Next Article in Journal
Geometric Case Based Reasoning for Stock Market Prediction
Next Article in Special Issue
Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO), Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC), and Performance in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): Gender Gap and Inter-Country Context
Previous Article in Journal
Waste Conversion into a Sweetener—Development of an Innovative Strategy for Erythritol Production by Yarrowia lipolytica
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Rural and Urban Areas on Time Allocated to Self-Employment: Differences between Men and Women
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Diagnosis of Administrative and Financial Processes in Community-Based Tourism Enterprises in Ecuador

Carrera de Turismo Ecológico, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Av. Universitaria, Quito 170129, Ecuador
Department of Economics and Business, Universidad de Almería, La Cañada San Urbano, s/n, 04120 Almería, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(17), 7123;
Received: 22 July 2020 / Revised: 25 August 2020 / Accepted: 26 August 2020 / Published: 1 September 2020


In recent years, community-based tourism has become a source of income within indigenous and rural communities, either as a principal or complementary activity. However, the management of the administrative and financial processes of this type of enterprise was unknown. In this sense, this paper aims to analyze the state of these processes within the so-called Community-Based Tourism Enterprises (CBTEs) in the provinces of Pichincha, Napo, and Imbabura (Ecuador). For this purpose, a matrix was designed to collect information on the administrative and financial processes that an enterprise should have, detailing all their elements with their respective assessment. Also, an interview was administered to the 28 community leaders (one for each CBTE) to diagnose each issue of business management. In this diagnosis, it was concluded that, despite having a certificate from the Ministry of Tourism (MINTUR), the Community-Based Tourism Enterprises have not implemented important administrative and financial processes such as a strategic plan, operational plan, market study, cost analysis, process manual, market plan, initial situation, results status, final status, or financial indicators. Therefore, in the long term, this leads to poor management of business resources, which can result in the closure of these enterprises.

1. Introduction

Community-Based Tourism Enterprises (CBTEs) are an important reference point within Ecuador’s tourism industry. However, it is not clear how these enterprises manage their administrative and financial processes, or whether they have even implemented some of these processes. There is no evidence of previous studies about this topic, but this does not mean that it is not important to know how these enterprises carry out financial and administrative controls. Furthermore, it could be one of the main determining factors as to whether the enterprises remain in the market.
The objective of this paper is to present the results of the diagnosis of the administrative and financial processes in CBTEs in the Ecuadorian provinces of Pichincha, Imbabura, and Napo. This research is exploratory in nature and consists of a compilation of 28 cases (CBTEs), which are subject to a detailed diagnosis of their administrative and financial processes.
The concept of tourism has changed over time from being massive and careless; damaging architectural, natural, and cultural resources, and leaving aside the interest of the communities [1]. It has evolved to become an activity that seeks the sustainability of the host community, based on the preservation of resources and maintaining a good quality of life for present and future generations. This concept appeared in the 1980s when the World Commission on Environment and Development defined it as “sustainable development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [2,3], focusing on the balanced use of resources in order to reach long-term economic, social, and environmental development of nations, with a responsible and collective commitment. As also stated by the World Tourism Organization (WTO), sustainable tourism is defined as “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, industry, the environment and host communities” [4].
As a result of a constitutional mandate adopted inside the National Development Plan 2017–2021 [5], Ecuador is a part of this sustainable development process, with nine objectives framed in three fundamental axes: Lifetime rights for everyone, economy at the service of society, and more society better State. The purpose of this strategic plan is to improve the living conditions of citizens in a permanent and sustainable manner, towards “Sumak Kawsay” [6] the well-being of Ecuadorians. Article 14 of the Ecuadorian Constitution states: “The right of the population to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment that guarantees sustainability and good living (Sumak kawsay) is recognized”. In addition to environmental conservation, the protection of ecosystems, biodiversity and the integrity of the country’s genetic heritage, the prevention of environmental damage, and the recovery of degraded natural areas are declared to be of public interest [7].
In recent years, tourism has experienced significant growth, especially in 2017 with a 7% increase in tourist arrivals. By 2019, tourist arrivals increased only 4%, which is equivalent to 1461 million visitors worldwide, 15% of which are in the Americas [8]. In Ecuador, as well, tourism has become an important economic activity that generates significant foreign exchange for the country. In 2018, it contributed US$ 2392.1 million to the national economy, representing 2 percent of GDP [9]. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), this represents a total contribution (direct, indirect, and induced) of 5.5% to Ecuador’s total GDP [10], which places it in third place as a source of non-oil revenue [11].
In this sustainable context, community tourism is clearly an important part, because it aims for local development by community’s inclusion [12]. The Caribbean States Association defines it as an alternative for rural communities to generate other incomes towards economies by using cultural, natural, and local resources [13]; by poverty reduction, new job creation, and the equal distribution of resources generated by this activity to all community members. Ecuador is a pioneer country in this type of tourism, even more since it is a mega-diverse country in cultural, natural, and social aspects [14]. It was the first country in the world to have a national union, such as the Plurinational Federation of Community Tourism of Ecuador (known as the FEPTCE), which defines community tourism as a relationship between the community and visitors in an intercultural perspective: In organized trip development, consensual participation of its members, guaranteeing adequate natural resources management, heritage appreciation, nationalities cultural and territorial rights, and equitable distribution of the generated benefits [15].
In a review of the literature, we found an increasing number of papers on Community-Based Tourism (CBT). To get an approximate idea of the interest of this subject among researchers, Mtapuri et al. (2015) [16] reported 400 articles on CBT covered in 136 different journals since its emergence in the 1980s. Many of these researches analyze real cases of Community-Based Tourism Enterprises (CBTEs) located mainly in Africa (e.g., in Kenya [17,18,19], Botswana [20], Namibia [21], Ethiopia [22,23], and South Africa [24,25]), in South America (e.g., in Nicaragua [26], Barbados [27], Brazilian Amazon [28], and Colombia [29]), and in Asia (e.g., in Philippines [30]).
There is a general agreement in the existing literature regarding the potential contribution of CBTs to poverty alleviation and sustainability of tourism industry and local communities (e.g., [17,19,22,23,26,31,32,33,34]. Also, about one of the main challenges of CBTEs: A weak managerial capacity among communities to run these CBTEs [20,21,22,24,26,28,33]. However, there are also successful cases such as the Community-based ecotourism in Menz Guassa in Ethiopia, where “indigenous community leaders were capable of operating and managing community based ecotourism businesses effectively and inspiring individuals from the local population to participate in the tourism business” [23].
There are non-profit organizations that have established standards for the management of sustainable destinations, such as “maximize the economic and social benefits of communities and minimize impacts” [35]. Within these criteria, certain elements of the administrative process have been considered such as organizational management of the destination, monitoring, planning, promotion, and visitor satisfaction, among others [35]. However, all this has been developed in a general perspective without specifying administrative and financial processes necessary for good enterprise development and permanence.
There are some statements about the relevance of the administrative-financial process of CBTEs. For example, in the Community Tourism Good Practices Manual of the Solidarity Tourism Network of the Napo River Ribiera-REST [36] (p. 33), it is stated as an administrative criterion, that “the Community Tourism initiative should maintain an efficient administration that allows to know the status of its management and the characteristics of its visitors with a basic accounting of income and expenditures”.
An administrative process cannot only be based on the company’s financial controls as Fayol proposed in the 20th century. Nowadays, the use of four fundamental management principles has been accepted: Planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation [37], whose fulfillment leads to the achievement of business objectives. Within these fundamental principles of management, there are some specific processes, which help to achieve these business purposes, leading to efficiently fulfill the operational cycle of organizations. According to D’Alessio Ipinza [38], it is a model that accurately represents how the company works, without considering that some areas are more important than others, since all of them are significant for its correct functionality.
Until now, there are some proposals from CBTEs for a general management model. Despite the fact that a few of these enterprises were developed by non-governmental organizations, they do not have a full community adaptation process. As such, there was inadequate implementation follow-up to assess long-term results. In consequence, many Community Tourism Centers become extinct (or inactive), which shows how important is to have optimal organizational structure as the key to success [39] for any type of undertaking.
In a former interview with the FEPTCE president, Galindo Parra (2017) stated that: “most CBTEs started their activities spontaneously and supported by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with human, physical and economic resources, so they could carry out these community projects, principally to promote cultural conservation and authenticity through the provision of community tourism services”. However, the NGOs have not continuously monitored the development of these undertakings, which, in many cases, leads to these centers’ mismanagement or even their extinction.
The paper is structured as follows. After this introduction, Section 1 describes the geographical area (provinces of Pichincha, Napo, and Imbabura). On the other hand, Section 2 describes the research methodology. Section 3 includes the results of the research which are discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 summarizes and concludes.

Description of the Geographic Area

Ecuador is a country located in the continent of South America, on the equatorial line, bound on the north by Colombia, on the south and east by Peru, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, with an area of 283,520 km2. According to the last population census (2010), Ecuador has a population of 14,483.499 inhabitants, distributed among mestizos (71.9%), Afro-Ecuadorians (7.2%), indigenous (7%), whites (6.1%), and montubios (7.4%) [40]. It has a varied climate due to the three geographical areas, which divide the country: Highlands (Andes mountains), Coast (on the Pacific coast), Eastern (Amazon jungle), and the Insular region (Galapagos Islands) [41]. Depending on the area and its altitude, the climates range from tropical to cold, with two defined seasons in all regions, such as wet and dry. Furthermore, it has an extensive mountainous area defined by the Andes Mountains and a large fluvial network crossing all over the territory.
Ecuador is a multi-ethnic and pluricultural country composed by 24 provinces, and 221 cantons; two of which, Quito and Cuenca, have been recognized as Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO. This recognition is also held by the Galapagos Islands, and Sangay National Park. Within the indigenous population, 13 nationalities and 14 villages have been identified [42], with specific culture, tradition, dialect, and economy, located between the three regions, further diversifying the appeal that Ecuador can offer to the world.
Three provinces have been selected for this research: Pichincha, Napo, and Imbabura, because of their proximity to the capital (Quito), where the Universidad Central del Ecuador mainly develops its academic, scientific, and outreach activities. In addition, they are the provinces with a high number of CBTEs established according to the database provided by the FEPTCE.
Pichincha is a province located in the highlands in the central north area of the country (Figure 1), divided into eight cantons, each with its urban and rural parishes. It has an average altitude of 2816 meters above sea level, a varied climate depending on the altitude, and the city of Quito is its capital [43]. It has great flora and fauna diversity and important natural and cultural beauties, making it an attractive province to visit.
Imbabura, like Pichincha province, is located in the highlands in the central north area of the country (Figure 1). The climate types are hot and dry in the Chota Valley passing through to a temperate climate in the cantonal capitals to cold, high in the mountains of the Imbabura and Cotacachi hills, to hot and humid in the Intag and Lita sector. Imbabura is divided into six cantons, Imabura being its capital. It has two important reserves (Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve and Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve) with high biodiversity, represented by numerous plant and animal species and genetic resources. The province also has abundant water and mineral resources [44].
Napo is located partly in the Ecuadorian Amazon region and partly in the Andean slopes, reaching up to the Amazon plains (Figure 1). It is a place marked by high biological diversity, with five cantons, and Tena is its capital. The climate varies according to the diversity of the geoforms present and most of the area is subject to a large annual excess of precipitation. It is a place to learn about the customs and traditions of the Amazonian Quichua people who maintain their way of life [45].
Currently, tourism is considered an important sector inside the sustainable development of territories and is a complicated growing global phenomenon, which provides benefits for both travelers and destinations [46]. According to the research carried out by Cabanilla [14], the CBTEs are located throughout the Ecuadorian zones, with 44.44% of them in the provinces of Imbabura, and Pichincha, in the highlands, as well as Manabí, and Santa Elena. The parishes with the highest concentration of these enterprises are in the province of Napo.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection Instrument

The data were obtained through a collection matrix where the majority of management elements pertaining to administrative and financial processes were considered, such as planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. To do this, a bibliographic review was necessary based on 12 administrative and financial texts [38,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. Based on the information collected, the first model was elaborated obtaining a unified structure of the administrative and financial processes as follows: Planning (12 elements), Organization (12 elements), Direction (7 elements), and Control (13 elements). After that, a validation was carried out with a tourism expert who helped to adapt it to the national reality with the following changes: Organization (7 elements related to registrations within government entities or federations and compliance with tax requirements were increased) and Direction (6 elements related to the specification of the means of promotion were increased). Then, two more validations were applied to the matrix, one with three administrative and financial experts where the matrix was divided by processes, one by the administrative, and the other by the financial for a better diagnosis of the proposed topics (see Figure 2), and the last with FEPTCEs former president, because he knew the CBTEs reality in depth. This authority gave its approval for the use of the instrument. Furthermore, the matrix design had to be simple in such a way that was understandable to those who provided the information in the data collection.

2.2. Matrix Elements

The matrix (Figure 2) was divided into four sections: The first one provides the enterprises’ basic information, which allows us to understand the current CBTE situation, such as community members participation, services offered, and informative data. The second and third sections detail each administrative and financial element of the processes (47 and 9, respectively), each one being basic for the management venture, such as: Strategic planning, marketing research, cost analysis, rules and regulations, process manuals, publicity, client satisfaction and evaluation, financial statements, among other aspects.
The last section contains the validation, which implies a score 1 if the CBTE implements the management element, or 0 otherwise, and it is multiplied by 1 to 3 according to the development of the component. This valuation scale was established because despite enterprises having certain processes in place, these are only partially fulfilled, which is why it was necessary to put a rating ranging from 3 to 1 (Figure 3). Moreover, there is no obligation to present any process element evidence in the data collection.

2.3. Optimal Valuation of Administrative and Financial Processes

The optimal valuation to be obtained is 168 points, distributed into 141 for the administrative process and 27 for the financial process (see Table 1). These values are the result of adding the weight obtained in each element (Figure 3).

2.4. Sample

The specific framework of the research was composed by all active CBTEs in the provinces of Pichincha, Ibambura, and Napo. For that reason, an FEPTCE database was required, which provided information about the different tourism enterprises, and the Tourism Ministry’s legal registry. With that information, an on-site visit was necessary to classify each of them to determine which one accomplished Community-Based Enterprise status, based on the Tourism Ministry’s classification of enterprises within Plandetour 2020 [58]. Finally, the sample has been composed by 28 CBTEs for the present diagnosis: Four in Pichincha, one in Imbabura, and 23 in Napo (Table 2).

2.5. Data Collection and Analysis

The data used in the paper were obtained through an in-depth interview conducted with the leaders of 28 communities according to the design sample, which helped to fill the diagnosis matrix. An in situ visit was performed by three thesis undergraduate students from the Tourism Degree at the Central University of Ecuador [59,60,61] under the supervision of the first author of this manuscript. Each interview had a minimum duration of one hour, which helped to clarify each matrix aspect and understand each community’s reality. The information granted by the community leaders could not be verified by evidences because we were not an official governmental entity. However, the reliability of the answers was reached through control questions in which the interviewer was able to verify the veracity of the answers given by the community leaders.
The tabulation and statistical analysis of the data was done using the SPSS V. 24 statistical software. Different statistical techniques were used. First of all, a descriptive analysis was performed in order to compare the final values of each venture with the optimal value, and so as to understand the financial and administrative reality of the CBTE. Then, Kendall’s Concordance Coefficient and Mann-Whitney U test was applied to see the differences between administrative and financial processes of the CBTEs.

3. Results

3.1. Performance of Administrative and Financial Processes by Province

Figure 4 shows the status of the administrative and financial processes with respect to the optimal values. The three provinces have yet to improve and in many cases establish administrative and financial elements that will help them to manage their enterprises properly.
Figure 5 show the behavior of its sub-processes in the administrative and financial processes of the three provinces studied.

3.2. Performance of Administrative and Financial Processes by CBTE

Table 3 shows the values obtained in the diagnosis of each element of the administrative and financial processes in the provinces of Pichincha and Napo. The province of Imbabura was left out, because the three communities that carry out the community tourism activity are managed by a tour operator.
With respect to the financial processes, as seen in Table 4, the elements corresponding to planning and implementation are mostly implemented, although not 100%. However, the control elements that are indispensable are not considered by the companies, so it is clear that there is no adequate financial control within the CBTEs, which is fundamental within any type of business.
By considering the previous results and when applying the statistical test of Kendall (Table 5 and Table 6), according to the significance obtained, both in the provinces of Pichincha and Napo, there are no differences between the administrative and financial processes among the CBTEs, so a change in these processes should be considered to help improve these enterprises.
According to the significance obtained in the Mann-Whitney statistical U test (Table 7 and Table 8), there are no differences between the provinces of Napo and Pichincha, which reaffirms the information shown above, that the administrative and financial processes within the Community-Based Tourism Enterprises should be improved in some cases, and applied in others.

3.3. Community-Based Tourism Enterprises of Pichincha and Napo Provinces

Finally, Figure 6 shows the results obtained by the 28 CBTEs analyzed in this research.

4. Discussion

4.1. Performance of Administrative and Financial Processes by Province

According to the collected data, it was verified that not all tourism enterprises accomplish the Community-Based Tourism Enterprise status, and that is why a sampling of 28 enterprises for this diagnosis was used, as previously stated. Once the interviewers obtained the necessary information to fill each CBTE’s matrix through the community leader’s information, the data were analyzed, and the results of each province were compared with the optimum values to determine the real administrative and financial behavior inside the CBTEs.
In Imbabura’s case, the CBTE selected for the diagnosis is a tourism operator named Runa Tupary founded in 2000 with FEPTCE active members and Imbabura’s community leaders. This tourism operator organizes tourism activities inside four communities and distributes a small portion of the gains between them. Imbabura is the province which is closest to the optimum values, especially inside the financial process (Figure 5), but it is because this particular venture has a more corporate than communitarian structure, creating a lack of knowledge about the management of economic resources and questioning the efficiency of tourism regulatory bodies. The model used by Runa Tupary is an applicable model, as long as each CBTE manages its own accounting system, a situation that currently does not hold. There are feasible management models such as the creation of a community-based tourism operator, which is responsible for the administrative and financial management of the related enterprises, but these should be applied according to the needs of each community and especially considering the number of families which are part of it.
In the province of Pichincha, four CBTEs were identified: Asociación Camino El Cóndor Cariacu, Asociación Para el Desarrollo de las Comunidades- La Chimba, Camino al Cóndor Paquiestancia, and Corporación Micro-empresaria Yunguilla. The results in these four CBTEs showed that the financial and administrative models are not adequate for theirs needs, and in some cases even because they do not have any model to manage their enterprises. Moreover, as verified, tourism is considered a complementary activity inside their internal economies, so that it is why only a small portion of the budget is invested in tourism services improvement. In addition to this, according to one community leader Vinicio Kilo (2018), CBTEs do not work because there is low interest among the communities’ members and a growth in movement of young people to other provinces.
Napo province is considered one of the provinces where the CBTEs are most established in Ecuador [62]. After the census, 23 centers were selected for the present diagnosis, from which eight have the Tourism Ministry certification as Community-Based Tourism Enterprises. Despite this, Napo becomes the province with the lowest values compared to the optimum values because, as observed, neither the communities nor the Ministry give enough importance to the administrative and financial processes in the enterprise’s constitution. Moreover, there is no training on these topics and that is why some enterprises are in a critical economic situation despite the fact that tourism is the only economic activity inside some communities.

4.2. Performance of Administrative and Financial Processes by CBTE

As formerly stated, the results were obtained by the diagnosis of 28 CBTEs, one in Imabura, four in Pichincha, and 23 in Napo. This section will not discuss the case of Imbabura province, because the situation of these enterprises was already clarified in the previous section.
The results obtained in the matrix show that, within the administrative processes (Table 3), the companies do not consider as a priority nor count on: strategic and operative plans, market surveys, competition landscape. Nor do they implement the guidelines governing the procedures of every enterprise, such as mission, vision, values, policies, etc. Other unnoticed elements are cost analysis and ongoing employee training, which are important elements in a successful business.
Within the implementation elements, it is observed that most of the processes are not developed within the companies, such as implemented procedures, process manual, marketing plan, employee recruitment process, defined jobs, job skills, employee IESS affiliation, employee coordination, supplier analysis, supplier qualification systems. All these processes are important elements, which help the organization towards good performance.
On the other hand, apart from the elements of monitoring and evaluation, which are mostly being implemented within these companies, there are others that are important such as the post-sale relationship and the use of new technologies such as social networks for promotion, which are not being developed. This, in a certain way, leads these companies neither to be known nationally and internationally nor to build a long-term relationship with current customers.
Table 9 and Table 10 show the similarities and differences between the administrative and financial diagnosis of CBTEs.

5. Conclusions

This document contributes to create interest and knowledge about the management of administrative and financial processes of Community-Based Tourism Enterprises, since currently there is no work on this topic. Many researches are focused on studying and analyzing environmental impacts, community participation, anthropological issues, or economic and social impacts of tourism enterprises within communities, but there is no clear interest in knowing how these enterprises are managed and if they do it properly, leaving a gap in knowledge, since business success depends on the adequate management of financial and administrative processes.
Another contribution of this research is to publish the administrative and financial development of the CBTEs with the intention of generating awareness about the importance of implementing these processes in community enterprises. In addition, this paper can help to generate interest in the academy to continue carrying out research of this type, mainly in the community area, which has been left aside.
The methodology used in this research can be used in all types of tourist and/or commercial enterprises of small and medium size. This is because the diagnostic matrix has all the basic administrative and financial elements that every business needs to function correctly. The main limitations exhibited by this type of research is to make contact with the leaders of the community centers and to gain the trust of these leaders in order to obtain as sincere as possible answers when gathering the information included in the diagnostic matrix.
Currently, Community-Based Tourism Enterprises do not have a technical document that allows them to adequately implement the administrative and financial processes in their enterprises, and this is one of the factors that causes some to disappear and others to be in critical condition. In research about China, the results confirm that the financial performance of tourism enterprises can serve as a leading indicator in order to understand the overall business development [63]. It must also be considered that management of tourism operators requires different plans of action because of the peculiarities between these enterprises, especially since problems often arise in the strategic and operational planning processes [64]. The administrative and financial management inside CBTEs should be much more case specific, since there are other important elements to be considered, such as culture and the socio-economic structure of communities, so that this kind of analysis helps to understand how these enterprises manage these processes.
It was identified that a certification granted by the Ministry of Tourism does not guarantee the optimal functioning of these enterprises, because the administrative and financial issues are not considered within the certification requirements.
It is important to mention that currently community-based tourism represents the secondary source of income within the communities as can also be seen in the research carried out by Manyara and Jones [17], Lapeyre [21], and Vargas [31]. Therefore, this activity itself could not maintain the economies of the families because it represents a low economic income, which can be seen in other studies such as the case of Nicaragua carried out by Zapata et al. [26]. This is why community members are mainly engaged in agricultural and livestock activities.
The participation of government entities is important, especially the Ministry of Tourism with permanent training in administrative and financial issues. In this way, the CBTE can have better organization, planning, and implementation in the use of its resources.
It was clear that CBTEs have not designed, and much less implemented, the administrative and financial processes that help them to have proper management of the enterprises, but it could be evidenced that they have considered trainings, academic studies, and the learning of new technologies to improve their quality and to be competitive.
With these results, it is necessary to design a standard administrative and financial model for CBTEs that is easy and simple to use, which considers the main elements of these processes and guarantees good business management. This can be seen in the studies carried out by Salazar et al. [65] and García et al. [66] on the importance of implementing administrative and financial processes within the management and administration of business resources.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.C.J.-M.; data curation, B.C.J.-M., I.P.S.-C., D.G.T.-T., and J.C.N.; formal analysis, B.C.J.-M.; investigation, B.C.J.-M.; methodology, B.C.J.-M.; supervision, E.A.C.-V., M.J.M.T., and S.C.R.; Writing—original draft, B.C.J.-M.; Writing—review and editing, B.C.J.-M., E.A.C.-V., M.J.M.T., and S.C.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grant number DER2016-76053R.


We are very grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions offered by two anonymous referees.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Stange, J.; Brown, D.; Hilbruner, R.; Hawkins, D.E. Tourism Destination Management: Achieving Sustainable and Competitive Results; International Institute for Tourism Studies, The George Washington University: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. United World Nation. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Organización de las Naciones Unidas. Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas—Desarrollo Sostenible. Organización de las Naciones Unidas. 2012. Available online: (accessed on 3 March 2018).
  4. United Nations Environment Programme; United Nation World Tourism Organization. Making Tourism More Sustainable. A Guide for Policy Makers; World Tourism Organization Publications: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  5. Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2017–2021 ‘Toda una Vida’; Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo: Quito, Ecuador, 2017.
  6. Lalander, R.; Cuestas-Caza, J. Sumak Kawsay y Buen-Vivir en Ecuador. In Conocimientos Ancestrales y Procesos de Desarrollo. Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador, Chapter 1; Ana, D., Delgado, V., Eds.; Observatorio de Conflictos Socio-Ambientales/OBSA, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja: Loja, Ecuador, 2017; pp. 30–64. [Google Scholar]
  7. Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. Constitución de la República del Ecuador; Asamblea Nacional Constituyente: Quito, Ecuador, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  8. World Tourisms Organization. Global and Regional Tourism Performance. 2020. Available online: (accessed on 17 April 2020).
  9. Ministerio de Turismo del Ecuador. Turismo en Cifras—Portal Servicios MINTUR. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 6 May 2019).
  10. World Travel and Tourism Council. Economic Impact 2018 Ecuador; World Travel and Tourism Council: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. Turner, R.; Freiermuth, E. Travel and Tourism, Economic Impact 2017 Ecuador; World Travel & Tourism Council: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  12. Flores, Y.; Borborema, F.; Ricardo, A. Turismo Rural Comunitario. Gestión familiar y estrategias de consolidación en el Estado de Santa Catarina (Brasil). Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo 2016, 25, 576–596. [Google Scholar]
  13. Asociación de Estados del Caribe (ACS-AEC). El Turismo Comunitario. 2012. Available online: (accessed on 21 March 2018).
  14. Cabanilla, E. Configuración Socio-Espacial del Turismo Comunitario. Caso República del Ecuador. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  15. Federación Plurinacional de Turismo Comunitario del Ecuador. Manual de Calidad Para la Gestión del Turismo Comunitario del Ecuador; Federación Plurinacional de Turismo Comunitario del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mtapuri, O.; Giampiccoli, A.; Spershott, C. Community-based tourism research in academic journals: A numerical analysis. Afr. J. Phys. Health Educ. Recreat. Danc. 2015, 21, 688–705. [Google Scholar]
  17. Manyara, G.; Jones, E. Community-based tourism enterprises development in Kenya: An exploration of their potential as avenues of poverty reduction. J. Sustain. Tour. 2007, 15, 628–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Steinicke, E.; Neuburger, M. The Impact of Community-based Afro-alpine Tourism on Regional Development: A Case Study in the Mt Kenya Region. Mt. Res. Dev. 2012, 32, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Juma, L.O.; Khademi-Vidra, A. Community-Based Tourism and Sustainable Development of Rural Regions in Kenya; Perceptions of the Citizenry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  20. Stone, L.S.; Stone, T.M. Community-based tourism enterprises: Challenges and prospects for community participation; Khama Rhino Sanctuary Trust, Botswana. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 19, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lapeyre, R. Community-based tourism as a sustainable solution to maximise impacts locally? The Tsiseb Conservancy case, Namibia. Dev. S. Afr. 2010, 27, 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tamir, M. Challenges and Opportunities of Community based Tourism Development in Awi Zone: A Case Study in Guagusa and Banja Woredas, Ethiopia. J. Tour. Hosp. Sports 2015, 11, 50–78. [Google Scholar]
  23. Teshome, E.; Shita, F.; Abebe, F. Current Community Based Ecotourism Practices in Menz Guassa Community Conservation Area, Ethiopia. Available online: (accessed on 16 March 2020).
  24. Boonzaaier, C.C. Towards a Community-Based Integrated Institutional Framework for Ecotourism Management: The Case of the Masebe Nature Reserve, Limpopo Province of South Africa. J. Anthropol. 2012, 2012, 530643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  25. Spenceley, A.; Rylance, A.; Nanabhay, S.; van der Watt, H. Operational Guidelines for Community-Based Tourism in South Africa; Department of Tourism: Pretoria, South Africa, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zapata, M.J.; Hall, C.M.; Lindo, P.; Vanderschaeghe, M. Can community-based tourism contribute to development and poverty alleviation? Lessons from Nicaragua. Curr. Issues Tour. 2011, 14, 725–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jones, B.O. Community-Based Tourism: An Exploratory Study of Barbado. Ph.D. Thesis, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  28. Brittar Rodrigues, C.; Prideaux, B. A management model to assist local communities developing community based tourism ventures: A case study from the Brazilian Amazon. J. Ecotour. 2018, 17, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yanes, A.; Zielinski, S.; Diaz Cano, M.; Kim, S. Community-Based Tourism in Developing Countries: A Framework for Policy Evaluation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  30. Okazaki, E. A Community-Based Tourism Model: Its Conception and Use. J. Sustain. Tour. 2008, 16, 511–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vargas, C.M. Community development and microenterprises: Fostering sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2000, 8, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Blackstock, K. A critical look at community based tourism. Community Dev. J. 2005, 40, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dodds, R.; Ali, A.; Galaski, K. Mobilizing knowledge: Determining key elements for success and pitfalls in developing community-based tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 21, 1547–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mtapuri, O.; Giampiccoli, A. Towards a comprehensive model of community-based tourism development. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 2016, 98, 154–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Global Sustainable Tourism Council. Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria FOR Hotels and Tour Operators Suggested Performance Indicators; Global Sustainable Tourism Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ubidia, D.; Aguas, W. Manual de Buenas Prácticas de Turismo Comunitario; Red Solidaria de Turismo de la Ribera del Río Napo—“REST”: Quito, Ecuador, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  37. Robbins, S.; Coulter, M. Administración; Pearson: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  38. D´Alessio, F. Administración de las Operaciones Productivas. Conceptos, Casos y Ejercicios Razonados; Pearson: Lima, Perú, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gajdošík, T.; Gajdošíková, Z.; Maráková, V.; Flagestad, A. Destination structure revisited in view of the community and corporate model. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2017, 24, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Villacis, B.; Carrillo, D. País Atrevido: La Nueva Cara Sociodemográfica del Ecuador; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC): Quito, Ecuador, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ministerio de Turismo del Ecuador. Ecuador Megadiverso y Único en el Centro del Mundo. 2014. Available online: (accessed on 24 September 2018).
  42. Chisaguano, S. La Población Indígena del Ecuador; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC): Quito, Ecuador, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  43. Prefectura de Pichincha. Información General LELL. 2017. Available online: (accessed on 16 October 2018).
  44. Prefectura de Imbabura. Prefectura de Imbabura—Datos Generales. 2018. Available online: (accessed on 16 March 2020).
  45. Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado Provincia de Napo. Gobierno Autónomo Descentralizado Provincia de Napo- Historia. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 16 March 2020).
  46. Bosak, K.; McCool, S. The Way Forward. In Reframing Sustainable Tourism. Environmental Challenges and Solutions; McCool, S., Bosak, K., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 243–250. [Google Scholar]
  47. Moyano Fuentes, J.; Bruque Cámara, S.; Maqueira Marín, J.M.; Fidalgo Bautista, F.Á.; Martínez Jurado, P.J. Administración de Empresas. Un Enfoque Teórico y Práctico, 1st ed.; Pearson: Madrid, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lamb, C.W.; Hair, J.F.J.; McDaniel, C. Marketing, 11th ed.; Cengage Learning: Mexico City, Mexico, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mullins, J.W.; Walker, O.C., Jr.; Boyd, H.W.; Larréché, J.-C. Administración de Marketing, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill Interamericana: Mexico City, Mexico, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sánchez Delgado, M. Administración 1, 1st ed.; Grupo Editorial Patria: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  51. Gitman, L.J.; Zutter, C.J. Principios de Administración Financiera, 12th ed.; Pearson: Mexico City, Mexico, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  52. Krajewski, L.J.; Ritzman, L.P.; Malhotra, M.K. Administración de Operaciones. Procesos y Cadena de Suministro, 10th ed.; Pearson: Mexico City, Mexico, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  53. Luna González, A.C. Administración Estratégica, 1st ed.; Grupo Editorial Patria: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hernández Ortiz, M.J. Administración de Empresas, 1st ed.; Ediciones Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  55. Dagoberto Ocampo, E. Administración Financiera, 2nd ed.; Nueva Legislación: Bogotá, Colombia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  56. Fuentes Fuentes, M.M.; Cordón, E. Fundamentos de Dirección y Administración de Empresas, 2nd ed.; Ediciones Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  57. Gutiérrez, Ó. Fundamentos de Administración de Empresas, 1st ed.; Ediciones Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ministerio de Turismo del Ecuador. PLANDETUR 2020; Ministerio de Turismo del Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2007.
  59. Sánchez Cueva, I.P. Diagnóstico Administrativo y Financiero de los Centros de Turismo Comunitario (CTCs) de la Provincia de Pichincha, Ecuador. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  60. Tinizaray Tituaña, D.G. Diagnóstico Administrativo y Financiero de los Centros de Turismo Comunitario (CTCs) de la Provincia de Napo, Ecuador. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  61. Narváez Idrovo, J.C. Diagnóstico Administrativo y Financiero de los Centros de Turismo Comunitario (CTCs) de la Provincia de Imbabura, Ecuador. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  62. Cabanilla, E.; Chontasi, D. Análisis cualitativo del turismo comunitario en el Ecuador. In Memorias Científicas del Décimo Primer Congreso Internacional: El Proceso de Desarrollo Turístico en el Ecuador y América Latina, Avances y Retos; Escuela Politécnica del Chimborazo (ESPOCH): Riobamba Canton, Ecuador, 2007; pp. 149–163. [Google Scholar]
  63. Chen, M. Interactions between business conditions and financial performance of tourism firms: Evidence from China and Taiwan. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 188–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wöber, K.W. Information supply in tourism management by marketing decision support systems. Tour. Manag. 2003, 24, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Salazar, D.; Díaz, P.; Benalcázar, L.; Acuña, J. Gestión administrativa en establecimientos de alimentos y bebidas ubicados en el sector de La Ronda del centro histórico de la ciudad de Quito (Ecuador). Revista Interamericana de Ambiente y Turismo 2018, 14, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. García Aguilar, J.; Galarza Torres, S.; Altamirano Salazar, A. Importancia de la administración eficiente del capital de trabajo en las Pymes. Ciencia Unemi 2017, 10, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Figure 1. Location of Pichincha, Imbabura, and Napo (Ecuador). Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 1. Location of Pichincha, Imbabura, and Napo (Ecuador). Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 07123 g001
Figure 2. Diagnosis matrix for administrative and financial processes. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 2. Diagnosis matrix for administrative and financial processes. Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 07123 g002
Figure 3. Valuation scale of the matrix for administrative and financial processes. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 3. Valuation scale of the matrix for administrative and financial processes. Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 07123 g003
Figure 4. Assessment of administrative and financial processes by province. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 4. Assessment of administrative and financial processes by province. Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 07123 g004
Figure 5. Assessment of each element of administrative and financial processes. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 5. Assessment of each element of administrative and financial processes. Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 07123 g005
Figure 6. Evaluation of administrative and financial processes of each CBTE. Source: Own elaboration.
Figure 6. Evaluation of administrative and financial processes of each CBTE. Source: Own elaboration.
Sustainability 12 07123 g006
Table 1. Optimal values of the matrix for administrative and financial processes. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 1. Optimal values of the matrix for administrative and financial processes. Source: Own elaboration.
Optimum Values
Administrative ProcessesFinancial Processes
Structural PhaseOperational Phase
Table 2. Identified Community-Based Tourism Enterprises (CBTEs) from databases. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 2. Identified Community-Based Tourism Enterprises (CBTEs) from databases. Source: Own elaboration.
ProvinceFEPTCE DatabaseMintur 2018 Legal RegistryActive CBTEs for the Research
Table 3. Assessment of each element of administrative process by CBTE. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 3. Assessment of each element of administrative process by CBTE. Source: Own elaboration.
Administrative Process Frequency
Planning ElementsPichincha n = 4Napo n = 23
Philosophy and values11 25 117
Mission and vision2 241117
Objectives, strategies and policies 13 32117
Strategic plan2 2 10391
Operational plan 12110391
Specific projects 3131136
Institutional swot1 218 87
Market survey2 1117 51
Competitive landscape1 2113 91
Costing analysis1 2115 71
Training scheme11 23 191
Implementation ElementsPichincha n = 4Napo n = 23
MINTUR certificate3 116 7
Register of companies’ superintendence4 18 32
Registration other 3110 121
General regulations 223 515
Established procedures 2217 24
Process manual 2216 25
Marketing plan11 215 71
Strategic alliances 2 2 1013
Member organization, federation, others1 125 810
Recruitment process employees3 123
Defined jobs 2223
Job skills1 2123
IESS affiliation employees2 1122 1
Employee coordination 3113 91
Supplier analysis3 1 20 21
Supplier qualification system2 1120 21
Monitoring ElementsPichincha n = 4Napo n = 23
Decision making 22 2912
Motivational programme1 218 132
Communication system 223 182
Post-sale relationship2 216 52
Permanent advertising 227 142
Web page2 2155 3
Social networks2 210 67
Operating agreements2 1115 44
Radio4 9 104
Television4 8 123
Leaflets, diptychs4 9 104
Price control2 117 142
Promotion campaigns1 1251134
Evaluation ElementsPichincha n = 4Napo n = 23
Performance evaluation of employees11115 810
Monitoring and evaluation of strategic plan2 1151035
Monitoring and evaluation of operational plan 3111534
Customer satisfaction survey11119 122
Equipment maintenance system11 24 109
Infrastructure maintenance system11 221911
Quality assurance 2113 191
Table 4. Assessment of each element of financial process by CBTE. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 4. Assessment of each element of financial process by CBTE. Source: Own elaboration.
Financial Process Frequency
Planning ElementsPichincha n = 4Napo n = 23
Established Budgets1 126 143
Implementation ElementsPichincha n = 4Napo n = 23
Recording of income and expenditure 11221164
Invoicing system 1122 165
Tax registration 112 185
Control ElementsPichincha n = 4Napo n = 23
Initial situation 11211552
Status of results 11211552
End state 11211552
Trial balance 11211552
Financial Indexes1 1211552
Table 5. Administrative process Kendall’s W statistical test. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 5. Administrative process Kendall’s W statistical test. Source: Own elaboration.
Administrative ElementsPichincha Province n = 4Napo Province n = 23
Administrative Process0.4580.431
Table 6. Financial process Kendall’s W statistical test. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 6. Financial process Kendall’s W statistical test. Source: Own elaboration.
Financial ElementsPichincha Province n = 4Napo Province n = 23
Implementation 0.130
Financial Process0.250.567
Table 7. Administrative process statistical test. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 7. Administrative process statistical test. Source: Own elaboration.
Administrative ElementsU of Mann-Whitney aSig. Asymptotic (Bilateral)
Administrative Process41.0000.712
a Pooling variable: PROVINCE (Pichincha and Napo).
Table 8. Financial process statistical test. Source: Own elaboration.
Table 8. Financial process statistical test. Source: Own elaboration.
Financial ElementsU of Mann-Whitney aSig. Asymptotic (Bilateral)
Financial Process34.0000.352
a Pooling variable: PROVINCE (Pichincha and Napo).
Table 9. Similarities and differences of the administrative processes of the 28 CBTEs studied.
Table 9. Similarities and differences of the administrative processes of the 28 CBTEs studied.
In 99% of the diagnosed communities, tourism is a secondary activity within the economic development of communities.7% of CBTEs have skills and abilities like speaking foreign languages.
In 27 communities, community members oversee the organization, planning, direction, and control of the tourism enterprise.1% of CBTEs have diversified tourist products and services available to tourists.
In all cases, the decisions of the venture are taken in a general assembly by all community members.8% of communities delegate business management to professionals who know the subject. And another 8% are supporting their inhabitants to become professional in administrative and tourism issues.
In 99% of cases, there is no continuous training in administrative issues.30% of CBTEs are registered in the Ministry of Tourism. The others argue that the complicated paperwork and requirements complicate registration with this government body.
Almost 80% of CBTEs have a continuous change of the person in charge of the administration of the venture, causing a break in the continuity of its management.In the province of Napo, five of the 23 CBTEs are entirely managed by women of the community.
Table 10. Similarities and differences of the financial processes of the 28 CBTEs studied.
Table 10. Similarities and differences of the financial processes of the 28 CBTEs studied.
90% of ventures have a basic financial system (mainly income and expense recording).Less than 8% of ventures have the financial processes fully in place. It is important to emphasize that this is because the management of the venture is in the hands of people outside the community who have the knowledge and training in these issues.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jaramillo-Moreno, B.C.; Sánchez-Cueva, I.P.; Tinizaray-Tituana, D.G.; Narváez, J.C.; Cabanilla-Vásconez, E.A.; Muñoz Torrecillas, M.J.; Cruz Rambaud, S. Diagnosis of Administrative and Financial Processes in Community-Based Tourism Enterprises in Ecuador. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7123.

AMA Style

Jaramillo-Moreno BC, Sánchez-Cueva IP, Tinizaray-Tituana DG, Narváez JC, Cabanilla-Vásconez EA, Muñoz Torrecillas MJ, Cruz Rambaud S. Diagnosis of Administrative and Financial Processes in Community-Based Tourism Enterprises in Ecuador. Sustainability. 2020; 12(17):7123.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jaramillo-Moreno, Bertha Cecilia, Irene Paola Sánchez-Cueva, Dayana Gisell Tinizaray-Tituana, Juan Carlos Narváez, Enrique Armando Cabanilla-Vásconez, María José Muñoz Torrecillas, and Salvador Cruz Rambaud. 2020. "Diagnosis of Administrative and Financial Processes in Community-Based Tourism Enterprises in Ecuador" Sustainability 12, no. 17: 7123.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop