industry was established in the early 1990s, the population of Zamami
Village had been halved.
In Zamami Village, which had lost its bonito, H.M and K.K developed diving as
a new main industry. They were born after World War II, and by that time the bonito
industry in Zamami Village had already declined. In their childhood, they left Zamami
Village with their parents and lived in the suburbs of Naha; they returned to Zamami
Village for long vacations in summers and winters to spend time with their grandparents
who remained in the village. At that time, the people of Zamami Village made a small
living in restaurants and guest houses (private homes that runs inn providing room andboard) for sea bathers and fishermen as well as fishing and farming in the coastal waters
where day trips were possible.
There was a custom in Zamami Village that one of the brothers (usually theeldest son) would inherit the family's house and grave. When their parents retired, H.M
and K.K had to return to Zamami Village to take over their family homes and graves,
even though the industry had been lost. In order to survive on Zamami Village without
the bonito industries, it was necessary to create jobs within the village. H.M and K.K
focused on the diving business. In the 1970s, U.S. soldiers and some wealthy peoplecame to Zamami Village to enjoy diving. They negotiated with local fishermen to rentboats for this purpose. During Japan’s bubble economy in 1985, the development ofresorts in Okinawa Prefecture developed and diving became a new, popular leisureactivity. Divers from a diving club at a university in Tokyo were the first to discover the
tourist value of coral reefs in the Kerama sea area7. The diving spots they developed
were introduced in Japanese diving magazines, and soon Zamami Village was visited bymany divers. Some divers during this period moved to Zamami Village in the 1990s,
and some of them became diving business operators.

17

H. M. and K. K, who were born in Zamami Village and lived in fishing,
agriculture, lodging, and fishing boats, soon realised the potential profits of the diving
business. In Zamami Village fishery at that time, ships were operated in the earlymorning; even if fish were caught, the price was often equivalent to the price of theboat’s fuel. Fish is a market commodity, and the unit price per kilogram fluctuates
greatly8. In fact, when the author visited Zamami Village for the first time in 2003, there
were only two people who made regular income from fishery in Zamami Village, andthese people also worked in guesthouses or taverns. Diving, on the other hand, cangenerate 10,000 to 30,000 yen per person per day. In addition, if a diving shop is
attached to a guesthouse, accommodation fees can be expected as income. Diving
depends on the weather and sea conditions, but in the case of a diving shop with its own
ship, it is possible to earn more than 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 yen in sales in about fourmonths, usually from April to August. For H.M. and K.K., who own their own boats
and are familiar with the location of the fishing reefs and the complex tidal currents inthe waters around the Kerama Islands, the diving industry was very lucrative and easy
to start9.
I graduated from college and worked in Tokyo. My parents are getting older andsomeone has to take over my house and grave. I am the eldest son, and I had somelingering attachment to life in Tokyo, but someone had to return. When I returned,
I found that if I took the boat from morning still noon, it would only cost me thefuel of the ship. I used to take the bathers to an uninhabited island and growvegetables in the garden, but it was all I could do to maintain my life. (H.M)
When I came back to the village, entertainers and American soldiers often came
diving. It was about 100,000 yen after chartering a boat for one day. We madegood sales. We were familiar with fishing and knew where the big coral reefs were
and where the fish were, so we were good guides. In the late 1980s, there were a
lot of college divers, and eventually they started running diving shops in Zamami
Village, and I thought this would be a business. That's why they renovated the18main building into a hotel, converted the fishing boat into a diving boat, andopened a full-scale diving shop (K. K).

At this point, H.M. and K.K. were entrepreneurs who focused on the diving
business, which earned more than fishing, and invested resources to expand business
opportunities. But facing a crisis that threatened the survival of the diving industry, theygained motivation to become social entrepreneurs.
A new problem for H.M. and K.K. was the feeding damage to coral reefs byacanthaster. In 1989 and 2002, large outbreaks of acanthaster in Okinawa causeddevastating damage to coral reefs. This was a serious concern for the people of Zamami
Village, who remembered that the economy of the island was destroyed by the
dissolution of the Fisheries Cooperative Association due to the depletion of bonito in
the sea. Zamami Village, which was being revived by the diving industry, needed toexterminate acanthaster and protect its coral reefs to avoid losing its key industry again
and return to decline. As a result, H. M. and K. K, were forced to eliminate acanthasterand preserve coral reefs.
Once upon a time, this village failed by catching all the bonito. Now we don't catch
fish, but we make money by diving in coral reefs, and we can't repeat the same
mistake by leaving acanthaster unattended. If we can't earn enough to dive, we
can't raise your children in the village, and we can't keep the houses and graves. (K.
K.)
I think we should not repeat the business like fishing in the old days, which is ‘if
you finish it, it's done’, in a diving shop. That's no longer the case. I think weshould change our way of thinking and protect coral reefs. Coral reefs are sure to
regenerate if you exterminate and acanthaster. The customers who love the natureof Zamami Village are coming, so if we don't protect the coral reef, the customers
will leave. (H.M.)

19

Born in Zamami Village, H.M. and K.K. were deeply embedded in the local
cultural and historical context of Zamami Village. Therefore, when faced with the crisisof a massive outbreak of acanthaster, they could not choose to leave the village; theyneeded to remain in order to keep their ancestral family homes and graves. On the other
hand, in the local cultural and historical context built around fisheries, it was customary
to search for new fishing grounds after fish had been caught.
However, H.M. and K.K. felt that closing the diving shop and exploring the next
business would pose a great risk; they shared the memories of the collapse of thefisheries cooperative when they sought new fishing grounds in the deep sea. Therefore,
H.M. and K.K. needed to think of ways to use coral reefs sustainably, rather than using
them for short-term gain. At this moment, H.M. and K.K. gained motivation to
construct ecotourism space as social entrepreneurs. In other words, being deeply
embedded in the local cultural and historical context, H.M. and K.K. were able torecognise the outbreak of acanthaster as a crisis affecting the survival of the village.
Furthermore, knowing the cause of the collapse of the bonito industry in the past madeit possible to focus on sustainability use of coral reef by reviewing the custom ‘if you do
all you can, you can change the fishing ground’ in the local cultural and historicalcontext.

Construction of Ecotourism Space in Zamami Village: by embedding
stakeholders with local cultural and historical context and by bridging social
entrepreneurs to authoritative context
In order to protect coral reefs from the feeding damage of acanthaster, it was necessary
not only to exterminate acanthaster intensively at the point of the outbreak, but also toperiodically patrol the sea area where coral reefs are located and monitor the state ofcorals and the occurrence of acanthaster10. The only way to deal with this problem was20

to eliminate the acanthaster one by one by mobilizing a large number of people11.
However, the Kerama area, where diving shops in Zamami Village were located, isvast; it was impossible to eliminate acanthaster by covering all of them. Therefore, it
was decided to select a huge coral reef which could be used as a tourist resource and todesignate it as a marine protected area (MPA). This prohibited its use in diving and inorder to exterminate acanthasters. H. M. and K. K. planned to establish MPAs at thewest end of Akeina and the east end of Amuro Island; their use for fishing and diving
was totally banned within three years (Figure 2)12.
In this time, what H. M. and K. K. faced was that diving shop owners were notwilling to cooperate due to differences in individual interests.
The diving shop owners in Zamami were divided into two groups: those who
were born and raised in Zamami Village, like H. M. and K. K., and immigrant diving
shop owners who had moved from Tokyo or Osaka. Diving shop owners born inZamami Village recognised that the extermination of acanthaster was the job ofZamami Village Fishery Cooperative. This cooperative had been reorganised afterWorld War II; they received a subsidy from the prefecture to exterminate acanthaster.
Immigrant diving shop owners may have believed that if coral reefs in the vicinity ofZamami Village were destroyed, they could move to other areas with coral reefs, suchas Miyako Island or Ishigaki Island, and continue with their operations.
However, H.M and K.K focused on the Zamami Village Fishery Cooperative.
All the divers born in Zamami Village were originally fishermen and belonged to the
Zamami Village Fishery Cooperative. This organization was highly coercive because of
the historical background of the bonito industry. H. M. and K. K. were former directorsof the Zamami Fisheries Cooperative. Therefore, under the pretext of protecting fishery21

resources, Zamami Village Fishery Cooperative decided to spend more than the upper
limit of the subsidy and voluntarily recommend the extermination of acanthaster.
Of course, not all diving shop owners agreed with this decision. Specifically,
because of immigrant diving shop owners not joining the Zamami Village Fishery
Cooperative, they opposed the establishment of the MPA by the fisheries cooperative
and wanted to continue diving in this area. Only fishermen can join the Zamami Village
Fishery Cooperative. Therefore, immigrant diving shop owners could not join thefisheries cooperatives. There was no reason for them to allow the establishment of the
MPA. Thus, since they were board members of the Zamami Village Fishery
Cooperative, H.M. and K.K. planned to involve the immigrant diving shop owners in
the MPA by soliciting the cooperative. Once they were part of the cooperative, H. M.
and K. K. established a separate set of qualifications for associate members in the
Zamami Village Fishery Cooperative and extended the membershipcondition/qualifications so that non-fishermen could also join the cooperative.
There were two ways to persuade these divers. Business owners who had
gotten married and had children in Zamami Village were easier to persuade. K. K. said:
If you learn how to catch fish, you can feed your wife and children when the coral
reefs are destroyed and you can't dive. The seniors will teach you how to catch fish
now, so you had better enter. Bonito is no longer caught, but if you learn how tocatch fish, you can feed your children and survive even in the worst case. (K. K.)

It was more difficult to persuade single immigrant diving shop owners. In orderto build kinship, a woman of the same age on the island was introduced as a spouse to
reluctant shop owners. As mentioned above, in Zamami Village, one of the brothers
must succeed the house and the tomb of the family. Even for men from Tokyo or Osaka,
entrepreneurs who managed a successful diving business on the island were suitable

22

partners for people in Zamami Village who had only one daughter. After that, throughpersuasion by relatives, they would join the fishery cooperative of excellent immigrant
diving shop owners who could bear the future of Zamami village.
By having immigrant diving shops owners in Zamami village join the fisheries
cooperative association, K.K. was able to convince immigrant diving shop owners who
were against the MPAs:
Even elderly fishers do not operate in MPAs in accordance with the agreement ofZamami Village fisheries cooperative. You are a member of the fisheries
cooperative and a member of the village, so please cooperate with the MPAs.

This was made possible by embedding divers into the local cultural andhistorical context of Zamami Village. This included the history of how the village hadonce lost its bonito industry to overfishing, and that fisheries cooperatives wererecognised as the central organization that integrated the villagers. H. M. and K. K. had
created new social value for the Zamami Village Fisheries Cooperative. As pointed out
in the previous section, most of the diving shop owners born in Zamami Village weremembers of the Zamami Village Fishery Cooperative. Although there were a few
people who make a living only by fishing in Zamami Village, only the Fishery
Cooperative managed the use of the sea, even now. Because of this, immigrant diving
shop owners who joined the Zamami Village Fisheries Cooperative were forced tofollow that persuasion by K. K.
H. M. and K. K. were able to construct and operate MPAs in 1998. The Zamami
Village Fishery Cooperative successfully exterminated a total of 116,129 acanthaster bymobilizing between four and ten divers a day, between 2000 and 3000 divers a year,
from 2007 to 2012, when the number of acanthaster was at its peak.

23

The next problem was that the diving shop owners were never permitted tojoin the members of the Zamami Village Fishery Cooperative. Needless to say, theestablishment and operation of the MPAs through the Zamami Village Fishery
Cooperative not only makes it difficult for the diving shop owners who refuse to beembedded in local cultural-historical context to create legally binding relationships, but
it also creates the risk of being challenged in court on the legal grounds that fishingrights do not arise when viewing coral reefs. So, H. M. and K. K. decided to set up a
Diving Association. As Zamami Village consists of three islands, Zamami Island, Aka
Island, and Geruma Island, K. K. established the Aka-Geruma Diving Association in2001 and H. M established the Zamami Diving Association in 2002, with the aim ofhaving the diving shop owners as the chairpersons. The diving shop owners in Zamami
Village had been strongly recommended to join the Diving Association, and a system
was established in which approval by the Diving Association was required for the
opening of a new diving shop in Zamami Village.
In this time, one problem in promoting these Diving Associations was that they
had no legal grounds for controlling the diving shop owners. Except for fishery rights,
there was no legal basis for monopolizing the use of specific sea areas by specificoperators in Japan. In the case of diving businesses, the viewing of coral reefs is anactivity not granted with the same rights as fishing rights, not even to the members offishermen's cooperatives. Therefore, some diving shop owners, especially those who
were not members of fishermen’s cooperatives, opposed the establishment andoperation of MPAs because it has no legal support.
In order to bring them under control, H. M. and K. K. had to acquire different
legitimacy actions. Hence, H. M. and K. K. focused on the Akajima Marine Science
Laboratory (AMSL), established in 1988 and continued its activities. At its inception,24

this research facility was irrelevant to the diving business of Zamami. However, as thediving industry in Zamami Village was pressed by the need to conserve the corals dueto the mass outbreak of acanthaster, the AMSL’s academic knowledge and research
results became important. Similarly, the AMSL’s on-going monitoring of coral reefs is
not possible due to personnel and budget constraints; therefore, the ability to obtain
extensive data on coral reefs and acanthaster in the Kerama sea area through daily divecooperation with diving shop owners was implausible. As a result, a partnership
between the Diving Association and AMSL was established because of the need toeradicate acanthaster and conserve the coral reef.
The key to this partnership was the normative legitimacy of MPAs.
Y. T., researcher at AMSL, reported that the coral reef destroyed by the MPA
was recovered by 30% to 50%, and that while the MPA in the eastern tip of Amuro
Island prohibited all divers and fishermen from entering the reef, it was destroyed
without anyone noticing the huge outbreak of acanthaster. While admitting the effect of
MPA, he pointed out the importance of periodic monitoring based on the premise of
careful diving (Taniguchi, 2004). In addition, Y. T. presented his research findings that
coral reef eggs laid on MPA drift ashore on the main island of Okinawa and settle there(Taniguchi, 2005). The results of this research have scientifically proven that the peopleof Zamami village established MPA, selected healthy corals that were ready to lay eggs,
and exterminated acanthaster intensively to protect the corals from feeding damage.
The scientific evidence created through this collaboration with AMSL gave H.
M. and K. K two powers. First, because of the absence of legal grounds, it had become
possible to urge divers on the island who were otherwise difficult to persuade to comply
with the MPA because of the importance of their scientifically based activities. Second,
the MPAs coral reef conservation activities led to the conservation of coral reefs on the25main island of Okinawa, which led to the recognition of diving shop owners in Zamami
Village as social entrepreneurs and the people who protected the sea in Okinawa. Fromaround this time, H.M. and K.K. became aware of themselves as bearers of ecotourism
and began to speak about the revitalization of Zamami Village based on ecotourism.
Until now, we have mainly exterminated starfish, but we also have to consider land
management. When a typhoon comes and it rains heavily, soil and sand flow out
and coral reefs get damaged. If ecotourism is to be carried out, the problem ofwater on land must be considered. (H. M.)
Now, ecotourism is worth living for me. By implementing ecotourism, thecompany aims to provide higher quality services and create a high-value-added
business with slightly higher diving fees. That differentiates them from the rest of
the world, and the higher they are, the more they can invest in coral reef
conservation. (K. K.)

Thus, in cooperation with AMSL, H. M. and K. K. utilised the authoritative
context for those that could not be influenced by the local cultural and historical context,
and gained the position of social entrepreneurs. This was based on a mixture of
authoritative, local cultural, and historical context, enabling control over diving shop
owners in the village.

Expanding ecotourism space by embedding Political context: Establishment of
the Kerama Sea Area Conservation Conference and Enactment of the
Ecotourism Promotion Law
By using the local cultural and historical context with the authoritative context, H.M.
and K.K. constructed an ecotourism space as MPAs in Zamami Village. However, thesuccess in MPAs created a new problem: the diving shop owners in Naha were
intruding into the Kerama Sea area. H. M. and K. K. addressed this issue by accessing
political contexts and expanding an ecotourism space.

26

The establishment and operation of the MPAs, the continuous eradication ofacanthaster, and the successful conservation of the coral reef made it clear that the
diving shop owners in Naha were now operating in the Kerama Sea area.
The diving shop owners in Naha used a large cruiser to carry dozens of divers
to diving spots. As a result, at a good diving point, hundreds would dive into the sea
every day to see the reef. At that point, the problem was not just the number of divers.
Many divers from Naha were beginners, and due to technical problems and ignorance,
they damage coral as they scuba dive. Moreover, operators in Naha take manycustomers to diving spots at once, making it difficult for instructors to pay enoughattention to coral conservation.
On the other hand, many of the customers who use the Zamami diving business
are regular customers and experienced divers who understand the policies of the
Zamami diving businesses for coral conservation. These policies included not touchingcoral when diving, not breaking coral by getting too close to it, not kicking up sand with
fins, and enjoying diving with care.
The problem that H. M. and K. K. faced was how to control the influx of divers
from Naha. At first time, H.M. and K.K. asked diving shop owners in Naha to cooperate
in the use of the Kerama Sea area based on the voluntary rules and the extermination of
starfish under the name of Zamami Fisheries Cooperative Association and Diving
Association. This request failed for two reasons. First, for diving shop owners in Naha,these requests could be ignored in the absence of a legal basis to limit the use of coral
reefs for diving. Second, because there was no diving association in Naha governing theowners of diving shops, H. M. and K. K. had to persuade each owner. Since there are
more than a few hundred diving shops in Naha, this was an impossible task.

27

At that time, there was no legal basis in Japan for a specific organization to
exclusively use a specific natural environment or cultural heritage for ecotourism. H. M.
and K. K. had succeeded in constructing an ecotourism space in Zamami Village
through the use of fisheries cooperatives and diving associations by embedding theowners of diving shops in the village into local cultural, historical and bridging
authoritative contexts.
Therefore, H. M. and K. K. were willing to expand ecotourism space in which
diving shop owners in Naha city could voluntarily refrain from exercising their legally
recognised rights. To do this project, they focused on the local government around theKerama Sea area.
The local government in that area was constituted by the Zamami Village
Office, Tokashiki Village Office adjacent to Zamami Village, and Naha City Office.
Zamami Village and Tokashiki Village aimed to increase the number of tourists andpromote regional development by promoting diving businesses in the Kerama Sea area.
Similarly, Naha City focused on diving business in the Kerama Sea area to promote
tourism in Naha city. In other words, the local governments around the Kerama Sea area
aimed to effectively utilise coral reefs in the area as tourism resources.
H. M. and K. K initially opposed these policies from the standpoint of
ecotourism. They feared that a flood of divers would destroy the coral reef. H. M. and K.
K had envisioned that the number and quality of tourists would be maintained and thatdiving fees would be raised in the name of coral reef conservation and that some of theaccumulation would be used to fund conservation activities.
However, H. M. and K. K realised that they could not legally stop diving shop
owners in Naha City from entering the Kerama Sea area. Therefore, H. M. and K. K

28

aimed to embed diving shop owners in Naha City into the political context byorganizing Kerama Nature Conservation Conference.
Kerama Nature Conservation Conference was established in 2007 with the aimof conserving the natural environment and promoting sustainable use of the Kerama Sea
area, that is, promoting ecotourism, through the involvement of Zamami Village Diving
Association and Aka-Geruma Diving Association with the Zamami Village Office,Tokashiki Village Office, and Naha City Office. This was a linguistic strategy madepossible by H. M. and K. K. The mayors and village headman of local governmentswith five-year terms were seeking to increase the number of tourists as a short-term
achievement to win the election. As long as the use of the Kerama Sea area waspermitted by law, mayors and village headmen could be restrained from trying toincrease the number of tourists in their bid for re-election. The norm of ecotourism,
which aims to achieve both environmental conservation and sustainability and regional
development, was not only to prevent an increase in the number of tourists because of
its ethical correctness, but also to demonstrate their achievements in realizing the firstecotourism in Japan.
For this purpose, the Kerama Nature Conservation Conference appointed thevillage headmen of Zamami and Tokashiki as advisers; the secretariat also appointed
the head of the administrative division in Zamami Village Office and Tokashiki Village
Office. The Diving Association in Zamami-Village established a system to monitor theconservation and use of coral reefs based on voluntary rules concerning theextermination of acanthaster and diving.
Voluntary rules, led by H. M. and K. K, have been developed by a group of trialand-error divers in Zamami Village. Specifically, the following rules are in place toensure that the coral reef receives as little burden as possible and that the diving

29business was operated safely: (1) two concrete blocks and two mooring buoys were
installed on the sandy seabed near the diving point, and the number of vessels that could
accessed them at one time was restricted; (2) voluntary rules were established such as
rotating closure of multiple diving spots and restoration of coral reefs; and (3) all guides
were required to obtain a diving certificate. These voluntary rules not only achieved
results in the conservation of coral reefs in the Kerama Sea area, but also acquiredscientific evidence through a partnership with AMSL. Even if the free use of theKerama Sea area was recognised as an authority by law, it was difficult to refute theobservance.
H. M. said:
We have a track record of protecting not only Zamami Village but also the coral
reefs in Naha with scientific evidence. Once the Kerama Nature Conservation
Conference is established, it will be difficult to break our own rules and makemoney in the Kerama Sea area. No longer, headmen have decided to promote
regional development through ecotourism. (H.M)

What is noteworthy here is that the Kerama Nature Conservation Conference
allowed Naha City Office to participate as a board member on the condition that it
would establish a diving association in Naha City, observe the voluntary rules, andparticipate in the extermination of acanthaster. The purpose of this project was todevelop a route for negotiations between the headmen of Zamami and Tokashiki for thesustainable use of the Kerama Sea area by having diving shop owners in Naha City
manage under the responsibility of the mayor of Naha City.
K. K. said:
We allowed Naha City to participate in the Kerama Nature Conservation
Conference because we wanted them to organise diving shop owners in Naha. If30they are organised, ecotourism can be carried out in the entire Kerama area. Thenthey will not have to come to Zamami Village far away and do business. (K.K.)

The aim of establishing the Kerama Nature Conservation Conference can besummarised in the following three points.
First, under the new concept of ecotourism, a system should be established inwhich diving businesses operating in the Kerama Sea area voluntarily cooperated incoral reef conservation by utilising the political power of the regional government.
Second, by defining the excessive use of the Kerama Sea area by divers inNaha City as a problem that impedes the realisation of ecotourism, and by changing thedimension to a political issue that should be resolved through negotiations between theheadman of Tokashiki Village and the mayor of Naha City, the control of divers inNaha City should be attributed to the administration of Naha City.
Third, by establishing a system in which the diving association in Zamami
Village observes the voluntary rules and monitors the extermination of acanthaster, thepossibility of mobilising divers in Tokashiki Village and Naha City for coral reef
conservation activities was gained.

Discussion
This paper presents an analytical description of the process of ecotourism development
by social entrepreneurs embedded in a multi-layered context, based on a long-term
fieldwork in Zamami Village.
The establishment of ecotourism space in Zamami Village took three steps(Figure 3): (1) Gaining motivation as a social entrepreneur on embedded local culturaland historical context, (2) constructing ecotourism space by embedding stakeholders inlocal cultural and historical context and bridging shop owners to authoritative context,
and (3) social entrepreneurs embedding themselves in a political context to expand

31

ecotourism space for all Kerama Sea area. Social entrepreneurs have provided
opportunities and tools for controlling stakeholders through local cultural and historical,
authoritative, and political context of the region. The strategic action taken by social
entrepreneurs in Zamami Village to construct ecotourism space can be summarised asfollows.
First, H. M. and K. K gained motivation as social entrepreneurs from embedded
local cultural and historical context. They initially viewed the diving business as a job
for earning money and had only an entrepreneurial motivation. However, from local
cultural and historical context, they gained the motivation of social entrepreneurs towork for the conservation of coral reefs in response to the crisis of an outbreak ofacanthaster.
Second, social entrepreneurs constructed ecotourism space by embedding
diving stakeholders in local cultural and historical context and bridging themselves toauthoritative context.
This step is divided into two sub-steps. (1) Based on the local culture andhistorical context of Zamami Village, social entrepreneurs found the Zamami Fisheries
Cooperative to be an effective tool for establishing MPAs. Immigrant diving shop
owners were uncooperative in establishment of MPAs. Then, social entrepreneurs
emphasised to immigrant diving shop owners to learn fishing in order to raise children
in Zamami Village even after coral reefs were destroyed, and made them marry womenon the island, thereby embedding them in the local cultural and historical context andbuilding cooperative relationships.
(2) Social entrepreneurs mobilised when diving shop owners refused to join
Zamami Fisheries Cooperative by bridging themselves to authoritative context. The
problem with the establishment and operation of ecotourism space in Zamami Village

32was that social entrepreneurs could not completely control the diving shop owners in
Zamami Village. Specifically, social entrepreneurs could not persuade the diving shop
owners who refused to join Zamami Fisheries Cooperative to cooperate with MPAs
because there was no legal basis to prohibit the operation in a specific sea area.
Therefore, social entrepreneurs of Zamami Village cooperated with AMSL toscientifically prove that the establishment of MPAs is effective for coral reef
conservation. By bridging to authoritative context, they could gain the power tolegitimise ecotourism space beyond the legal basis.
Social entrepreneurs understand the interests of stakeholders and the context inwhich they are embedded, and then use the context in a way that realises the interests ofstakeholders, leading them to expanding ecotourism space. In the absence of legal
grounds, social entrepreneurs in Zamami Village were faced with the need to preventthe overexploitation of coral reefs by divers in Naha, which operate separately in the
Kerama Sea area. Social entrepreneurs focused on the fact that the mayors and villages
headmen around the Kerama sea area had an interest in realising regional development
through tourism. Therefore, in order to get them involved, social entrepreneurs createdthe Kerama Nature Conservation Conference based on the realisation of ecotourism.

Conclusion
This study has described a process of constructing ecotourism space by social
entrepreneurs in multi-layered institutional contexts under an interpretive methodology.
The theoretical contribution of this description can be attributed to the following two
points.
First, it revealed that the motivation of social entrepreneurs stems from aprocess of reflection, which incorporates an embedded institutional context and istriggered by a crisis of their own interests. As previously noted, H. M. and K. K. were33

entrepreneurs who saw diving as their source of income until they faced a massoutbreak of starfish. However, in the face of a crisis in the sustainability of the diving
business, they reflected on the local historical and cultural context and decided toconstruct an ecotourism space for coral reef conservation. Of course, this context is not
limited to a local cultural or historical context. As pointed out by Situmorang andMirzanti (2012) and by Thompson, Gillen, and Friess (2018), it may also occur whenembedded in authoritative or political contexts. The motivations of social entrepreneursin ecotourism are thought to arise from reflective considerations from institutional
context in which they are embedded.
The second theoretical contribution is the discovery of a strategic action bysocial entrepreneurs to create an ecotourism space under multi-layered contexts. In
previous studies, the context in which social entrepreneurs are embedded has been seen
as an institutional environment that empowers them. Therefore, previous researchrequired a multi-layered approach because it was impossible for social entrepreneurs torely solely on specific contexts in creating an ecotourism space. Using a multi-layered
approach, this paper describes the process by which a social entrepreneur embeds
stakeholders in his or her context, bridges themselves to a new context, and mixes theseto create and expand an ecotourism space. That is, the practices of social entrepreneursin ecotourism can be seen as improvisations that are adapted to multi-layered contexts(Baker and Nelson, 2005).
The final theoretical contribution of this study is to capture information aboutsocial entrepreneurs who build ecotourism spaces under a multi-layered approach.
Previous studies have explained the role of social entrepreneurs in building ecotourism
from historical, cultural, professional, and political contexts. As Ahmad et al. (2014)
pointed out, social entrepreneurs build ecotourism through embedded relationships in34

these multi-layered contexts. This paper then presents a new analytical framework forunderstanding the practices of social entrepreneurs as it constructs ecotourism spaces in
multi-layered contexts. The multi-layered approach of this paper will reveal new
strategic actions of social entrepreneurs who construct ecotourism spaces in other fields.

Acknowledgement
The author thanks Prof. Matsushima from the Kobe University Graduate School of Business
Administration for his valuable comments, and those who participated in the survey at Zamami
Village. I would also like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Funding
This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI) underGrant JP18H00886.

Declaration of interest statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Reference
Anderson, A. R., S. Drakopoulou Dodd, and S. L. Jack. 2012. “Entrepreneurship asconnecting: some implications for theorising and practice.” Management
Decision 50(5): 958–971.
Anderson, A. R., and M. Starnawska. 2008. “Research practices in entrepreneurship:
problems of definition, description and meaning.” The International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 9(4): 221-230.
Baker, T., and R. E. Nelson. 2005. “Creating something from nothing: Resource
contribution through entrepreneurial bricolage.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 50: 329–366.
Boschee, J., and J. McClurg. 2003. “Toward a better understanding of social
entrepreneurship: Some important distinctions.” Working Paper.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/28028593/testtrtr.pdf?respo
nse-content-

35

disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DToward_a_better_understanding_of_social.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-AmzCredential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20191102%2Fus-east1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191102T091854Z&X-AmzExpires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-AmzSignature=093cd8cee6893035ebbdefccdbe52e4d7bf68ffea3780332bebbc37132a
f22aa (accessed November 5, 2019).
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge,
Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press.
Burton, R. 1998. “Maintaining the quality of ecotourism: Ecotour operators' responses
to tourism growth.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6 (2): 117–142.
Crnogaj, K., M. Rebernik, B. Bradac Hojnik, and D. Omerzel Gomezelj. 2014.
“Building a model of researching the sustainable entrepreneurship in the tourism
sector.” Kybernetes 43 (3/4): 377–393.
DiMaggio, P. J. 1988. “Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory,” in Institutional
Patterns and Organizations Culture and Environment, edited by Lynne G.
Zucker, 3–21. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.
DiMaggio, P. J., & W. W. Powell, ed. 1991. “Introduction. The new institutionalism inorganizational analysis. ” Chap. 1 in The New Institutionalism in
Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Farrelly, T. (2013). “Community-based ecotourism as indigenous social
entrepreneurship.” Chap. 42 in The Routledge Handbook of Tourism andEnvironment. London: Routledge.
Friedland, R., and R. R. Alford. 1991. “Bringing society back in symbols, practices, andinstitutional contradictions.” In The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis, edited by W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio, 232–263. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Garud, R., and M. A. Rappa. 1994. “A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution:
The case of cochlear implants.” Organization Science 5 (3): 344–362.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic books.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Realities and Relationships: Soundings in Social Construction.
Harvard University Press: Boston.
Gillen, J. (2010). “An examination of entrepreneurial relationships between the stateand non-state in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.” Urban Geography 31: 90–113.

36

Gillen, J., R. Kirby, and M. van Riemsdijk. 2015. “Tour guides as tourist products in
Dalat, Vietnam: Exploring market freedoms in a communist state.” Asia PacificViewpoint 56 (2): 237–251.
Greenwood, R., R. Suddaby, and C. R. Hinings. 2002. “Theorizing change: The role ofprofessional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields.”
Academy of Management Journal 45 (1): 58–80.
Harvey, D. (1989). “From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in
urban governance in late capitalism.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human
Geography 71 (1): 3–17.
Kalantaridis, C., and Z. Bika. 2006. “In-migrant entrepreneurship in rural England:
beyond local embeddedness.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 18(2): 109–131.
Lawrence, T., R. Suddaby, and B. Leca. 2011. “Institutional work: Refocusing
institutional studies of organization.” Journal of Management Inquiry 20 (1):52–58.
Lawrence, T. B. and D. Wickins. 1997. “Managing legitimacy in ecotourism.” Tourism
Management 18(5): 307-316.
Leblebici, H., G. R. Salancik, A. Copay, and T. King. 1991. “Institutional change andthe transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the
US radio broadcasting industry.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 333–363.
Leitch, C. M., F.M. Hill. And R.T. Harrison. 2010. “The philosophy and practice ofinterpretivist research in entrepreneurship: Quality, validation, and trust.”
Organizational Research Methods, 13(1): 67-84.
Maguire, S., H. Hardy, and T. B. Lawrence. 2004. “Institutional Entrepreneurship in
Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada.” Academy ofManagement 47 (5): 657–679.
Martin, R. 2003. “To the Rescue, Beating the Heroic Leadership Trap.” Stanford Social
Innovation Review 1: 36–39.
McCarthy, B. 2012. “From fishing and factories to cultural tourism: The role of social
entrepreneurs in the construction of a new institutional field.” Entrepreneurship& Regional Development 24 (3-4): 259–282.
Nicholls, A. 2008. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

37

Nicholls, A. and A. H. Cho. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship: The Structuration of a
Field.” in Social Entrepreneurship, New Models of Sustainable Social Change,
edited by A. Nicholls, 99–118. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nor, N. A. M., and K. Kayat. 2010. “The challenges of community-based homestay
programme in Malaysia” in Proceedings of Regional Conference on Tourism
Research: 66.
Osborne, S. 1998. Voluntary Organizations and Innovation in Public Services Change.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, G. N. 1999. “Social entrepreneurship leadership.” Career Development
International 4 (3): 140 –145.
Raco, M., and K. Gilliam. 2012. “Geographies of abstraction, urban entrepreneurialism,
and the production of new cultural spaces: The West Kowloon Cultural District,Hong Kong.” Environment and Planning A 44 (6): 1425–1442.
Scott, W. R. 1999 Institutions and Organizations. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi andSingapore: Sage Publications.
Shinichiro, K. 2007. “Diversity and multi-function of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
in coral reefs.” Galaxea, Journal of the Coral Reef Studies 8: 91–108.
Skelcher, C. and S. R. Smith. 2015. “Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex
organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits.” Public
Administration 93 (2): 433–448.
Stryjan, Y. 2006. “The practice of social entrepreneurship: Notes toward a resourceperspective” in Entrepreneurship as social change: A third movements inentrepreneurship book, edited by C. Steyaert and D. Hjorth, 35–55. Cheltenham
and Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Taniguchi, H. 2003. “Effect of closing resort diving stations at Zamami-son andunexpected negative effect of closing: Result of the Reef Check Zamami.”
Midoriishi 14: 16–19.
Tanijuchi, H. 2003. “Change of coral coverage around Akajima-island in recent 6 years:
Observation after and during the coral birching events and outbreaks crown ofthorns starfish.” Midoriishi 15: 16–19.
Thompson, J. G. Alvy. and A. Less. 2002 “Social entrepreneurship: A new look at thepeople and the potential.” Management Decision 38 (5): 412–432.
Thornton, P. H. 1999. “The Sociology of Entrepreneurship.” Annual Review ofSociology 25: 19–46.

38

Welter, F. (2011). “Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways
forward.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35 (1): 165–184.
Welter, F., T. Baker, and K. Wirsching. 2019. “Three waves and counting: the risingtide of contextualization in entrepreneurship research.” Small BusinessEconomics 52 (2): 319–330.
Wigren-Kristofersen, C., S. Korsgaard, F. Brundin, K. Hellerstedt, G. Agnete Alsos,
and J. Grande. 2019. “Entrepreneurship and embeddedness: dynamic, processualand multi-layered perspectives.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
31（9-10）: 1011–1015
Williams, A. M. and G. Shaw. 2011. Internationalization and innovation in tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research 38 (1): 27–51.
Zimmerman, M. A. and G. J. Zeitz. 2002. “Beyond Survival: Achieving New Venture
Growth by Building Legitimacy.” Academy of Management Review 27 (3): 414–
431.

Figure 1.

(3) constructing an
ecotourism space in which
resources are occupied andused sustainably.

local cultural andhistorical context- human relationships andprofessional groups that havehistorically and culturally
formed in the region.

authoritative context- relationships with agroup of experts who
have the authority to
influence others, suchas universities, researchfacilities, and the media.

(1) gaining motivation fromlocal economic independence
in multilayered contexts

political context- relationship between
the legislature, thenational-local
government, andpolitical parties(2) utilizing the naturalenvironment and cultural
heritage as ecotourism
resources

39

Figure 2.

Zamami Is.
Agonishikata
Amuro Is. E
Yakabl Is.
Aka Is.
Nishihama

Tokushikils.

Caruma Is.
Kuba Is.

1 km

From Kakuma (2007), p. 100. The position of MPA is indicated by ● in the map.

Figure 3.

local cultural and historical context
authoritative context
Step1
H. M. and K. K gained
motivation as social
entrepreneurs throughembedded local culturaland historical contexts.

1

political context
Step2-1

Step2-2

To construct anecotourism space (MPA)in Zamami Village,social entrepreneurs
embed immigrant
diving-shop owners in
the local cultural andhistorical context, by
persuading them to join
the Zamami Fisheries
Cooperative.

To mobilize diving-shop
owners who refused to join
the Zamami Fisheries
Cooperative, social
entrepreneurs persuaded
them to cooperate with theecotourism space by using
the authoritative context.

Step3
To expand theecotourism space to all
of Kerama sea area,social entrepreneurs
embedded stakeholders
using the political context.

https://www.vill.zamami.okinawa.jp/info/zamami.html

2 The number of divers is based on statistics compiled by the Okinawa prefectural government.

40

3 The average annual income in Okinawa Prefecture announced by the Ministry of Health,

Labor and Welfare in 2018 was 3.69 million yen.
4 Assuming that the diving fee is 10,000 yen for 1 day, the accommodation fee is 8000 yen for 1

night, and the meal and souvenir expenses during the stay are 10,000 yen; this is a roughestimate when 100,000 tourists visit the island for 3 days and 2 nights on average.
5 It is the largest entertainment district in Okinawa Prefecture.
6 The high school enrolment rate at that time was about 30%. In Japan at that time, high school

students were treated at par with today's university graduates.
7 Even today, people who learned diving during this period and visited Zamami Village are themost frequent repeat visitors.
8 Zamami Village does not have a fishery market, and the lack of a supply system to meet theneeds of tourists visiting Zamami Village is another reason for the decrease in the numberof Zamami fishermen.
9 In Zamami Village, many fishermen have a diver's license because they have traditionallypracticed diving fishing.
10

The Ministry of the Environment and the Okinawa prefectural government, which wereconcerned about an outbreak of acanthaster, tried to promote the extermination ofacanthaster by providing subsidies to local fisheries cooperatives. However, each fisherycooperative in Okinawa Prefecture recognized this subsidy as a compensation measure forthe destruction of coral reefs, and they only exterminated acanthaster up to the maximum
amount of the subsidy. In fact, fishery cooperatives around the country not only
exterminated acanthaster only when they could get a budget, but also exterminatedacanthaster efficiently only when a large number of acanthaster were found, because theacanthaster themselves were sold for cash. It has been pointed out that the acanthaster has
usually finished spawning by the time a budget is fixed and the budget can be executed(June); this further prevents the effective extermination of acanthaster.

11 Exterminating acanthaster was a difficult task. First, as in the case of pest control in

agriculture, it is difficult to exterminate acanthaster with drugs. Overseas, there have beencases of acanthaster extermination using formalin. However, the use of such chemicals has
the potential to damage coral reefs. On the other hand, coral worms are the natural enemyof acanthaster larvae, so that in coral reefs where healthy corals are clustered, it is unlikelythat there will be an abundance of acanthaster. On the other hand, as a diver in Zamami
Village states, "acanthaster attacks a weakened coral". Acanthaster migrate from place toplace in search of an environment conducive to life. Therefore, protecting healthy coral
reefs is the most important issue from the viewpoint of resource management.

41

12 Corals are living organisms, and strong and healthy individuals survive. Corals are arenewable tourism resource if conditions such as water quality and water temperature aremet. It is impossible to protect all the coral reefs scattered around the Kerama Sea area
against the acanthaster, which migrate to the coast, but if the corals are in a state where
they can lay eggs, there is a possibility that the coral reefs will be restored. Corals are themain natural enemy of acanthaster larvae, and the survival of healthy corals leads to coral
reef conservation in a double sense. Thus, H. M. and K. K chose to protect healthy corals(of course, it is also an important diving spot).

42