Cooperativismo y Desarrollo, May-August 2026; 14(2), e988
Translated from the original in Spanish
Original article
Formal governance for the coordination of Amazonian tourism microclusters
Gobernanza formal para la articulación de microclústeres turísticos amazónicos
Governança formal para a articulação de microclusters turísticos na Amazônia
Yolanda Lorena Paredes Andrade1 
0000-0001-9764-2779 
yparedes@uea.edu.ec
Yudemir Cruz Pérez2 0000-0001-9876-732X yudemir.cruz@ftur.uh.cu
Carlos Aníbal Manosalvas Vaca1 0000-0002-7521-069X cmanosalvas@uea.edu.ec
Andrea Patricia Sanaguano Moreno3 0009-0005-7751-2914 asanaguano@institutos.gob.ec
1 Amazonian State University. Ecuador.
2 University of Havana. Cuba.
3 Riobamba Higher Technological Institute. Ecuador.
Received: 4/05/2026
Accepted: 4/06/2026
ABSTRACT
Tourism production networks require conditions of territorial coordination and formal governance that enable the transformation of scattered interactions into sustained processes of coordination among stakeholders. The purpose of the research was to analyze the coordination among actors in the tourism system of the cantonal microclusters of Mera, Pastaza, Santa Clara, and Arajuno, as well as the barriers and challenges of formal governance that affect the strengthening of tourism production chains in Pastaza, Ecuador. A predominantly quantitative, exploratory-descriptive, non-experimental, and cross-sectional study was conducted, supplemented with qualitative information for interpretive triangulation. Data was collected between November 2025 and February 2026 using a 20-item structured survey, validated by project specialists, administered to 80 tourism stakeholders. The data was processed using descriptive statistics and thematic categorization. An active, though predominantly informal, coordination was identified, based on the use of digital channels, operational interactions, and a favorable disposition toward coordination. The main barriers were lack of time, limited access to information, bureaucracy, and territorial dispersion. Nature conservation and community-based tourism were priorities for the destination, while cultural heritage emerged as an opportunity for diversification. The main constraint was not a lack of contacts, but rather the limited effectiveness of formal governance in establishing forums for inter-county coordination and strengthening future tourism value chains.
Keywords: territorial articulation; tourism cluster; production linkages; tourism governance; Amazonian tourism.
RESUMEN
Los encadenamientos productivos turísticos requieren condiciones de articulación territorial y gobernanza formal que permitan transformar interacciones dispersas en procesos sostenidos de coordinación entre actores. El propósito de la investigación fue analizar la articulación entre actores del sistema turístico de los microclústeres cantonales de Mera, Pastaza, Santa Clara y Arajuno, así como las barreras y desafíos de gobernanza formal que inciden en el fortalecimiento de los encadenamientos productivos turísticos en Pastaza, Ecuador. Se desarrolló un estudio predominantemente cuantitativo, exploratorio-descriptivo, no experimental y transversal, complementado con información cualitativa para la triangulación interpretativa. La información se recolectó entre noviembre de 2025 y febrero de 2026 mediante una encuesta estructurada de 20 ítems, validada por especialistas del proyecto, aplicada a 80 actores turísticos. Los datos se procesaron mediante estadística descriptiva y categorización temática. Se identificó una articulación activa, aunque predominantemente informal, basada en el uso de canales digitales, interacciones operativas y disposición favorable a la coordinación. Las principales barreras fueron la falta de tiempo, el acceso limitado a información, la burocracia y la dispersión territorial. La conservación natural y el turismo comunitario constituyeron prioridades del destino, mientras que el patrimonio cultural emergió como oportunidad de diversificación. La limitación central no fue la ausencia de contactos, sino la baja efectividad de la gobernanza formal para institucionalizar espacios de coordinación intercantonal y fortalecer futuros encadenamientos productivos turísticos.
Palabras clave: articulación territorial; clúster turístico; encadenamientos productivos; gobernanza turística; turismo amazónico.
RESUMO
As cadeias produtivas do turismo exigem condições de articulação territorial e governança formal que permitam transformar interações dispersas em processos sustentáveis de coordenação entre os atores. O objetivo da pesquisa foi analisar a articulação entre os atores do sistema turístico dos microclusters cantonais de Mera, Pastaza, Santa Clara e Arajuno, bem como as barreiras e os desafios da governança formal que afetam o fortalecimento das cadeias produtivas do turismo em Pastaza, Equador. Foi desenvolvido um estudo predominantemente quantitativo, exploratório-descritivo, não experimental e transversal, complementado com informações qualitativas para triangulação interpretativa. As informações foram coletadas entre novembro de 2025 e fevereiro de 2026 por meio de um questionário estruturado de 20 itens, validado por especialistas do projeto, aplicado a 80 atores do turismo. Os dados foram processados por meio de estatística descritiva e categorização temática. Identificou-se uma articulação ativa, embora predominantemente informal, baseada no uso de canais digitais, interações operacionais e disposição favorável à coordenação. As principais barreiras foram a falta de tempo, o acesso limitado à informação, a burocracia e a dispersão territorial. A conservação da natureza e o turismo comunitário constituíram prioridades do destino, enquanto o patrimônio cultural surgiu como uma oportunidade de diversificação. A principal limitação não foi a falta de contatos, mas a baixa eficácia da governança formal para institucionalizar espaços de coordenação intercantonal e fortalecer futuras cadeias produtivas turísticas.
Palavras-chave: articulação territorial; cluster turístico; cadeias produtivas; governança turística; turismo amazônico.
INTRODUCTION
Production linkages in the tourism sector have been recognized as strategic mechanisms that promote greater shared value generation, as well as economic revitalization in the territories where they are present, and the coordination of local actors around sustainable development objectives (Gómez Vega et al., 2022).
The specialized literature distinguishes between backward linkages, which are generally related to interaction with suppliers of inputs, food, and support services; and forward linkages, which connect tourism operators with national and international markets (Jeyacheya & Hampton, 2020). In the context of the tourism sector, these links acquire a dual dimension: (a) an intracluster dimension, which refers to the synergies between companies and actors that share the same territory of specialization; and (b) an intercluster dimension, which refers to cooperative alliances between different production groups with complementary advantages (Franco et al., 2024).
Based on this, recent academic literature shows that agglomeration economies generate positive externalities that promote greater productivity in the tourism sector through collaboration between sectors and regions (Kim et al., 2021). Furthermore, from the perspective of global value chain theory, a greater understanding has been achieved of the influence of the governance of production flows on the competitiveness of small and medium-sized tourism enterprises in emerging economies (Epede & Wang, 2022; Kano et al., 2020).
In Latin America, recent research has highlighted the relevance of community tourism as a model of endogenous linkage, where indigenous and peasant communities can articulate their productive capacities around nature and culture routes and clusters (Santafe Troncoso & Tanguila Andy, 2024; Sili et al., 2022).
Despite growing academic interest in tourism clusters and production chains, significant gaps have been identified in the academic literature. For example, most studies have focused on urban or mass tourism contexts, revealing a significant void related to the analysis of chain dynamics in Amazonian destinations with high biodiversity and a predominantly indigenous population, such as the Pastaza province in Ecuador (Garrett et al., 2024).
Furthermore, studies related to intra- and inter-cluster interrelationships within the same tourist territory are scarce, as most research focuses on a single scale of analysis (Jin et al., 2026). In addition, the specific achievements, structural barriers, and challenges faced by production chains in the province of Pastaza have not been analyzed, which is of utmost importance because the tourism potential remains underutilized, in part due to weak coordination among actors in the local production ecosystem (Font et al., 2008).
For the purposes of this research, coordination was understood as the set of interactions, communication mechanisms, cooperative links, and coordination mechanisms among actors in the tourism system. This category does not, in itself, equate to a consolidated production chain, but it constitutes a prerequisite for its development. Tourism production chains were also understood as processes of functional integration among actors, services, and activities that contribute to value creation at the destination. In this sense, the study did not directly evaluate the economic flows of the value chain, but rather the relational and organizational factors that condition the possibility of strengthening these chains coordination.
Intracluster dimension was defined as the coordination between tourism actors located within the same cantonal microcluster. The intercluster dimension was understood as the coordination between the cantonal tourism microclusters of Mera, Pastaza, Santa Clara, and Arajuno, considered as distinct territorial units within the provincial tourism cluster. Each canton was assumed to be a microcluster because, as Bassi et al. (2026) argue, tourist destinations are configured as local territorial systems where actors, resources, flows, and differentiated governance mechanisms interact. Therefore, cantons do not operate only as administrative units, but also as functional hubs for tourism coordination. Formal governance, for its part, was conceived as the set of structures, mechanisms, rules, institutionalized spaces, and coordination processes that guide the collective action of the tourism system. From this perspective, the low effectiveness of formal governance does not imply an absence of interaction between actors, but rather insufficient institutional capacity to transform dispersed relationships into stable processes of territorial coordination.
Based on the above, the central question of this research is: What are the conditions of coordination between actors in the Pastaza tourism system and what barriers and challenges of formal governance affect the strengthening of tourism production chains between its cantonal micro-clusters?
In this way, the study contributes to expanding the analytical scope of the theory of production chains by applying it to a cluster in an Amazonian context, enriching the debates on territorial governance and intersectoral coordination in peripheral tourist destinations (Kano et al., 2020). It also provides original empirical evidence on a type of destination that is not widely studied in the academic literature.
To find an answer to the previous question, the objective was set as: to analyze the conditions of coordination between actors of the tourism system of the cantonal micro-clusters of Mera, Pastaza, Santa Clara and Arajuno, as well as the barriers and challenges of formal governance that affect the strengthening of tourism production chains in the province of Pastaza.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The research was conducted as part of the Institutional Research Project UEA-PRY-INV-125-2025: "NBT- ConnectingClusters: A management mechanism for connecting nature-based tourism clusters in the Amazonian province of Pastaza," implemented by the Amazonian State University, Ecuador, with the participation of the University of Havana, Cuba. The study adopted a predominantly quantitative, exploratory-descriptive approach with a non-experimental, cross-sectional design. Complementary qualitative information was incorporated for interpretive triangulation. This methodological strategy was selected because the research's purpose was not to directly measure the economic, commercial, or logistical flows inherent in production chains, but rather to analyze the conditions of coordination among tourism stakeholders, as well as the barriers, facilitators, and formal governance challenges that affect their strengthening.
The research was conducted between November 2025 and February 2026 in the four cantons (municipalities) of the Pastaza province: Mera, Pastaza, Santa Clara, and Arajuno. For analytical purposes, each canton was considered a tourism microcluster, as it constitutes a territorial unit with distinct actors, resources, operational dynamics, and conditions for integration within the provincial tourism system. Consequently, the intracluster dimension was understood as the integration among tourism actors within each cantonal microcluster, while the intercluster dimension was understood as the integration among the cantonal tourism microclusters of Mera, Pastaza, Santa Clara, and Arajuno.
The unit of analysis consisted of actors linked to the tourism system of the Pastaza province. The sample comprised 80 participants (Table 1), including administrators, managers, owners, tour guides, actors linked to accommodation, food and beverage, tour operators, community-based enterprises, institutional representatives, and other actors related to local tourism management or operation.
Table 1. Sample composition
Variable |
Category |
Frequency (n) |
Role in the tourism sector |
Administration/management/ownership |
26 |
Tour guiding |
19 |
|
Food and beverages |
7 |
|
Accommodation |
6 |
|
Public/institutional sector |
5 |
|
Others |
17 |
|
Total |
|
80 |
Source: Own elaboration
Actors from sectors outside of tourism were not included; therefore, the results should be interpreted as a diagnosis of the internal coordination of the provincial tourism system and not as a multisectoral measurement of production chains. Participants were selected using non-probability convenience sampling. This procedure proved suitable for the exploratory nature of the study and for the conditions in the region, where there is no single, up-to-date, and consolidated sampling frame of tourism actors across the four cantons.
The inclusion criteria considered were that the participants were directly or institutionally linked to the tourism activity, carried out their activity in one of the cantons of Pastaza and had operational, managerial or institutional knowledge about the dynamics of coordination of the local tourism system.
To collect information a structured survey by means of Microsoft Forms (https://forms.cloud.microsoft/r/q34Q5EpFvz). The questionnaire consisted of 20 substantive items, some of which were organized in matrix or multiple-choice formats. Exporting the data generated independent subvariables for analysis. The instrument included closed-ended questions, multiple-choice questions, 0 to 5 Likert scales, dichotomous questions, and open-ended questions designed to gather examples, recommendations, and suggestions for improvement.
The questionnaire was organized into eight analytical dimensions. The first dimension characterized the tourism stakeholder and included their role, time in the sector, organizational affiliation, primary geographic area, and approximate number of employees or coordinated collaborators. The second dimension addressed priority issues for tourism development through a multiple-choice question with a maximum of three options. The third dimension measured interaction with groups within the tourism system, specifically tourism businesses, associations or chambers of commerce, public officials, and tour operators.
The fourth dimension examined the mechanisms for connecting stakeholders, including social media, WhatsApp, formal meetings, events, joint projects, email, training sessions, and other communication channels. It also included an assessment of how frequently these channels were used to interact with other groups in the tourism sector. The fifth dimension explored participation in collaborative projects during the previous two years, requesting a description of one or two examples where applicable.
The sixth dimension focused on assessing trust and the level of interaction among actors in the tourism system. The seventh dimension examined barriers and facilitators to collaboration, using items related to access to information, lack of time or resources, differing interests, bureaucracy or regulations, limited geographic or digital access, low trust due to previous experiences, and associated examples. The eighth dimension evaluated the actors' willingness to participate in meetings and in a network for collaboration among tourism stakeholders and cantonal micro-clusters, as well as the actions proposed to improve connections between groups, the identification of key contacts, and additional observations.
Likert-type scales were structured from 0 to 5 to assess intensity, frequency, confidence, level of relationship, or disposition, depending on the nature of the item. On this scale, lower values represented absence, low intensity, or disposition, while higher values expressed a greater presence of the condition being evaluated. Although Likert scales are ordinal, means were reported as a synthetic measure of central tendency to facilitate comparison between items and groups of participants. However, their interpretation was complemented by the percentage distribution of responses per category, in order to avoid a purely aggregated reading and preserve the variability observed in the participants' perceptions. Open-ended questions allowed for the capture of arguments, prior experiences, critical perceptions, and proposals for improvement that could not be adequately collected through closed-ended questions.
The instrument was validated prior to its application by nine specialists from Project UEA-125. Validation focused on the relevance of the dimensions, the correspondence between the items and the study's objective, the clarity of the wording, the appropriateness of the response options, and the coherence of the questionnaire with the territorial, institutional, and sociocultural characteristics of the Pastaza province. Based on their observations, adjustments were made to the wording, sequence, and response options of some items. This procedure strengthened the instrument's content validity.
The questionnaire was administered between November 2025 and February 2026, and participants were informed about the research's academic objectives, the voluntary nature of their participation, the confidentiality of the information, and the aggregated use of the data. The survey allowed for the collection of information from stakeholders located in the four cantonal micro-clusters considered in the study.
Quantitative data were processed using Microsoft Excel. First, the database was cleaned to distinguish between automatically generated fields from Microsoft Forms and the analytical variables in the questionnaire. Then, absolute frequencies, percentages, means, and response distributions were calculated. For multiple-choice questions, percentages were calculated based on the total number of recorded responses, as participants could select more than one option. For Likert-scale items, frequencies by category and response means were analyzed to identify perceptual trends regarding interaction, trust, barriers, relationship level, and willingness to coordinate. Qualitative information from open-ended questions was analyzed using thematic categorization and interpretive triangulation.
The responses were reviewed and grouped according to recurring patterns associated with communication, coordination, organization, collaboration, commitment, formal governance, institutional barriers, use of digital tools, and the need for stable coordination spaces. Triangulation allowed for contrasting statistical trends with the explanations, examples, and proposals of the stakeholders, strengthening the interpretation of the results. The analysis integrated quantitative and qualitative information to identify regularities, tensions, and opportunities for improvement in tourism coordination in Pastaza. The interpretation focused on determining how levels of interaction, communication mechanisms, trust, territorial and institutional barriers, and willingness to participate in networks or meetings influence the possibility of strengthening tourism production chains among the cantonal micro-clusters. The research was conducted under ethical principles of informed consent, confidentiality, academic use of information, and respect for the sociocultural diversity of the Amazonian territory. The results were treated in aggregate form, and no personal data was used to publicly identify the participants.
Methodological limitations include the use of non-probability sampling, the perceptual nature of some of the collected information, the lack of direct measurement of economic or commercial flows between actors, and the exclusion of productive sectors external to tourism. Due to its exploratory nature and the type of sampling employed, the results are not statistically generalizable to the entire provincial tourism system. Therefore, they should not be interpreted as a comprehensive measurement of production linkages, but rather as an exploratory diagnosis of the conditions of coordination and the effectiveness of formal governance in fostering their strengthening. Furthermore, the inter-cluster dimension was limited to the relationship between cantonal tourism micro-clusters.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characterization of tourism actors and territorial priorities for coordination
The actors linked to the tourism system of the Pastaza province showed diversity, reflecting the complexity of the territorial production chain (Figure 1). Regarding the area of activity/sector, a majority of actors were involved in the management and operation of tourism services, mainly with roles in administration, management or ownership of businesses (32.5%) and tour guiding (23.8%), while a smaller proportion were linked to food and beverage activities (8.8%), accommodation (7.5%) and public or institutional management (6.2%).
Figure 1. Priority issues for the actors in the tourism cluster
Source: Own elaboration
Regarding experience in the sector, there is a significant presence of actors with established track records, particularly those with 11 to 20 years of experience (13.8%) and those with 6 to 10 years (11.2%), suggesting relevant accumulated knowledge for analyzing the local tourism system. The results also showed a heterogeneous structure within the tourism sector, dominated by accommodation establishments (22.5%) and food and beverage establishments (20.0%), followed by unspecified independent or private actors (16.2%), tour operators (15.0%), and public or academic entities (13.8%).
Regarding the positions held, there is a high participation of actors in categories such as: administrators (17.5%), tour guides (23.8%), owners (10.0%), and managers (5.0%), as well as public sector officials and technicians (6.2%). Furthermore, the size of the organizations was characterized by their small scale, with most respondents coordinating between 1 and 5 employees, predominantly in the ranges of 3 to 5 people (40.0%) and 1 to 2 people (35.0%), confirming the prevalence of micro and small businesses/enterprises linked to tourism operations in the provincial cluster.
Nature conservation is positioned as the top priority (25.3%). Furthermore, a convergence is observed between community-based tourism, promotion, and infrastructure, with similar percentages (around 21% each). In contrast, cultural heritage has a lower relative priority (9.8%). The case analyzed demonstrates a strong orientation toward nature conservation and community-based tourism, confirming that natural and social capital is central to the destination's configuration. This priority should guide governance and inter-stakeholder coordination decisions toward actions that integrate conservation, community participation, territorial promotion, and tourism infrastructure under sustainability criteria.
However, a lower declared prioritization of the cultural component was observed, which suggests an opportunity to diversify the offer, but requires verification through specific indicators of cultural integration; this opportunity is relevant because the integration between culture and tourism can expand the added value of the tourism chain, as proposed by Zeng et al. (2023).
Coordination, trust and connection mechanisms between tourism micro-clusters
The findings showed moderate and differentiated interaction depending on the relationship group. These values primarily reflect operational interaction, associated with daily contact, information exchange, and basic coordination among actors, rather than a consolidated institutional or strategic coordination. The highest level of interaction was recorded with tourism companies (mean = 2.84), followed by public officials (mean = 2.66) and tour operators (mean = 2.61), while associations or chambers of commerce presented the lowest level of interaction (mean = 2.28). In terms of distribution, high interaction (values 4 and 5) reached 33.8% in the case of tourism companies, but decreased to 23.8% among public officials and tour operators, and to just 16.3% among associations or chambers of commerce. The levels of trust and the predominance of functional interactions, which fell within intermediate ranges according to the respondents, demonstrated that intracluster coordination links were mainly sustained through operational and informal dynamics. However, unlike what is expected in mature clusters, these relationships fail to evolve into schemes of sustained cooperation, which demonstrates a limited institutionalization of the links in the production chain.
From the perspective of the value chain proposed by Epede and Wang (2022), the findings suggest integration conditions that are still limited, because the existing connectivity between actors does not reach sufficient levels of coordination to maximize territorial value.
The significant influence of informal digital tools as the primary facilitator of connection also suggests that, while actors have adopted pragmatic solutions for communication, these do not replace the need for formal governance structures. Furthermore, the lack of training and capacity-building processes confirms the findings of Espín Ortiz and Rodríguez Rodríguez. (2021), regarding the need to develop more robust business skills and management systems to improve the competitiveness of the production chain.
Regarding the mechanisms used by stakeholders to connect with others within the tourism sector, the findings revealed that social media and WhatsApp are the primary means of interconnection, with 61 stakeholders, representing 76.3% of the sample, indicating their use of these platforms as their main mechanism. Events (such as trade fairs, workshops, and meetings), mentioned by 29 participants (36.3%), rank second, followed by formal meetings, with 28 mentions (35.0%). Joint projects, reported by 17 participants (21.3%), and emails, with 11 mentions (13.8%), appear less frequently. This situation is reinforced by the low level of interaction with associations and chambers of commerce, key players in sectoral coordination.
The results also suggest that interactions are primarily concentrated in direct operational relationships between companies, while collective or trade association ties are less intense. The low level of interaction with associations and chambers of commerce can be interpreted as an indication of limited organizational cohesion and weak institutionalization of sectoral representation. This situation is critical because these actors play a key role in formal governance, facilitating collective coordination, representing common interests, and building agreements to consolidate more stable tourism value chains. A scenario of intermediate to moderately high trust was identified, as the highest concentration of responses was at levels 3 and 4 of the scale, with 24 cases at each level, while only 9 participants rated trust as very high and 11 as very low.
Barriers, facilitators and formal governance challenges for strengthening tourism chains
The analysis of barriers to improved connectivity revealed that lack of time is the most recurring problem, followed by access to information, geographical distance between entities or cantons (municipalities), and bureaucracy. However, it was also possible to identify more complex underlying barriers such as a lack of strategic planning, limited commitment from some stakeholders, weak institutional support, political rivalries, vested interests, and past experiences that have eroded trust. In dispersed Amazonian territories, these findings have direct operational implications: it is necessary to strengthen digital coordination, define a minimum inter-cantonal work agenda, and ensure institutional facilitation that reduces participation costs, streamlines information flows, and monitors agreements among tourism stakeholders.
These results coincide with Bichler and Lösch's (2019) approach, who argue that collaborative governance in tourist destinations depends not only on the existence of actors willing to interact, but also on the presence of leadership, trust, shared understanding, and institutional arrangements capable of sustaining coordination (Figure 2). From this perspective, the barriers identified in Pastaza are not isolated difficulties, but rather cumulative constraints that reduce the effectiveness of formal governance. Lack of time limits sustained participation; insufficient access to information weakens decision-making; territorial dispersion increases coordination costs; and bureaucracy slows down the institutional response.
Figure 2. Barriers identified by the actors of the tourism cluster
Source: Own elaboration
Taken together, these factors explain why the existing interactions between tourism actors fail to fully transform into stable mechanisms of inter-cantonal coordination aimed at strengthening future tourism production chains.
Another aspect explored was the opinion expressed regarding the facilitators that have enabled better promotion of the province's tourism sector. Digital platforms were highlighted as the most important, followed by tourism fairs and, to a lesser extent, training workshops. Fairs, for their part, continue to be valued as spaces for direct contact, positioning, and exchange among stakeholders, while workshops play a role more closely linked to capacity building than to mass promotion.
Despite these results, a favorable disposition toward strengthening the tourism system's coordination was evident, both in operational interaction spaces and in more structured coordination frameworks. Regarding participation in meetings, most responses suggest a significant openness to engaging in dialogue and coordination, although certain limitations persist, related to factors such as time availability or operational workloads. Similarly, the willingness to integrate into a network connecting tourism stakeholders and cantonal micro-clusters shows a similarly positive trend, even leaning slightly toward higher levels of commitment. This indicates a growing recognition of the need for coordinated work among different actors within the tourism system.
On the other hand, the identified barriers, primarily those related to lack of time, bureaucracy, and geographical dispersion, reflect not only operational constraints but also structural aspects of the territory under study. According to Vásquez et al. (2025), the structural factors that influence the success of production chains include the impact of infrastructure, connectivity, and basic services. Finally, the stakeholders expressed numerous concerns, recommendations, and proposed ideas for improvement, which were processed through thematic categorization of the open-ended responses. To this end, recurring expressions were grouped according to their semantic content and their relationship to problems of communication, coordination, organization, and collaboration/commitment. This procedure allowed the participants' concerns to be synthesized into four main challenges:
These challenges are represented in Figure 3, as a quantitative systematization of the percentages of stakeholders who indicated and reiterated these challenges as the main ones. The figure shows a high degree of convergence among public, private, and community stakeholders regarding the priority challenges for strengthening tourism integration in Pastaza. Communication, organization, and collaboration/commitment reached very high values in all three groups, revealing that stakeholders perceive the problem not only as a lack of contact, but also as an insufficiency of stable mechanisms for coordinating collective actions. In particular, community stakeholders showed the highest rating in all dimensions, while public stakeholders showed the lowest relative value in integration and private stakeholders in organization.
Figure 3. Challenges identified by cluster stakeholders
Source: Own elaboration
This distribution suggests that formal governance must address gaps differentiated by actor type: greater capacity for institutional coordination in the public sector, greater organizational structuring in the private sector, and effective integration mechanisms to sustain community participation. These results can be interpreted in accordance with Bassi et al. (2026), who argue that territorial governance of sustainable tourism requires actor-based organizational models capable of reducing institutional fragmentation and structuring cooperation in territories with differentiated dynamics. In the case of Pastaza, the high valuation of communication, coordination, organization, and commitment confirms the existence of a favorable relational foundation; however, it also demonstrates that this foundation does not automatically translate into effective coordination.
Therefore, the challenge lies not only in promoting meetings or digital channels, but also in structuring formal inter-cantonal governance mechanisms that define responsibilities, interaction frequency, common objectives, and agreement follow-up. These mechanisms could include an inter-cantonal tourism coordination committee, a minimum agenda for regular work, verifiable minutes of agreements, and a technical committee responsible for monitoring commitments. From this perspective, cantonal tourism micro-clusters require a coordination framework that allows the actors' stated willingness to engage in sustained processes of collaboration aimed at strengthening future tourism value chains. Overall, the results show that the Pastaza tourism system operates under an incipient coordination logic, consistent with a territorial network of interdependent actors whose competitiveness depends on the quality of their interactions, which aligns with Ukhina et al. (2022).
Considering the above, one of the most relevant contributions of the study lies in demonstrating that, despite existing structural and relational limitations, the actors in the value chain showed a strong willingness to strengthen coordination through inter-cantonal tourism networks and formal spaces for shared management. This finding suggests the existence of latent relational capital focused on satisfying the need to balance economic development, cultural identity, and sustainability, all of which coincides with the findings of Álvarez Cortez et al. (2024, 2025). Thus, the central limitation was not the lack of contact between actors, but rather the low effectiveness of formal governance in transforming dispersed interactions into sustained coordination processes aimed at strengthening tourism value chains.
The results confirmed that the Pastaza tourism system exhibits active, although predominantly informal, collaboration among stakeholders linked to the micro-clusters of the cantons of Mera, Pastaza, Santa Clara, and Arajuno. Existing interactions demonstrate a willingness to cooperate, frequent use of digital channels, and recognition of the need for coordination; however, they have not yet established sufficiently stable formal governance mechanisms to sustain systematic processes of territorial integration.
The main barriers identified were lack of time, limited access to information, bureaucracy, and geographical dispersion. These constraints should not be interpreted solely as operational difficulties, but rather as manifestations of ineffective formal governance in organizing communication, institutionalizing coordination mechanisms, and reducing fragmentation among tourism stakeholders and cantonal micro-clusters.
The focus on nature conservation and community-based tourism is a strength of the Amazonian destination. At the same time, the lower priority given to cultural heritage presents a strategic opportunity to diversify the tourism offerings, integrate new territorial content, and expand the possibilities for value creation within the provincial tourism system. In practical terms, this strength can be translated into integrated tourism products through nature trails, community-based experiences, cultural services, local gastronomy, and partnerships with tourism businesses, thereby fostering sustainable local supply chains and a broader distribution of the value generated.
The main challenge lies not in creating more isolated contacts between actors, but in improving the effectiveness of formal governance through coordination networks, regular meetings, inter-institutional communication mechanisms, and supporting digital tools. In this sense, existing relational capital can become a strategic resource for strengthening tourism value chains, provided it is managed through more stable, participatory coordination structures oriented toward common goals.
REFERENCES
Álvarez Cortez, L. E., Cruz Pérez, Y., Cevallos Punguil, T. C., & Álvarez Villamarín, M. A. (2025). Desarrollo del turismo comunitario: Propuesta de una metodología en Pastaza, Ecuador. Estudios del Desarrollo Social: Cuba y América Latina, 13(3), 102-118. https://revistas.uh.cu/revflacso/article/view/11589
Álvarez Cortez, L. E., Cruz Pérez, Y., Del Corral Villaroel, V. H., & Cevallos Punguil, T. C. (2024). Factores críticos, buenas prácticas y lecciones aprendidas del turismo comunitario. Cooperativismo y Desarrollo, 12(3), e764. https://coodes.upr.edu.cu/index.php/coodes/article/view/764
Bassi, I., Deotto, V., & Iseppi, L. (2026). Territorial Governance for Sustainable Tourism in the Alpine Mountains: A Stakeholder-Based Organizational Model from Northeast Italy. Land, 15(3), 509. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15030509
Bichler, B. F., & Lösch, M. (2019). Collaborative Governance in Tourism: Empirical Insights into a Community-Oriented Destination. Sustainability, 11(23), 6673. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236673
Epede, M. B., & Wang, D. (2022). Global value chain linkages: An integrative review of the opportunities and challenges for SMEs in developing countries. International Business Review, 31(5), 101993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.101993
Espín Ortiz, C. G., & Rodríguez Rodríguez, J. L. (2021). Estimación de la sostenibilidad del turismo en la provincia Pastaza, Ecuador. Universidad y Sociedad, 13(5), 515-525. https://rus.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/rus/article/view/2262
Font, X., Tapper, R., Schwartz, K., & Kornilaki, M. (2008). Sustainable supply chain management in tourism. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(4), 260-271. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.527
Franco, M., Esteves, L., & Rodrigues, M. (2024). Clusters as a Mechanism of Sharing Knowledge and Innovation: Case Study from a Network Approach. Global Business Review, 25(2), 377-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920957270
Garrett, R., Ferreira, J., Abramovay, R., Brandão, J., Brondizio, E., Euler, A., Pinedo, D., Porro, R., Cabrera Rocha, E., Sampaio, O., Schmink, M., Torres, B., & Varese, M. (2024). Transformative changes are needed to support socio-bioeconomies for people and ecosystems in the Amazon. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8(10), 1815-1825. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02467-9
Gómez Vega, M., Herrero Prieto, L. C., & Valdivia López, M. (2022). Clustering and country destination performance at a global scale: Determining factors of tourism competitiveness. Tourism Economics, 28(6), 1605-1625. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166211007598
Jeyacheya, J., & Hampton, M. P. (2020). Wishful thinking or wise policy? Theorising tourism-led inclusive growth: Supply chains and host communities. World Development, 131, 104960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104960
Jin, J., Hou, J., Chen, S., & Chu, B. (2026). Spatiotemporal Synergy and Dual-Dimensional Correlation of Xinjiang's Tourism Industry Clusters. Sustainability, 18(2), 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18020705
Kano, L., Tsang, E. W. K., & Yeung, H. W. (2020). Global value chains: A review of the multi-disciplinary literature. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(4), 577-622. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00304-2
Kim, Y. R., Williams, A. M., Park, S., & Chen, J. L. (2021). Spatial spillovers of agglomeration economies and productivity in the tourism industry: The case of the UK. Tourism Management, 82, 104201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104201
Santafe Troncoso, V., & Tanguila Andy, A. (2024). Indigenous women's approaches to tourism planning: Lessons from Ecuador. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(3), 579-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2247580
Sili, M., Haag, M. I., & Nieto, M. B. (2022). Constructing the Transitions and Co-Existence of Rural Development Models. Sustainability, 14(8), 4625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084625
Ukhina, T., Shafazhinskaya, N., Panikarova, N., Kovaleva, A., & Ryakhovsky, D. (2022). Tourism clustering as a factor of regional economic growth: Structural features of a regional cluster. Anais Brasileiros de Estudos Turísticos, 12(Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7278572
Vasquez, J., Ochoa, F., & Carhuas, Y. (2025). El turismo como motor del desarrollo económico en la Amazonía. Una revisión de literatura. Espacios, 46(04), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.48082/espacios-a25v46n04p07
Zeng, M., Shen, S., & Gu, J. (2023). How does the integration of cultural and tourism industries impact the value added to tourism value chain: Evidences from Jiangsu Province of China. PLOS ONE, 18(6), e0287610. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287610
Conflict of interest
Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Authors' contribution
Yolanda Lorena Paredes Andrade and Yudemir Cruz Pérez designed the study, analyzed the data, and prepared the draft.
Carlos Aníbal Manosalvas Vaca and Andrea Patricia Sanaguano Moreno were involved in data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
All the authors reviewed the writing of the manuscript and approve the version finally submitted.
