Motivations and Trade-Offs for Sustainability in Family Forestry and Tourism Firms: A Cross-National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family firms are the foundation of economies across the world. Yet, little is understood about what motivates sustainability in these firms, particularly in developing economies. In this study, we examine family forestry and tourism firms in Chile and India and use a novel stated-choice method to understand preferences for sustainability and the trade-offs with profit maximization, law and regulation, and family relations (among others). There were heterogeneous preferences across the sample, with respondents favoring financial outcomes and viewing regulation negatively. Respondents preferred positive environmental impacts, and this was significantly favored by tourism firms. Forestry firms were particularly focused on maintaining satisfactory family relationships, where there was stronger family involvement in the firm’s management decisions. Indian respondents were more likely to prefer the expansion option in the choice study (financial outcomes), while Chileans preferred the eco-labeling choice (sustainability), suggesting more supportive sustainability norms in Chile. Chileans were more likely to exceed legal compliance in their choice selection and favored positive environmental impacts more. Overall, tourism firms were larger in terms of revenues and favored the eco-labeling choice with positive environmental impacts but with minimal regulations, while forestry favored expansion. These differences may be driven by the resources available to tourism firms for supporting sustainability measures and the importance of sustainability to their business models. Policies to support sustainability among family firms must account for their heterogeneity and must provide supports and incentives rather than regulations to facilitate sustainability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".