Beyond the Guestroom: Financial and Promotional Dimensions of Eco-Friendly Rural Hospitality in Agricultural Landscapes

Abstract

This study explores sustainable rural tourism entrepreneurship within the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) cooperative network in Austria, offering an integrated model that unites financial, social, environmental, institutional, and marketing dimensions. Employing exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) on data from 393 farm-based accommodation stakeholders, this research identifies sustainable entrepreneurship as comprising six interconnected dimensions: Economic Resilience and Diversification, Sociocultural Integration, Environmental and Regional Commitment, Market Visibility and Strategic Communication, Quality Assurance and Institutional Support, and Perceived Value and Branding. This multidimensional and hierarchically structured framework reflects the complex yet coherent nature of sustainability-driven entrepreneurship in cooperative tourism networks. The findings confirm the multidimensional nature of sustainable entrepreneurship and support the hypothesized structural relationships. The UaB network is presented as a transferable model that demonstrates how cooperative frameworks can enhance sustainability, regional identity, and rural revitalization, offering valuable insights and practical guidance for rural regions in the Western Balkans, where economic challenges, depopulation, and underdeveloped tourism infrastructure prevail. By illustrating a successful cooperative approach rooted in sustainability and regional identity, this study contributes to policy-making aimed at fostering resilient, culturally rich, and environmentally responsible rural tourism entrepreneurship in transitioning contexts.

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, rural tourism has undergone a significant transformation, redefining agricultural landscapes as vibrant arenas of sustainability, experience-based hospitality, and entrepreneurial innovation [1,2,3]. At the forefront of this transformation is eco-friendly rural hospitality, a form of tourism that aligns ecological responsibility with authentic rural lifestyles [4]. This approach emphasizes environmentally conscious practices, locally sourced food, heritage conservation, and meaningful interactions between hosts and guests [5]. By integrating tourism with traditional agricultural practices, rural hospitality contributes not only to economic vitality but also to cultural and environmental regeneration [6]. According to Shitile et al. [7], sustainable rural tourism entrepreneurship is understood as a multidimensional construct, encompassing economic, sociocultural, environmental, institutional, and communicative domains. From an economic perspective, it reflects the capacity of rural entrepreneurs to diversify income sources, ensure financial sustainability, and create resilient, adaptive business models [8]. Entrepreneurship in this context is not defined solely by profit maximization, but by the integration of income diversification, long-term planning, and value-added innovation, all of which strengthen the viability of small-scale rural enterprises [9,10].

Rural tourism is recognized as a mechanism for sociocultural preservation and exchange [11]. Theoretical frameworks emphasize its role in sustaining intangible heritage, promoting intercultural dialog, and reinforcing community identity [12]. Hosts function as stewards of cultural landscapes, offering immersive experiences that foster visitor learning, appreciation for local customs, and deeper engagement with rural ways of life [13]. The concept of lifestyle entrepreneurship is particularly relevant here, capturing the way rural hosts merge personal values with professional roles to offer meaningful, socially embedded hospitality services [14,15]. From an environmental standpoint, eco-friendly rural hospitality aligns closely with the principles of ecological stewardship and place-based sustainability [16,17]. The theoretical literature highlights the significance of environmental ethics, land attachment, and intergenerational responsibility in shaping tourism practices that prioritize biodiversity, renewable energy, and sustainable land use [18,19,20]. These environmental commitments are not only practical but deeply value-driven, rooted in a long-standing rural ethos of caretaking and ecological balance [21,22].

Institutional theory underscores the importance of supportive governance structures, Quality Assurance systems, and cooperative networks in enhancing rural tourism outcomes [23,24,25]. Certification schemes, continuous professional development, and public-private partnerships provide a framework for capacity-building and standardization, enabling rural entrepreneurs to operate within a coordinated and trusted system [26,27,28]. These institutional arrangements contribute to the professionalization of rural hospitality and reinforce its credibility in the tourism marketplace [29]. Equally central is the dimension of Strategic Communication and destination branding, which is addressed in tourism marketing theory through concepts such as Perceived Value, authenticity, and brand image [30]. In eco-friendly rural tourism, promotional strategies are deeply intertwined with storytelling, guest experience design, and digital outreach [31,32,33]. A compelling and consistent brand that reflects sustainability values not only attracts ethically minded visitors but also supports premium pricing, guest loyalty, and positive destination perception [34]. Together, these theoretical dimensions reveal sustainable rural tourism entrepreneurship as an integrated, value-driven, and future-oriented model. By uniting Economic Resilience, cultural vitality, environmental ethics, institutional coordination, and strategic marketing, rural hospitality enterprises are positioned not only as tourism providers but as key actors in the sustainable development of agricultural regions.

Despite the breadth of the existing research on sustainable rural tourism [35,36,37,38,39] and agritourism [40,41,42], there remains a significant gap: most studies treat financial, social, environmental, institutional, and marketing dimensions in isolation or emphasize primarily economic outcomes. This fragmentation limits our understanding of how these components function holistically within real-world tourism systems. There is thus a need for integrative models that conceptualize sustainable entrepreneurship as a multidimensional construct rooted in stakeholder realities and collaborative frameworks. This study addresses that gap through an empirical investigation of the “Urlaub am Bauernhof” (UaB) network, a nationally coordinated Austrian agritourism association that promotes certified, sustainability-oriented farm stays. The UaB model is one of Europe’s most successful examples of cooperative rural tourism, uniting thousands of farms under common standards of quality, authenticity, and ecological responsibility. Our approach is innovative in that it uses a robust exploratory factor analysis combined with thematic clustering grounded in stakeholder discourse to reveal a single, overarching factor of sustainable entrepreneurship that nonetheless contains distinct, interrelated thematic clusters.

The first cluster, Economic Resilience and Diversification, includes elements such as income diversification, financial sustainability, revenue stability, and economic adaptation. The second cluster, Sociocultural Integration, captures visitor education, heritage preservation, cultural exchange, and lifestyle sharing. The third cluster, Environmental and Regional Commitment, reflects environmental pride, ecological awareness, sustainability demand, regional development, and future commitment. The fourth cluster, Market Visibility and Strategic Communication, involves property visibility, audience reach, collective marketing, marketing efficiency, and promotional quality. The fifth cluster, Quality Assurance and Institutional Support, relates to quality certification, professional development, and policy incentives. Finally, the sixth cluster, Perceived Value and Branding, encompasses brand image and price premium. This dual-level analytical framework captures both the unity and complexity of sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism contexts.

The main hypothesis (H) guiding this research is: The overarching construct of sustainable entrepreneurship is a multidimensional factor formed by six interrelated dimensions that together capture the economic, social, environmental, institutional, and market-oriented foundations of sustainable rural tourism. The subject of this study is the perception and practice of sustainable entrepreneurship within agritourism, as understood and articulated by stakeholders operating under the cooperative rural tourism model of Urlaub am Bauernhof. The aim is to investigate how sustainable entrepreneurship is conceptualized and practiced among rural tourism stakeholders affiliated with the UaB network in Austria. By analyzing the underlying motivational, strategic, environmental, and institutional dimensions of their engagement in agritourism, this study seeks to identify a coherent model of sustainability-driven rural entrepreneurship. The findings of this research offer valuable insights for countries in transition, such as Serbia, where rural areas face structural economic challenges, depopulation, and underdeveloped tourism infrastructure. By highlighting a successful cooperative model rooted in sustainability, Quality Assurance, and regional identity, the Urlaub am Bauernhof experience provides a transferable framework for rural development. The results serve as a basis for designing similar agritourism initiatives in transitional contexts, supporting policies that integrate entrepreneurship, cultural heritage, environmental stewardship, and collective branding as pillars of rural revitalization.

2. Literature Review

Sustainable rural tourism entrepreneurship represents a dynamic model of development that harmonizes economic viability [43], cultural continuity [44], environmental stewardship [45], and institutional cooperation within agricultural landscapes [46]. This model has evolved far beyond conventional hospitality, positioning rural hosts as multifaceted entrepreneurs who simultaneously manage farms, offer immersive guest experiences, and contribute to regional development [47]. At its core, sustainable rural hospitality integrates financial innovation with ecological ethics and cultural authenticity, fostering resilient micro-enterprises that align deeply with local values and global sustainability trends [48]. These foundational insights provide the following conceptual basis for our study’s central hypothesis: that sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism is a multidimensional construct composed of six interrelated but empirically distinct domains. One of the defining features of this form of entrepreneurship is Economic Resilience, which is underpinned by income diversification, revenue stability, and adaptive business strategies [49]. By combining accommodation with value-added agricultural production, experiential tourism, wellness services, and artisanal goods, rural hosts develop synergistic business models that not only buffer against seasonality and market volatility but also enable long-term financial sustainability and intergenerational continuity [50]. Financial health, in this context, is not solely measured by profit but by the capacity to invest in quality, innovation, and ecological responsibility [50]. This dimension corresponds to the first thematic cluster identified in our empirical model—Economic Resilience and Diversification—and is tested through Subhypothesis 1.

Equally essential is the role of Sociocultural Integration, wherein rural tourism serves as a space of cultural exchange, heritage preservation, and lifestyle sharing [51]. Guests participate in the rhythms of rural life—engaging in local food systems, traditional crafts, and sustainable living practices—while hosts act as informal educators and cultural ambassadors [52]. This two-way engagement fosters mutual understanding, reinforces regional identity, and strengthens the social fabric of rural communities [53]. Authenticity, in this sense, is not curated but lived, and it forms a key component of the visitor experience [54]. This literature underpins Subhypothesis 2, focused on Sociocultural Integration, which this study operationalizes by measuring stakeholders’ commitment to cultural exchange, visitor education, and community cohesion.

Environmental and Regional Commitment further elevates the value of sustainable rural hospitality [55]. Rural entrepreneurs demonstrate high levels of ecological awareness and environmental pride, often implementing organic practices, renewable energy systems, and biodiversity conservation initiatives [56]. These practices are not only aligned with guest expectations but emerge from a deep-rooted ethos of land stewardship and future-oriented thinking [57]. Sustainability is embraced as a guiding principle, shaping everyday decisions and strategic visions. Moreover, rural tourism is embedded within regional development frameworks, supporting local economies, reinforcing territorial cohesion, and contributing to climate-adaptive rural transitions. This theoretical grounding directly informs Subhypothesis 3 on Environmental and Regional Commitment, which is examined through indicators of environmental ethics, sustainability orientation, and development vision.

In the contemporary tourism landscape, Market Visibility and Strategic Communication are critical enablers of competitiveness [58]. Rural hosts increasingly engage with digital platforms, collaborative branding, and content marketing to reach diverse visitor segments and articulate the experiential and ethical value of their offerings [59]. Visibility is cultivated through authentic storytelling, collective campaigns, and high-quality promotional materials that align with sustainability-oriented demand [60]. In this framework, marketing is not merely a technical function but a means of conveying values and building long-term relationships with conscientious guests [61]. This literature informs Subhypothesis 4 on Market Visibility and Strategic Communication, highlighting the importance of digital engagement, promotional quality, and audience reach as measurable constructs.

Quality Assurance and institutional support constitute the structural backbone of sustainable rural entrepreneurship [62]. Certification systems, continuous professional development, and policy incentives enhance service standards, reinforce trust, and facilitate knowledge exchange [63]. These mechanisms contribute to the professionalization of rural hospitality, empowering hosts to operate at the intersection of tradition and innovation [64,65]. Institutional cooperation, whether through cooperatives, public programs, or tourism boards, plays a central role in scaling best practices and ensuring equitable access to resources and opportunities [66]. This aligns with Subhypothesis 5, which tests the significance of Quality Assurance and Institutional Support in enabling sustainable entrepreneurship within cooperative frameworks, like the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) network.

Finally, Perceived Value and Branding reflect the economic and symbolic capital embedded in sustainable rural hospitality [67]. A strong brand image—rooted in authenticity, responsibility, and quality—enables hosts to attract discerning visitors and command premium prices [68]. Sustainability becomes a distinctive market proposition, appreciated by guests not only as a feature of the stay but as a meaningful expression of ethical travel [69]. This Perceived Value reinforces guest loyalty, enhances reputation, and elevates the entire destination’s image as a model of responsible tourism [70,71]. This body of literature underpins Subhypothesis 6 on Perceived Value and Branding, with empirical indicators focusing on brand strength, ethical positioning, and pricing strategy. Altogether, these dimensions form an integrated and future-facing paradigm of sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism. When financial, social, environmental, institutional, and communicative capacities align, rural hospitality becomes a powerful catalyst for place-based development, experiential enrichment, and regenerative growth. The proposed model incorporates sustainable entrepreneurship as a second-order latent construct, which is manifested through six first-order dimensions. Each of these dimensions is theoretically grounded and empirically operationalized through stakeholder-derived indicators. The model is anchored in stakeholder perceptions and contextualized within the Urlaub am Bauernhof network, providing both theoretical depth and applied relevance. This second-order structure reflects the complexity of sustainable rural tourism entrepreneurship while offering a coherent analytical framework suitable for replication in other contexts.

3. Materials and Methods

This study investigates the structure and characteristics of sustainable rural tourism entrepreneurship as perceived by 393 stakeholders affiliated with the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) network in Austria. Established to promote sustainable rural livelihoods and preserve regional identity, the UaB model represents a structured, state-supported form of agritourism grounded in cooperative principles. Its standardized certification, marketing platform, and institutional backing make it an exemplary case of integrated rural tourism entrepreneurship. As such, the UaB network provides a rich empirical setting for analyzing the multidimensional structure of sustainable entrepreneurship and offers findings that may be transferable to rural contexts across Europe and beyond—particularly in regions facing similar structural challenges, such as the Western Balkans. The UaB network includes over 9000 certified farms, which served as the total population (N) for this study. The sample size was determined based on the formula provided by Ahmed [72], using a confidence level of 95%, a margin of error of 5%, and assuming maximum variability, where p = 0.5 and q = 0.5 (i.e., p + q = 1.0). This assumption ensures the most conservative estimate, yielding the largest required sample size for a given confidence level and margin of error. These stakeholders are active providers of agritourism services, operating farm-based accommodations and related hospitality offers across various rural regions of the country. The analysis aimed to explore the underlying motivations, strategic orientations, and values that shape their engagement with sustainable tourism practices.

Data were collected through a structured questionnaire consisting of 40 items, each measured on a 5-point Likert scale. These items were developed through an extensive review of the theoretical and empirical literature on rural entrepreneurship, sustainable tourism, and cooperative networks [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71], ensuring strong conceptual alignment with the following six latent constructs in our proposed model: Economic Resilience and Diversification, Sociocultural Integration, Environmental and Regional Commitment, Market Visibility and Strategic Communication, Quality Assurance and Institutional Support, and Perceived Value and Branding. Each latent construct was operationalized through multiple indicators, reflecting the core aspects of sustainable rural entrepreneurship: Economic Resilience and Diversification captures the financial strategies rural entrepreneurs employ to sustain their businesses. Example items include “I started offering agritourism services to diversify my household income” (Income Diversification) and “Agritourism allows me to sustain my farm financially in the long term” (Financial Sustainability). These were theoretically grounded in studies emphasizing income diversification and adaptive business models in rural contexts [48,49,50]. Sociocultural Integration reflects the social and cultural dimensions of rural hospitality. Example items include “I am motivated by the opportunity to educate visitors about rural and agricultural life” (Visitor Education) and “I see agritourism as a way to preserve my family’s traditions and heritage” (Heritage Preservation). These align with the research on cultural sustainability, host-guest exchange, and heritage preservation in rural tourism [51,52,53,54]. Environmental and Regional Commitment measures entrepreneurs’ ecological awareness and regional development orientation. Example items include “I feel proud to be part of a network that promotes eco-conscious tourism” (Environmental Pride) and “I plan to continue offering agritourism services over the next 10 years” (Future Commitment). These items reflect theoretical insights on environmental stewardship and place-based sustainability [55,56,57]. Market Visibility and Strategic Communication assesses how stakeholders engage with marketing and promotion to enhance competitiveness. Example items include “To improve the visibility and recognition of my property” (Property Visibility) and “To benefit from collective marketing (website, catalogs, and tourism fairs)” (Collective Marketing). These are informed by tourism marketing theory and cooperative branding literature [58,59,60,61]. Quality Assurance and Institutional Support captures structural factors that strengthen rural tourism enterprises. Example items include “To be associated with a trusted quality label” (Quality Certification) and “To access training, support, or networking opportunities” (Professional Development). These indicators reflect institutional theory and studies on certification systems and professionalization [62,63,64,65,66]. Perceived Value and Branding reflects the symbolic and market value of sustainability-oriented hospitality. Example items include “To strengthen the professional image of my tourism activities” (Brand Image) and “Being part of UaB has helped me increase my prices due to perceived quality” (Price Premium). These were grounded in Branding and Perceived Value literature in sustainable tourism [67,68,69,70,71]. The constructs were first derived conceptually from the literature and then refined through pilot testing with a subset of UaB stakeholders to ensure relevance and clarity.

To contextualize the experience and stability of the stakeholders surveyed, respondents were asked how long their organizations have been operating at the current destination. The results show a diverse range of operational longevity. A total of 29.8% of organizations reported having been active for more than 10 years, indicating a strong presence of long-established actors in the tourism landscape. Another 26.0% have been operating for 6 to 10 years, while 27.5% reported a presence of 1 to 5 years, suggesting a significant proportion of relatively new but developing enterprises. Notably, 16.8% of respondents indicated that their organization had been active for less than one year, reflecting a wave of recent entrepreneurial activity and potentially emerging entrants in the sector. This distribution underscores a balanced mix of experienced and new stakeholders, which may have implications for innovation adoption, policy responsiveness, and capacity for sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism development.

This study was conducted over a one-year period from June 2024 to June 2025, during which the authors made multiple visits to the study destinations to carry out field research. Data collection was carried out in various regions of Austria where the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) cooperative network is active, including Styria, Salzburg, and Tyrol, ensuring geographical and contextual diversity. A mixed data collection approach was employed, combining face-to-face interviews to ensure direct communication and contextual understanding, with an online questionnaire distributed via email and a web link. This approach enabled the inclusion of a broader range of stakeholders, including those not physically accessible during field visits. The target population consisted of farm owners and operators affiliated with the UaB network who offer certified rural tourism accommodation. The sampling frame was constructed using the official UaB member registry, from which a list of certified rural tourism providers was obtained. From this registry, a random selection of potential respondents was contacted, while additional participants were recruited during field visits using a purposive strategy to ensure the inclusion of a diverse range of farm sizes, service types, and regional characteristics. This dual approach enhanced both the representativeness and contextual depth of the sample. The development of the questionnaire was guided by a comprehensive review of the literature on sustainable rural tourism, entrepreneurship, and cooperative hospitality systems. A total of 40 statements were initially constructed to reflect a broad spectrum of motivations, strategic decisions, values, and institutional factors relevant to agritourism stakeholders. These items were informed by theoretical perspectives from sustainable tourism development, rural entrepreneurship, destination branding, and environmental management. The sustainable tourism development paradigm [73] served as the foundational lens for capturing the interdependence of economic, environmental, and sociocultural sustainability. This framework emphasizes that truly sustainable tourism initiatives must simultaneously contribute to long-term economic viability, cultural integrity, and ecological responsibility—principles that were translated into items related to financial resilience, heritage preservation, guest education, and environmental awareness.

Insights from rural entrepreneurship and farm diversification literature [74,75] further shaped the questionnaire. These studies highlight how rural tourism entrepreneurs develop hybrid models that integrate traditional agricultural practices with new tourism-oriented income streams. In this context, items related to income diversification, adaptability, and innovation were included to reflect how stakeholders respond to shifting market demands and rural economic challenges. Theories of embeddedness [76,77] informed the sociocultural and place-based dimensions of the questionnaire. Embeddedness theory highlights the extent to which economic activity is rooted in social relations, cultural practices, and regional identity—an especially relevant framework for understanding lifestyle sharing, cultural exchange, and commitment to regional development in rural hospitality. Institutional theory and the literature on quality certification [78,79] supported the inclusion of items related to professional development, policy incentives, and participation in quality networks, such as Urlaub am Bauernhof. These perspectives stress the role of institutional trust, support structures, and regulatory frameworks in building resilience, legitimacy, and service quality among rural tourism providers. Finally, concepts from destination branding and the experience economy [80] guided the inclusion of items related to property visibility, collective marketing, and perceived brand value. These theories emphasize how rural tourism products are not merely functional offerings, but immersive, value-based experiences that can command premium pricing when clearly communicated and authentically delivered.

To assess the suitability of the dataset for factor analysis, preliminary statistical tests were conducted. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy yielded a value of 0.931, which is considered “marvelous” according to Kaiser’s criteria. This indicates that the dataset is appropriate for factor extraction as the items share sufficient common variance. Additionally, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant (χ² = 8236.92, df = 300, p < 0.001), rejecting the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix and confirming the presence of underlying structures suitable for exploratory factor analysis. Following these tests, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring with varimax rotation was conducted to identify the latent constructs underlying stakeholder perceptions. The extraction criteria included eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and inspection of the scree plot to determine the optimal number of factors.

Following data collection, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the latent structure of the dataset. The initial instrument consisted of 40 items. During the analysis, 16 items were excluded solely based on low communalities (i.e., less than 0.30). Communality values reflect the proportion of each item’s variance explained by the extracted factor(s); thus, items with low communalities were considered insufficiently related to the underlying latent structure. As a result, 24 items were retained, all of which demonstrated adequate communalities and contributed meaningfully to the single dominant factor that emerged. This data-driven refinement improved the internal consistency and construct validity of the final scale. The retained factor was labeled sustainable entrepreneurship, encompassing the strategic, operational, and value-driven dimensions of rural tourism enterprises committed to long-term sustainability. This construct captured the interdependence of Economic Resilience, cultural responsibility, environmental awareness, institutional cooperation, and branding strategies within a unified entrepreneurial logic. Although the factor analysis revealed a statistically unidimensional solution, a qualitative interpretive framework was subsequently applied to enhance thematic clarity and practical relevance. Specifically, the 24 observed items were organized into six analytically derived clusters: (1) Economic Resilience and Diversification, (2) Sociocultural Integration, (3) Environmental and Regional Commitment, (4) Market Visibility and Strategic Communication, (5) Quality Assurance and Institutional Support, and (6) Perceived Value and Branding. These groupings were not the result of additional factor extraction but rather reflected a post hoc conceptual coding process informed by theory, stakeholder discourse, and the substantive content of each item. This dual approach—statistical parsimony through EFA combined with thematic elaboration through interpretive coding—ensured both analytical rigor and applied depth. It allowed the research to maintain the methodological integrity of a one-factor solution while simultaneously offering a multidimensional understanding of sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism. The resulting structure captures the complex reality of sustainable entrepreneurship as practiced by members of Urlaub am Bauernhof, while maintaining methodological coherence with the statistical findings.

This study adopts a post-positivist epistemological approach, which acknowledges that reality can be measured and analyzed objectively, while also recognizing the limitations of complete objectivity and the potential influence of contextual and social factors. Through the use of quantitative methods, such as factor analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), this research seeks to uncover patterns and validate constructs related to sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism. The post-positivist stance supports a rigorous, theory-driven examination of empirical data, while remaining open to the refinement of theoretical models based on observed outcomes.

To verify the main hypothesis, H, it was necessary to formulate and test the following subhypotheses.

-

H₁: Economic Resilience and Diversification—characterized by income diversification, financial sustainability, and adaptive economic strategies—significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship within the UaB network.

-

H₂: Sociocultural Integration—encompassing visitor education, heritage preservation, cultural exchange, and lifestyle sharing—significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship.

-

H₃: Environmental and Regional Commitment—including environmental stewardship, ecological awareness, and commitment to regional development—significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship.

-

H₄: Market Visibility and Strategic Communication—through effective property visibility, collective marketing, and digital promotion—significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship.

-

H₅: Quality Assurance and Institutional Support—comprising access to quality certification, professional development, and supportive policy incentives—significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship.

-

H₆: Perceived Value and Branding—represented by a strong brand image tied to sustainability and authenticity—significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship.

After the extraction of latent constructs through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the study advanced to the application of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). This analytical procedure was essential in providing a robust framework for testing the theoretical model, enabling the simultaneous estimation of multiple interrelated dependence relationships among observed and latent variables. SEM allows for a comprehensive examination of how well the proposed constructs reflect the underlying dimensions of sustainable entrepreneurship and how they influence each other within the hypothesized model.

$$\mathrm{Y} = \mathrm{\beta }\mathrm{X} + \mathrm{\zeta }\mathrm{Y}$$

where Y represents the endogenous latent variables, X denotes the exogenous latent variables, β is the matrix of structural path coefficients indicating the strength and direction of the relationships, and ζY captures the structural disturbances or residuals. This formal structure facilitates an in-depth understanding of causal pathways and the strength of associations within the multidimensional framework developed in this study. The analysis was conducted using the covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) approach with AMOS 28 (Analysis of Moment Structures), applying the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) method. This technique was selected due to its appropriateness for theory testing and confirmation of reflective measurement models. All constructs were specified as reflective, consistent with the theoretical assumption that observed indicators are manifestations of underlying latent variables. Prior to conducting SEM, the data were evaluated for univariate and multivariate normality. Skewness and kurtosis values for all items were found to be within acceptable ranges, with |skewness| values below 2 and |kurtosis| values below 7, as recommended by West, Finch, and Curran [81]. These results indicate approximate normal distribution, which supports the use of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) in the CB-SEM framework. Given the relatively large sample size (n = 393), the MLE is considered robust to minor deviations from normality.

To assess the underlying structure of the proposed constructs, a two-step approach was employed using IBM SPSS 26, involving both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), consistent with the established guidelines for measurement model validation [82]. First, EFA was conducted to explore the dimensionality of the instrument and refine the items based on communality thresholds. Factor extraction was performed using principal axis factoring, and Promax oblique rotation was applied to allow for correlations among factors. The Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue > 1) and scree plot inspection guided the retention of factors, resulting in a six-factor solution. Since EFA provides initial evidence of unidimensionality at the first-order level, CFA was subsequently conducted using covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) in AMOS 28 to validate the measurement model structure and test the hypothesized relationships. The model incorporates a second-order latent construct—sustainable entrepreneurship—reflected through six first-order dimensions. The validation of this higher-order construct was primarily based on a manual, theory-driven evaluation rather than solely on eigenvalue analysis. Given the conceptual nature of sustainable entrepreneurship and its manifestation across six theoretically grounded dimensions, expert judgment and theoretical coherence were prioritized to confirm the factor structure. While eigenvalue analysis provides a statistical guideline for factor extraction, it may not fully capture the complexity of second-order constructs; thus, our approach ensures an alignment with the underlying theory and construct validity. Model fit indices indicated a good fit (e.g., CFI, TLI, GFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08), supporting the theoretical specification of sustainable entrepreneurship as a higher-order latent construct composed of six reflective dimensions.

Benchmark Sector: Austria’s “Urlaub am Bauernhof” (Vacation on the Farm)

Austria’s “Urlaub am Bauernhof” (UaB) represents one of Europe’s most successful examples of nationally coordinated, yet locally authentic agritourism [83,84]. Functioning under a unified umbrella organization, the network comprises over 9000 certified farms offering high-quality rural accommodation and immersive farm experiences. The initiative is particularly strong in Styria, Salzburg, and Tyrol, regions that blend rich agricultural traditions with well-developed tourism infrastructure. Key strengths of the UaB model include a centralized booking platform with region-specific filters, strong brand trust through quality certification, and emotionally resonant marketing that highlights themes of simplicity, sustainability, and a connection to nature [85]. These features make UaB not only a tourism product but a tool for integrated rural development and agricultural diversification. As of 2023, the broader sector includes approximately 9000 farms and offers around 84,500 beds, welcoming 1.6 to 2 million guests annually and generating 4.5 to 4.6 million overnight stays. The average guest stay lasts about 2.3 nights. Notably, around 500,000 of these visitors are children, pointing to the family-friendly and educational appeal of the farm stay experience. From an economic perspective, the sector delivers significant financial returns. Guest daily spending ranges from EUR 122 in summer to EUR 149 in winter, with gross annual income for member farms estimated between EUR 1 and EUR 1.2 billion. Approximately EUR 750 million in guest expenditures are recorded per year, with roughly half of this spending occurring directly on the farms—underscoring the model’s capacity to circulate value within rural economies [86]. The “Urlaub am Bauernhof” model demonstrates how rural tourism can simultaneously support family farming, protect cultural landscapes, and sustain regional economies. Through its combination of strong branding, decentralized implementation, and Quality Assurance, UaB offers a compelling benchmark for sustainable hospitality development across agricultural landscapes.

4. Results

To assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were conducted. The KMO value was 0.829, indicating meritorious sampling adequacy, and confirming that the correlations among items were sufficiently compact to yield distinct and reliable factors. Furthermore, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was statistically significant (χ² = 39,748.749, df = 300, p < 0.001), indicating that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that factor analysis is appropriate for the dataset (

Table 1. KMO and Bartlett’s test.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.829
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	39,748.749
	df	300
	Sig.	0.000

).

The results of the factor analysis reveal that a single dominant factor accounted for the majority of the variance in the data (

Table 2. Total variance explained.

Factor	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	23.055	92.220	92.220	22.975	91.901	91.901
2	0.520	2.078	94.298
3	0.367	1.468	95.766
4	0.234	0.937	96.704
5	0.172	0.686	97.390
6	0.139	0.557	97.946
7	0.116	0.462	98.408
8	0.108	0.432	98.841
9	0.065	0.259	99.100
10	0.058	0.233	99.333
11	0.048	0.193	99.526
12	0.034	0.136	99.662
13	0.022	0.087	99.748
14	0.019	0.078	99.826
15	0.014	0.058	99.884
16	0.013	0.051	99.935
17	0.005	0.020	99.955
18	0.003	0.014	99.968
19	0.003	0.013	99.981
20	0.002	0.008	99.989
21	0.002	0.007	99.995
22	0.001	0.002	99.998
23	0.000	0.002	99.999
24	0.000	0.001	100.000

). Specifically, the first factor had an initial eigenvalue of 23.055, explaining 92.22% of the total variance. After extraction, this factor retained an eigenvalue of 22.975, accounting for 91.90% of the variance. These findings indicate a strong unidimensional structure, suggesting that a single underlying construct sufficiently represents the observed variables. The factor was interpreted as sustainable entrepreneurship, and a composite score was computed for further analyses.

The factor matrix (

Table 3. Factor matrix.

	Factor 1: Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Income Diversification	0.934
Financial Sustainability	0.941
Revenue Stability	0.901
Visitor Education	0.938
Heritage Preservation	0.913
Cultural Exchange	0.967
Policy Incentives	0.961
Lifestyle Sharing	0.951
Economic Adaptation	0.968
Property Visibility	0.960
Quality Certification	0.965
Audience Reach	0.966
Collective Marketing	0.971
Professional Development	0.977
Brand Image	0.974
Income Growth	0.969
Marketing Efficiency	0.964
Promotional Quality	0.962
Price Premium	0.944
Environmental Pride	0.977
Ecological Awareness	0.967
Regional Development	0.962
Future Commitment	0.980
Sustainability Demand	0.973

) confirms the existence of a single, strongly defined construct—sustainable entrepreneurship—under which all 24 observed variables load with exceptionally high values, ranging from 0.901 to 0.980. This finding reveals the multidimensional character of sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism, encompassing Economic Resilience, social responsibility, Environmental Commitment, and strategic visibility.

Sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism emerges as a robust and multidimensional construct, shaped by six interrelated pillars that collectively define its transformative potential. Economic Resilience and diversification form the foundation, emphasizing the capacity of rural enterprises to withstand external shocks while expanding income sources through farm-based hospitality, agritourism, and experiential services. Sociocultural Integration highlights the entrepreneur’s role in preserving local identity, fostering community cohesion, and embedding cultural authenticity into tourism offerings. This is complemented by a strong Environmental and Regional Commitment, which reflects dedication to ecological stewardship, sustainable land use, and the alignment of business practices with regional development priorities. Equally critical is Market Visibility and Strategic Communication, which involves leveraging digital tools, storytelling, and promotional strategies to enhance recognition and attract responsible visitors. Quality Assurance and institutional support refer to adherence to standards, continuous improvement, and collaboration with policy frameworks, cooperatives, and certification bodies that underpin credibility and legitimacy. Finally, Perceived Value and Branding encapsulate how tourists interpret the rural tourism experience—not merely in terms of service delivery, but through the lens of sustainability, authenticity, and social impact. Together, these six dimensions articulate the holistic nature of sustainable entrepreneurship, illustrating how rural tourism actors serve as agents of place-based innovation. Rather than pursuing isolated outcomes, they build integrated value systems that advance long-term competitiveness while reinforcing environmental, sociocultural, and economic sustainability. Empirical validation confirms that these dimensions coalesce into a singular yet layered construct—offering a strategic pathway for rural destinations seeking to balance growth with resilience and integrity.

Figure 1 illustrates the structural equation model (SEM) depicting the relationships among six latent constructs and their associated observed variables. The measurement model demonstrates excellent psychometric properties, with all standardized factor loadings exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70, thereby confirming convergent validity. The first latent construct, Financial Resilience (F1), is measured by five indicators: Income Diversification (λ = 0.90), Financial Sustainability (λ = 0.93), Revenue Stability (λ = 0.90), Economic Adaptation (λ = 0.98), and Income Growth (λ = 0.96). These loadings suggest strong internal consistency within the construct, indicating that financial outcomes are robustly captured in the context of rural tourism enterprises. The second latent construct, Cultural and Social Sustainability (F2), comprises Visitor Education (λ = 0.96), Heritage Preservation (λ = 0.93), Cultural Exchange (λ = 0.98), and Lifestyle Sharing (λ = 0.95). These indicators demonstrate high levels of reliability and underscore the importance of socio-cultural dynamics in sustainable tourism practices. The third latent construct, Environmental and Regional Commitment (F3), is defined by Sustainability Demand (λ = 0.98), Future Commitment (λ = 0.99), Regional Development (λ = 0.97), Ecological Awareness (λ = 0.98), and Environmental Pride (λ = 0.99). The consistently high factor loadings reflect the salience of environmental consciousness and regional embeddedness among rural tourism stakeholders. Marketing Competitiveness (F4), the fourth construct, is measured by Promotional Quality (λ = 0.97), Marketing Efficiency (λ = 0.99), Collective Marketing (λ = 0.97), Audience Reach (λ = 0.95), and Property Visibility (λ = 0.93). These loadings highlight the critical role of coordinated marketing strategies in enhancing tourism visibility and competitiveness. The fifth construct, Institutional Support and Development (F5), comprises Professional Development (λ = 0.98), Quality Certification (λ = 0.94), and Policy Incentives (λ = 0.95). The indicators reveal a strong alignment between institutional mechanisms and rural tourism capacity building. Finally, Brand Premium and Image (F6) is measured by Price Premium (λ = 0.92) and Brand Image (λ = 0.98), reflecting a coherent factor structure that emphasizes the reputational and economic benefits of premium branding strategies.

The structural model reveals strong and statistically significant covariances between all six latent constructs. Notably, Financial Resilience (F1) is highly correlated with Cultural and Social Sustainability (F2) (φ = 0.99) and Environmental and Regional Commitment (F3) (φ = 0.98), indicating that UaB members perceive economic stability as intricately linked to cultural preservation and environmental responsibility. Similarly, Marketing Competitiveness (F4) demonstrates a strong relationship with Financial Resilience (F1) (φ = 0.91), reinforcing the belief that strategic marketing directly contributes to revenue diversification and growth. The strong covariance between Institutional Support and Development (F5) and Brand Premium and Image (F6) (φ = 1.02) underscores the role of institutional mechanisms and certifications in fostering brand recognition and premium positioning in the agritourism market. Overall, the model reflects UaB members’ holistic view of agritourism as a multidimensional activity that simultaneously advances Economic Resilience, cultural heritage, environmental sustainability, and marketing competitiveness. These findings highlight their belief in agritourism’s potential to balance tradition and innovation, ensuring the vitality of rural communities while responding to contemporary tourism demands.

To assess the reliability and validity of the measurement model, Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were computed for all six latent constructs. The CR values ranged from 0.8619 to 0.9876, exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70, which indicates strong internal consistency reliability across all constructs. Specifically, CR was 0.9542 for Income Diversification (F1), 0.9725 for Sociocultural Integration (F2), 0.9876 for Environmental Commitment (F3), 0.9468 for Market Visibility (F4), 0.9532 for Quality Assurance (F5), and 0.8619 for Perceived Value (F6). Similarly, AVE values were well above the 0.50 cutoff, confirming convergent validity by indicating that a substantial portion of variance in the observed indicators is accounted for by their respective latent constructs. AVE was calculated as 0.8807 for Income Diversification (F1), 0.8983 for Sociocultural Integration (F2), 0.9410 for Environmental Commitment (F3), 0.8926 for Market Visibility (F4), 0.8717 for Quality Assurance (F5), and 0.7578 for Perceived Value (F6). These findings collectively support the adequacy of the measurement model in terms of construct reliability and validity, thereby justifying the use of these latent variables in subsequent structural analyses.

The structural equation model demonstrated a good fit to the data, as indicated by multiple fit indices. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.956, exceeding the commonly accepted threshold of 0.90, suggesting excellent model fit. The Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.902, also above the acceptable cutoff of 0.90, supporting the model’s adequacy. The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) stood at 0.957, indicating a strong overall fit. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.068, which falls within the acceptable range (below 0.08), reflecting a reasonable approximation of the model to the population covariance matrix. Collectively, these indicators confirm that the specified model adequately represents the observed data.

The standardized regression weights (

Table 4. Standardized regression weights: group number 1—default model.

			Estimate
Income Diversification	<---	F1	0.933
Financial Sustainability	<---	F1	0.955
Revenue Stability	<---	F1	0.917
Economic Adaptation	<---	F1	0.966
Income Growth	<---	F1	0.933
Visitor Education	<---	F2	0.953
Heritage Preservation	<---	F2	0.925
Cultural Exchange	<---	F2	0.980
Lifestyle Sharing	<---	F2	0.956
Sustainability Demand	<---	F3	0.989
Future Commitment	<---	F3	0.991
Regional Development	<---	F3	0.981
Ecological Awareness	<---	F3	0.984
Environmental Pride	<---	F3	0.994
Property Visibility	<---	F4	0.963
Audience Reach	<---	F4	0.984
Collective Marketing	<---	F4	0.995
Marketing Efficiency	<---	F4	0.951
Promotional Quality	<---	F4	0.966
Professional Development	<---	F5	0.993
Quality Certification	<---	F5	0.937
Policy Incentives	<---	F5	0.928
Price Premium	<---	F6	0.922
Brand Image	<---	F6	0.978

) derived from the structural equation model demonstrate strong and significant relationships between the observed indicators and their respective latent constructs, affirming the multidimensional structure of sustainable entrepreneurship within the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) network. The first latent construct, Economic Resilience and Diversification, is robustly represented by indicators such as Income Diversification (0.933), Financial Sustainability (0.955), Revenue Stability (0.917), Economic Adaptation (0.966), and Income Growth (0.933). These high loadings emphasize the critical role of diversified income streams and adaptive economic strategies in securing the financial viability of rural hospitality enterprises. This cluster encapsulates how economic flexibility and sustainable financial management underpin long-term business resilience in agritourism. The second construct, Sociocultural Integration, is strongly loaded by Visitor Education (0.953), Heritage Preservation (0.925), Cultural Exchange (0.980), and Lifestyle Sharing (0.956). These indicators highlight the sociocultural dimension of sustainable entrepreneurship, reflecting the importance of embedding educational opportunities, cultural conservation, and meaningful interpersonal exchanges within rural tourism experiences. The high loadings suggest that stakeholders perceive the transmission and preservation of local heritage, alongside fostering cross-cultural interactions, as central to their hospitality model.

Environmental concerns are consolidated within the third construct, Environmental and Regional Commitment, evidenced by extremely high loadings on Sustainability Demand (0.989), Future Commitment (0.991), Regional Development (0.981), Ecological Awareness (0.984), and Environmental Pride (0.994). This cluster underscores a forward-looking environmental ethic among rural entrepreneurs, linking ecological consciousness with active regional stewardship and a sustained commitment to environmental sustainability that extends beyond immediate economic concerns. The fourth construct, Market Visibility and Strategic Communication, is well-defined by Property Visibility (0.963), Audience Reach (0.984), Collective Marketing (0.995), Marketing Efficiency (0.951), and Promotional Quality (0.966). These indicators illustrate the strategic importance of coordinated marketing efforts and digital presence in enhancing the competitiveness and outreach of rural hospitality businesses. The exceptionally high loading on Collective Marketing indicates the effectiveness of cooperative branding and shared promotional initiatives in amplifying individual enterprises’ market presence.

Within the fifth construct, Quality Assurance and Institutional Support, Professional Development (0.993), Quality Certification (0.937), and Policy Incentives (0.928) load strongly, reflecting the critical institutional and capacity-building framework that supports sustainable entrepreneurship. The prominence of professional development and certification signifies stakeholders’ recognition of formal quality standards and continuous learning as essential mechanisms for achieving and maintaining sustainability goals. Finally, the sixth construct, Perceived Value and Branding, is captured by Price Premium (0.922) and Brand Image (0.978), highlighting how sustainable practices contribute to an enhanced market position and allow entrepreneurs to command higher prices. The strong relationship between Branding and Perceived Value suggests that authenticity and sustainability are not only ethical imperatives but also key competitive advantages in rural tourism. Collectively, these findings validate a comprehensive model in which economic, sociocultural, environmental, marketing, institutional, and branding dimensions are deeply interconnected, each playing a pivotal role in shaping sustainable entrepreneurship within the UaB network. This multidimensional construct provides valuable insights into how rural tourism stakeholders balance diverse priorities to achieve enduring success.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study validate all six subhypotheses, demonstrating the interconnected roles of Economic Resilience, Sociocultural Integration, Environmental Commitment, Market Visibility, Quality Assurance, and Perceived Value in driving sustainable rural tourism within the Urlaub am Bauernhof network. Correlation analysis among the six dimensions revealed exceptionally strong and statistically significant relationships (ranging from r = 0.96 to r = 1.02, p < 0.001), underscoring their mutual reinforcement and collective contribution to the overarching construct of sustainable entrepreneurship. Economic Resilience and Diversification showed near-perfect correlations with Sociocultural Integration (r = 0.99) and Environmental and Regional Commitment (r = 0.98), while Quality Assurance and Institutional Support exhibited strong linkages with Perceived Value and Branding (r = 1.02) and Market Visibility and Strategic Communication (r = 1.01). These results affirm that the six dimensions do not operate in isolation but form an integrated system, where progress in one area enhances sustainability outcomes in others. This empirical evidence provides robust support for the conceptualization of sustainable entrepreneurship as a cohesive, multidimensional construct and validates the main hypothesis (H).

These findings align with prior empirical studies that emphasize the multidimensional character of sustainable rural tourism. Arndt and Helming [87] highlighted income diversification and financial resilience as cornerstones of successful agritourism enterprises, consistent with the high intercorrelations observed here for Economic Resilience. Da Costa et al. [88] underscored the importance of Sociocultural Integration and heritage preservation in creating authentic visitor experiences and reinforcing community identity—paralleling our findings on Sociocultural Integration and its strong linkages to Environmental Commitment. The strong relationship between Market Visibility and Perceived Value also resonates with Sustacha et al. [89] work on rural tourism branding, which demonstrated that collective marketing and authenticity-driven communication are critical for reaching eco-conscious markets and commanding price premiums. The role of Quality Assurance and Institutional Support in our model reflects earlier findings by Duan et al. [90], who documented how certification systems and capacity-building initiatives empower rural hosts and elevate service standards. These parallels strengthen the claim that sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism operates as an integrated system of economic, social, and environmental practices—a finding supported in Arioli et al.’s [91] analysis of sustainable tourism networks. By situating these results within the broader literature, this study contributes to a growing understanding of rural tourism not merely as an economic activity but as a platform for ecological stewardship, cultural continuity, and strategic innovation. The Urlaub am Bauernhof model exemplifies how these dimensions converge in practice, offering a transferable framework.

5.1. Economic Resilience and Diversification

The findings under the dimension of Economic Resilience and Diversification provide critical insights into the financial foundations of eco-friendly rural hospitality in agricultural contexts, particularly as perceived by stakeholders associated with Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB). With exceptionally high factor loadings—Income Diversification (λ = 0.934), Financial Sustainability (λ = 0.941), Revenue Stability (λ = 0.901), Economic Adaptation (λ = 0.968), and Income Growth (λ = 0.969)—this component of the analysis confirms that financial performance and adaptive capacity are not peripheral conditions but instead form an integral part of the overarching construct of sustainable entrepreneurship. H₁ posits that Economic Resilience and Diversification significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship within the UaB network, and the empirical results strongly support this hypothesis. Stakeholders consistently highlight that successful rural hospitality ventures extend beyond merely offering accommodations to guests. Farms that integrate multiple income streams—such as local food production, on-farm experiences, wellness activities, and artisanal goods—are better equipped to weather market fluctuations, seasonal tourism cycles, and broader economic uncertainties. This aligns with the findings of Song et al. [92], who emphasized that multifunctionality in farm enterprises improves economic viability while supporting rural development goals. Income Diversification emerges as both a protective buffer and a proactive growth strategy, enabling hosts to align traditional agricultural activities with tourism services in a mutually reinforcing manner. Financial Sustainability is particularly underscored by stakeholders as a marker of long-term planning and operational discipline. They emphasize the importance of reinvestment, cost management, and establishing reliable income streams to support stable, family-run enterprises capable of generational continuity. This observation resonates with findings by Aydoğan and Güney [93], who noted that the economic continuity of rural tourism enterprises depends largely on their ability to maintain consistent reinvestment and strategic foresight. The loading for Revenue Stability highlights that farms capable of ensuring consistent guest flows, even during off-peak periods, are better positioned to make strategic investments—ranging from facility upgrades to renewable energy systems. Economic Adaptation, in turn, reflects entrepreneurs’ ability to adjust their business models and offerings in response to changing market conditions and external pressures, including shifting tourist preferences or global disruptions, such as economic downturns. Scholars such as Ma et al. [94] have similarly identified adaptive capacity as a fundamental attribute of rural tourism resilience, particularly in the face of fluctuating market dynamics and institutional uncertainty. Stakeholders point out that such adaptability is essential for resilience and represents a hallmark of successful, future-oriented rural enterprises. Finally, the strong loading for Income Growth suggests that economic development is not perceived as antithetical to ecological or cultural responsibility. On the contrary, stakeholders argue that sustainability—when effectively communicated—enhances a farm’s value proposition, attracts conscientious visitors, and supports premium pricing strategies. This corresponds with Sun’s and Chen’s [95] framework on sustainable rural tourism, which underscores that economic growth, when embedded in authenticity and sustainability narratives, can act as a competitive advantage rather than a trade-off. These findings demonstrate that Economic Resilience and Diversification is a critical dimension reflecting the multidimensional character of sustainable entrepreneurship. The high factor loadings offer strong empirical support for H₁, underscoring that financial resilience and innovation are core pillars of sustainable rural tourism. From a policy and practice perspective, these insights suggest that rural development initiatives should prioritize access to micro-financing, training in business diversification, and infrastructure for value-added production. Likewise, cooperative networks like Urlaub am Bauernhof could enhance their support for financial literacy, scenario planning, and diversified marketing strategies to help farms sustain and grow their hospitality services in an increasingly dynamic tourism environment. While the high factor loadings across all five indicators provide strong empirical support for H₁, it is worth noting that Income Diversification and Income Growth emerged slightly more prominently than Revenue Stability. This suggests that stakeholders view diversification and growth as active strategies for resilience, whereas stability remains more context-dependent, possibly influenced by seasonality and external market shocks. Such nuance calls for additional inquiry into the ways institutional support, climate resilience frameworks (e.g., Seddik & Sovacool [96]), and rural policy interventions affect perceived and actual revenue stability in agritourism contexts. This finding invites further investigation into how external factors—such as policy environments or climate variability—shape perceptions of financial stability within rural hospitality.

5.2. Sociocultural Integration

The dimension of Sociocultural Integration, as evidenced by high factor loadings—Visitor Education (λ = 0.938), Heritage Preservation (λ = 0.913), Cultural Exchange (λ = 0.967), and Lifestyle Sharing (λ = 0.951)—captures the pivotal role of cultural and social processes in shaping eco-friendly rural hospitality within the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) network. These findings underscore that rural hospitality is not merely an economic transaction, but a cultural encounter and educational experience that reflects the multidimensional character of sustainable entrepreneurship. H₂ posits that Sociocultural Integration significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship, and the empirical results strongly validate this hypothesis. Stakeholders consistently described farm-stays not simply as places of accommodation but as immersive environments where guests directly engage with regional traditions, agricultural practices, and everyday rural life. This is consistent with Chen’s [97] assertion that rural tourism functions as a medium for meaningful cultural encounters, where learning and identity co-construction occur through direct host–guest interaction. The strong loading for Visitor Education suggests that hosts perceive themselves as informal educators, providing guests with opportunities to learn about local food systems, animal care, seasonal rhythms, and sustainable living practices. These educational interactions are often seamlessly woven into the lived experience—through shared meals, guided farm tours, and hands-on participation in agricultural tasks—rather than being delivered through formal programming. As noted by Charatsari et al. [98], this type of experiential education contributes significantly to visitor satisfaction while simultaneously enhancing appreciation for rural livelihoods. Similarly, Heritage Preservation emerges as a central theme in the stakeholder narrative. Many hosts expressed pride in maintaining traditional architectural styles, cultivating native plant species, preparing regional dishes, and safeguarding vernacular crafts. These practices function as dynamic forms of cultural continuity, reinforcing local identity while simultaneously making it accessible and engaging for visitors seeking authenticity. This reinforces arguments by Candeloro and Tartari [99], who highlights that the preservation of local heritage elements not only enriches the tourism product but also fosters community cohesion and resilience. In this way, rural entrepreneurs act as custodians of intangible heritage, ensuring its preservation and transmission in interactive and meaningful ways. The high loading for Cultural Exchange highlights the reciprocal nature of these interactions. Hosts noted how guests bring fresh perspectives and questions, which often inspire reflection and renewal of local customs. This mutual exchange fosters intercultural understanding, reduces stereotypes, and creates a shared cultural space where rural and urban, local and global coexist meaningfully. Importantly, this exchange is rooted in hospitality values and personal relationships, rather than standardized service delivery. This aligns with the findings of Ruiz-Bernardo et al. [100], who argue that creative and intercultural tourism models thrive on authenticity and dialog rather than passive consumption of cultural products. Finally, Lifestyle Sharing, which also loads very highly, encapsulates a distinctive feature of the UaB model: the blending of personal and professional spaces. Hosts welcome guests into their homes, daily routines, and family lives, offering an immersive and participatory experience that stands in stark contrast to commercialized mass tourism. This openness fosters long-term emotional connections between visitors and rural places, often leading to repeat visits, positive word-of-mouth promotion, and advocacy for rural lifestyles and values. Such close-knit interactions are supported by Banerjee and Quinn [101], who underscore that emotional labor and personal storytelling in agritourism enhance affective bonds and long-term loyalty among visitors. These findings confirm that Sociocultural Integration is not a secondary benefit but a defining characteristic of sustainable entrepreneurship. The high factor loadings strongly support H₂, underscoring that sociocultural stewardship enhances the authenticity and sustainability of rural tourism enterprises. These insights suggest that policy frameworks and support systems should prioritize the protection and strengthening of local cultural capital rather than imposing homogenizing tourism standards. Future directions may include co-creating interpretive materials, facilitating intercultural dialog initiatives, and developing platforms where rural hosts can document and share their heritage narratives. In line with Liu and Chen [102], such initiatives would help operationalize the cultural economy of rural areas, allowing local actors to frame their identity in tourism narratives rather than adopting externally imposed templates. By centering Sociocultural Integration within rural tourism entrepreneurship, farm-based hospitality becomes a space not only of leisure but of learning, connection, and shared belonging. The uniformly high loadings strongly validate H₂; however, stakeholders’ emphasis on Lifestyle Sharing and Cultural Exchange as core practices was more pronounced than anticipated. While this underscores the authenticity of guest-host interactions in the UaB network, it also raises questions about scalability: can such deeply personal and embedded experiences be replicated in larger or more commercialized contexts without losing their integrity? This potential tension merits further study. Similar concerns have been raised by Wu and Ma [103], who question whether the commodification of authenticity in farm tourism can remain true to its relational and cultural foundations when scaled up for mass appeal.

5.3. Environmental and Regional Commitment

The dimension of Environmental and Regional Commitment, as evidenced by exceptionally high factor loadings—Environmental Pride (λ = 0.977), Ecological Awareness (λ = 0.967), Sustainability Demand (λ = 0.973), Regional Development (λ = 0.962), and Future Commitment (λ = 0.980)—demonstrates that stakeholders within the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) network perceive sustainable rural hospitality as fundamentally anchored in environmental responsibility and a forward-looking regional vision. H₃ posits that Environmental and Regional Commitment significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship, and the empirical results provide robust validation for this hypothesis. The near-perfect loading for Future Commitment indicates that these rural entrepreneurs are not driven solely by short-term profitability. Instead, they exhibit a deep-seated investment in ensuring that their farms, landscapes, and communities remain livable, productive, and attractive for future generations. This temporal depth—planning in decades rather than seasons—is emblematic of their business philosophy and aligns with long-standing agricultural values of stewardship, intergenerational responsibility, and cyclical time. This finding echoes the perspective of Vivaldini and Silva Corrêa [104], who emphasize the embeddedness of rural enterprises within long-term environmental and community obligations. Environmental Pride reflects the emotional and identity-based connection many hosts maintain with their natural surroundings. Stakeholders frequently described their responsibility to care for the land not merely as an economic necessity but as a reflection of who they are. This pride manifests in concrete practices, such as biodiversity conservation, organic farming, waste reduction, renewable energy adoption, and landscape restoration. These actions are not merely market responses to eco-tourist expectations but are grounded in place-based ethics and a deeply ingrained ecological awareness. Such behavior is consistent with the concept of environmental identity as discussed by Strömbäck et al. [105], wherein a strong identification with the natural environment influences pro-environmental behavior and lifestyle choices. Closely related, Ecological Awareness captures a conscious and informed understanding of environmental interdependence. UaB hosts recognize that soil health, animal welfare, water management, and climate variability are intricately linked, and they situate their tourism operations within these ecological boundaries. Many stakeholders noted that their environmental consciousness has evolved over time, shaped by personal experience and reinforced through meaningful interactions with guests, highlighting a co-development of eco-consciousness through tourism. This resonates with findings by Blanton et al. [106], who suggest that ecotourism can serve as a vehicle for mutual learning, where both hosts and visitors develop enhanced environmental sensibilities. Sustainability Demand further underscores the growing expectations from tourists and society at large for environmentally and socially responsible practices. This rising demand influences the strategic choices of rural entrepreneurs, compelling them to embed sustainability across all facets of their operations—from eco-friendly farming methods to authentic cultural offerings. Stakeholders observed that meeting this demand is not only ethically essential but also economically beneficial, attracting conscientious visitors who value transparency, integrity, and sustainability. Nieto-García et al. [107] also highlight how sustainability-oriented consumers increasingly shape the operational models of tourism providers, driving competitive differentiation through ethical practices. The strong loading for Regional Development illustrates that these entrepreneurs conceptualize their farms as integral parts of a broader rural development ecosystem. They contribute to their regions by supporting local suppliers, employing community members, engaging in collaborative marketing, and enhancing the overall image and economic vitality of their surroundings. Thus, tourism becomes deeply interwoven into local contexts, strengthening infrastructure, cultural vibrancy, and environmental sustainability at a regional scale. This is supported by the work of Cai et al. [108], who argue that rural tourism contributes to regional cohesion and resilience through networked governance and embeddedness in local economies. These findings confirm that Environmental and Regional Commitment is not a symbolic or peripheral element of rural tourism enterprises but a foundational dimension reflecting the multidimensional construct of sustainable entrepreneurship. The empirical validation of H₃ underscores the importance of environmental stewardship and regional engagement as pillars of long-term viability in eco-friendly rural hospitality. From a policy perspective, these insights highlight the need to recognize farm tourism not as a niche activity but as a catalyst for ecological transition and rural regeneration. Future support programs could prioritize climate-adaptive infrastructure, integration of ecosystem services, and participatory regional planning that engages tourism entrepreneurs as key stakeholders. Such policy orientation aligns with the EU’s Green Deal principles and rural revitalization strategies that position tourism as a vector for sustainable development [109]. In essence, Environmental and Regional Commitment provides the structural foundation upon which the long-term vision and operational ethics of successful rural tourism enterprises are built. H₃ is robustly supported, but the especially high loading for Future Commitment suggests an unexpected finding: stakeholders’ orientation toward long-term sustainability appears to outweigh immediate market-driven motivations. This forward-looking mindset may reflect cultural and institutional factors unique to Austria, such as strong environmental norms and supportive governance, and might not generalize to all rural tourism contexts. Future research could explore whether this dimension is equally strong in regions without such enabling conditions. Comparative studies, such as those by Chen and Cai [110], could offer valuable insights into how varying institutional frameworks affect sustainability commitments in different rural tourism systems.

5.4. Market Visibility and Strategic Communication

The dimension of Market Visibility and Strategic Communication highlights the pivotal role of digital presence, coordinated marketing, and audience engagement in sustaining rural hospitality enterprises, particularly within the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) framework. With high factor loadings across Property Visibility (λ = 0.960), Audience Reach (λ = 0.966), Collective Marketing (λ = 0.971), Marketing Efficiency (λ = 0.964), and Promotional Quality (λ = 0.962), the findings confirm that communication strategies are not peripheral but central to the strategic outlook of rural entrepreneurs. H₄ posits that Market Visibility and Strategic Communication significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship, and the empirical evidence strongly supports this hypothesis. Stakeholders emphasize that even the most authentic and high-quality rural experiences cannot attract guests if they remain invisible within the digital tourism ecosystem. The strong loading for Property Visibility reflects the importance hosts place on ensuring their presence is recognized—both geographically and virtually. Stakeholders repeatedly highlighted the transformative impact of optimized websites, search engine listings, and social media platforms in enabling them to present their offerings to targeted visitor segments such as families, eco-tourists, and cultural travelers. This is in line with findings by Meier et al. [111], who emphasize that digital presence is a critical enabler of competitiveness in small tourism enterprises, especially in peripheral areas. Closely related is Audience Reach, which captures not just the goal of being seen, but also the ambition to engage with diverse and appropriate guest profiles. UaB members recognize that rural hospitality must adapt its communication strategies to the evolving expectations of travelers. This involves multilingual content, compelling narratives, responsive interaction, and integration with booking platforms to attract both domestic and international markets. Liu et al. [112] similarly argue that customer-oriented digital communication is essential for reaching global audiences and shaping traveler perceptions in the pre-visit stage. The very strong loading for Collective Marketing underscores the strength of cooperation among rural entrepreneurs. Within the UaB model, hosts benefit from a broader network that facilitates shared branding, coordinated campaigns, and pooled marketing resources. Stakeholders stressed that this collaborative approach reduces individual marketing costs, builds trust among guests, and reinforces the identity of the region as a coherent, high-quality rural tourism destination. Rather than competing in isolation, farm hosts benefit from a unified voice that amplifies their visibility and competitiveness. This cooperative approach resonates with the work of Tran et al. [113], who highlight that community-based and networked marketing enhances rural tourism development by building collective identity and trust-based promotion. Marketing Efficiency reflects the strategic use of time, financial resources, and tools in promoting the business. Stakeholders increasingly express awareness of data-driven marketing practices, content planning, and consistent messaging. Many hosts have adopted online booking systems, customer review management processes, and analytics tools that help refine their marketing strategies. This shift from informal word-of-mouth promotion to systematic and professionalized outreach reflects an important adaptation to the digital era. These developments are supported by studies such as those by Hou et al. [114], who emphasize the rise of user-generated content and real-time analytics in shaping tourism marketing practices. Finally, Promotional Quality captures the tone, storytelling, and emotional resonance of marketing materials. Stakeholders have embraced authentic visual storytelling, emphasizing real people, local gastronomy, scenic landscapes, and sustainability values. High-quality promotion allows hosts to convey trustworthiness and a sense of experience even before guests arrive. This is particularly crucial for communicating the intangible benefits of rural stays—peace, connection, learning, and personal enrichment. This finding aligns with the literature on emotional branding in tourism [115], which asserts that meaningful storytelling fosters affective connections between destinations and visitors. These findings demonstrate that in contemporary rural tourism, visibility is not accidental but strategic. The strong factor loadings provide robust empirical support for H₄, underscoring that Strategic Communication and Market Visibility are essential dimensions reflecting the multidimensional construct of sustainable entrepreneurship. Future policy and development initiatives should extend beyond production and infrastructure to encompass training in digital skills, storytelling techniques, and cooperative marketing models. This reflects calls from Strauß and Šimunović [116] for integrated destination management frameworks that empower local tourism actors through capacity building in Strategic Communication. In an increasingly competitive and dynamic tourism landscape, the ability to connect meaningfully with the right audience has emerged as a defining feature of successful and sustainable rural hospitality. While the strong support for H₄ highlights the centrality of communication strategies, the slightly lower loading for Promotional Quality compared to Collective Marketing suggests that stakeholders may still rely heavily on network-level marketing rather than investing in property-specific promotional materials. This reliance on collective structures could be a strength, but it also points to potential vulnerability if network support diminishes. Further research could examine how individual branding efforts interact with cooperative marketing strategies. As suggested by Gilal et al. [117], the interplay between place-based brand narratives and collective identity formation remains an underexplored dimension in rural tourism marketing.

5.5. Quality Assurance and Institutional Support

The dimension of Quality Assurance and Institutional Support underscores the structural mechanisms that sustain eco-friendly rural hospitality, as perceived by stakeholders within the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) network. High factor loadings for Quality Certification (λ = 0.965), Professional Development (λ = 0.977), and Policy Incentives (λ = 0.961) highlight the interconnectedness of personal competence, institutional trust, and regulatory frameworks in fostering resilient and credible hospitality enterprises. H₅ posits that Quality Assurance and Institutional Support significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship, and the empirical findings strongly support this hypothesis. The high loading for Quality Certification reflects stakeholders’ recognition of third-party validation as essential for maintaining credibility and professionalism. Certification—whether achieved through national agritourism labels, environmental seals, or food quality standards—serves not only to demonstrate regulatory compliance, but also as a visible symbol of excellence and trustworthiness. In rural tourism contexts, where guests often base their decisions on reputation and transparency, such certification offers a powerful assurance of quality, safety, and sustainability. As noted by Bigerna et al. [118], quality certification schemes enhance visitor trust while encouraging hosts to internalize sustainability standards as part of their brand identity. Even more prominent is the significance of Professional Development, which achieved the highest loading within this dimension. Stakeholders articulated that modern rural hospitality requires far more than traditional farming expertise; it demands a diverse and continuously evolving skill set. This includes customer service, intercultural communication, digital literacy, environmental management, and cultural mediation. Hosts actively engage in workshops, peer exchange programs, and continuing education initiatives provided through UaB and public institutions. This aligns with the findings of Pan et al. [119], who argue that rural tourism entrepreneurship increasingly depends on hybrid competencies that bridge agriculture, hospitality, and experiential service delivery. This culture of lifelong learning enhances not only the quality of guest experiences, but also contributes to host empowerment and entrepreneurial confidence. The research by Schlee and Gutmann [120] further supports this notion, highlighting that continuous professionalization contributes to the long-term viability of small tourism businesses. Policy Incentives, with its strong loading, highlights the critical role of supportive institutional environments in enabling sustainable practices. Stakeholders consistently emphasized that access to grants, training subsidies, infrastructure co-financing, and rural development programs has been vital for advancing the professionalization and long-term sustainability of their businesses. Importantly, stakeholders stressed that effective policy support extends beyond financial assistance; it requires recognizing rural tourism as a legitimate and impactful contributor to regional development. When policies are aligned with the realities of rural entrepreneurship, they act as catalysts for innovation, investment, and operational resilience. This is consistent with the policy framework outlined by Su et al. [121], who contend that institutional support is most effective when it promotes place-based innovation, cross-sector cooperation, and entrepreneurial autonomy. These findings affirm that Quality Assurance and institutional support are mutually reinforcing components of sustainable rural tourism. Certification motivates hosts to maintain high standards; professional development equips them to deliver superior services; and policy frameworks provide the resources and incentives necessary to implement meaningful change. The strong empirical support for H₅ underscores that these elements underpin the professionalization and sustainability of rural hospitality businesses. From a policy perspective, Quality Assurance should not be conceived as a static compliance mechanism but as part of a dynamic ecosystem of capacity-building and trust-building. As argued by Ewart et al. [122], tourism policy must move beyond regulatory enforcement to embrace developmental roles that enhance entrepreneurial capability and collaborative governance. Future initiatives might include integrating certification systems with sustainability indicators, developing modular training programs tailored to varying experience levels, and enhancing collaboration between tourism ministries, agricultural cooperatives, and regional development agencies. Urlaub am Bauernhof already demonstrates how institutional coordination and shared standards can elevate rural tourism to a level of professionalism and impact that benefits both hosts and destinations. This approach offers a transferable model for other rural regions seeking to develop hospitality systems that are locally grounded yet globally competitive. Although H₅ is strongly validated, an interesting nuance emerged: stakeholders placed slightly less emphasis on Policy Incentives compared to Professional Development. This suggests that while institutional frameworks matter, the cultivation of personal skills and competencies may be perceived as more directly impactful for day-to-day operations. This partial effect raises important questions about the balance between external support and internal agency in sustaining rural entrepreneurship. This tension mirrors the findings of Hu and Dang [123], who note that rural entrepreneurs often navigate between dependence on external support structures and a desire for self-determination and innovation.

5.6. Perceived Value and Branding

The dimension of Perceived Value and Branding, as evidenced by high factor loadings for Brand Image (λ = 0.974) and Price Premium (λ = 0.944), captures the strategic advantage that rural tourism entrepreneurs—particularly those affiliated with Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB)—gain by aligning their offerings with sustainability and authenticity. These findings underscore the idea that sustainability functions not only as an ethical or ecological commitment, but also as a marketable and economically advantageous positioning strategy. H₆ posits that Perceived Value and Branding significantly reflects the construct of sustainable entrepreneurship, and the empirical results robustly validate this hypothesis. The strong loading for Brand Image suggests that rural hosts place substantial emphasis on how their enterprises are perceived by potential guests—not merely in terms of service quality but as embodiments of environmental responsibility, cultural authenticity, and community integration. This is consistent with the work of Hu and Wang [124], who argue that in the experience economy, authenticity becomes a core value proposition that significantly influences consumer perception and loyalty. Stakeholders emphasized that what differentiates their farm stays from generic accommodations is their identity as stewards of place, offering meaningful, experience-based stays rooted in local traditions and sustainable practices. This brand identity is cultivated holistically—not only through logos or slogans but also through consistent guest experiences, storytelling, thoughtful design, and active participation in cooperative quality networks like UaB. Similarly, the high loading for Price Premium suggests that these branding efforts translate into tangible economic benefits. Stakeholders reported that guests are willing to pay more for accommodations that demonstrate clear and authentic value—whether expressed through eco-certifications, high-quality local food, cultural enrichment, or personalized service. The research by Suhardono et al. [125] supports this finding, showing that consumers with strong pro-environmental attitudes exhibit a higher willingness to pay for sustainable hospitality services. This willingness to pay is particularly evident among specific visitor segments, such as urban families, international travelers, and eco-conscious tourists, who actively seek alternatives to standardized mass tourism. Importantly, stakeholders noted that the ability to command premium prices is not perceived as exploitative but rather as justified compensation for the additional care, integrity, and resource investment required to maintain sustainable standards. For many hosts, such premiums are critical to offset the costs associated with organic farming, renewable energy systems, and small-scale artisanal production—expenses that are often invisible in conventional tourism pricing models. This economic rationale is also reflected in the work of Mihailescu et al. [126], who emphasize that sustainable tourism enterprises must strategically communicate their value propositions to justify higher price points and overcome consumer skepticism. The relationship between Perceived Value and sustainability also reinforces brand loyalty. Stakeholders observed that guests who understand and appreciate the ethical and ecological dimensions of their stay are more likely to return, recommend the property to others, and share their experiences on digital platforms. This not only amplifies individual business success but contributes to the broader reputation of the region as a responsible and high-quality rural tourism destination. According to Cayla et al. [127], branding in tourism is most effective when it builds emotional connections through values such as authenticity, responsibility, and locality—factors that drive long-term loyalty. These findings affirm that a compelling brand rooted in sustainability and authenticity enhances Perceived Value and enables rural enterprises to command premium prices while attracting conscientious visitors. The strong empirical support for H₆ highlights the strategic importance of branding for the long-term viability of sustainable rural tourism. Future strategic directions could focus on equipping rural entrepreneurs with tools to articulate and promote their sustainable brand identities—through digital marketing training, storytelling support, and design thinking workshops. Moreover, integrating sustainability values into regional destination branding efforts can create coherence between individual farm brands and the collective identity of rural tourism networks. Ultimately, by making sustainability visible, meaningful, and desirable, rural hosts not only secure their economic viability but also influence evolving tourism market preferences toward more responsible and place-sensitive forms of travel. This strategic direction is echoed by Han et al. [128], who stress the importance of value-driven storytelling and user-generated content in shaping sustainable tourism demand. The empirical support for H₆ is clear, yet the exceptionally high loading for Brand Image compared to Price Premium suggests that stakeholders place intrinsic value on sustainability and authenticity, even if this does not always translate proportionally into pricing power. This partial effect highlights the need to explore whether all visitor segments recognize and are willing to pay for the added value of sustainable rural hospitality. This is consistent with the findings of Marsh et al. [129], who note that while ethical branding enhances market appeal, consumer behavior often remains price-sensitive and segmented. In some markets, ethical positioning alone may not suffice to justify premium prices, suggesting a potential area for strategic improvement.

6. Conclusions

The analysis provides robust empirical support for the main hypothesis (H), confirming that the overarching construct sustainable entrepreneurship is a multidimensional factor formed by six interrelated dimensions—Economic Resilience and Diversification, Sociocultural Integration, Environmental and Regional Commitment, Market Visibility and Strategic Communication, Quality Assurance and Institutional Support, and Perceived Value and Branding. These dimensions together capture the economic, social, environmental, institutional, and market-oriented foundations of sustainable rural tourism. The exceptionally high factor loadings across all 24 observed variables (ranging from λ = 0.901 to λ = 0.980) validate the strong cohesion of this second-order model, demonstrating how each dimension reflects and reinforces the core construct of sustainable entrepreneurship. This empirical confirmation underscores the UaB network as a benchmark framework for advancing sustainability-oriented rural tourism development. These dimensions reflect the comprehensive nature of sustainability in rural tourism, encompassing not only economic viability and environmental stewardship but also sociocultural engagement, institutional scaffolding, and strategic market positioning. The empirical evidence underscores that sustainable entrepreneurship within the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) network is not a singular or linear phenomenon; rather, it emerges from the synergy of financial strategies, cultural values, environmental ethics, policy support, and brand-based differentiation. This confirms the hypothesis that the foundations of sustainable rural tourism are inherently multidimensional, and that only through their integration can tourism enterprises achieve long-term viability, resilience, and community-based legitimacy. The model thus reinforces the theoretical proposition that sustainability-oriented entrepreneurship in rural contexts requires systemic, cross-sectoral alignment—linking micro-level practices with macro-level structures in a cohesive and mutually reinforcing manner.

The results highlight how UaB members perceive sustainable entrepreneurship as a holistic framework that combines economic viability with effective branding and coordinated promotional efforts. These findings directly support the conclusion that sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism relies on the interplay between financial adaptability, institutional support, and innovative marketing strategies. Stakeholders consistently reported that economic viability enables continuous reinvestment in sustainable practices, while strategic marketing enhances destination visibility and attracts value-conscious visitors.

The findings of this study offer valuable guidance for advancing sustainable entrepreneurship in rural tourism, particularly within the Western Balkans and other regions facing structural challenges, such as rural depopulation, limited infrastructure, and economic transition. The confirmation of sustainable entrepreneurship as a multidimensional construct—encompassing Economic Resilience, Sociocultural Integration, Environmental and Regional Commitment, strategic visibility, Quality Assurance, and Perceived Value—highlights the need for integrated, context-sensitive support strategies. In the Western Balkans, this calls for coordinated efforts from governments, development agencies, and tourism institutions to provide financial incentives, capacity-building programs, and supportive regulatory environments tailored to rural entrepreneurs committed to sustainability. Rural tourism actors can use the six identified dimensions as a practical framework to enhance their operations. Entrepreneurs engaged in farm stays, agrotourism, and eco-hospitality are encouraged to invest in renewable energy, strengthen their online visibility, cultivate authentic cultural experiences, and adopt recognized sustainability standards. These practices not only enhance competitiveness but also contribute to place-based resilience and the diversification of rural economies.

This study also emphasizes the importance of fostering collaboration across institutional and geographic boundaries. Stakeholders in the Western Balkans—including ministries of tourism, local governments, academic institutions, and civil society—should promote knowledge-sharing platforms, cross-border cooperation, and harmonized sustainability criteria. Opportunities provided through EU funding mechanisms, such as IPARD, Interreg, and COSME, can play a vital role in advancing these goals and scaling innovation across the region. Equally important is the alignment with evolving visitor expectations. As rural destinations seek to attract conscious travelers who value authenticity, environmental responsibility, and social impact, it becomes essential to communicate sustainability efforts effectively. Strategic storytelling, transparent branding, and local engagement can significantly enhance the Perceived Value of rural tourism experiences, particularly in under-promoted destinations across Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania. Overall, this study offers a forward-looking perspective for empowering rural communities through sustainable entrepreneurship. By embracing multidimensional strategies grounded in local identity and long-term responsibility, rural tourism can emerge as a driver of inclusive development, cultural preservation, and regional integration within and beyond the Western Balkans.

While this study confirms the multidimensional structure of sustainable entrepreneurship, several limitations offer valuable directions for future inquiry. The analysis draws exclusively from survey data collected within the Urlaub am Bauernhof (UaB) network, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should expand the analytical scope by incorporating perspectives from a broader array of stakeholders, including policymakers, local communities, and non-affiliated agrotourism actors. Such diversification would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how sustainable entrepreneurship is interpreted and operationalized across different institutional, socio-cultural, and geographical contexts. Sustainable entrepreneurship could be conceptualized not only as a multidimensional construct but also as a dependent variable influenced by factors such as institutional support, human and social capital, innovation capacity, or digital infrastructure. Conversely, it may also function as an independent variable with potential impacts on tourism competitiveness, strategic market positioning, governance innovation, community empowerment, and regional resilience. Exploring these alternative model specifications would facilitate a deeper understanding of the systemic role of sustainable entrepreneurship in rural development and transformation. Ultimately, such analytical advancements could inform the formulation of targeted and evidence-based policy interventions that enhance the sustainability and vitality of rural tourism economies.