14 https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J ISSN 2184-6995 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Effects of rural entrepreneurship on community development in Zambia Sampa Chisumbe, Peter Mukalula, Clinton Aigbavboa, Erastus Mwanaumo, Thandiwe Mbewe Published online: November 2024 To cite this article: Chisumbe, S., Mukalula, P., Aigbavboa, C., Mwanaumo, E., & Mbewe, T. (2024). Effects of rural entrepreneurship on community development in Zambia. Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 14-34. 15 Effects of rural entrepreneurship on community development in Zambia Sampa Chisumbea, Peter Mukalulab, Clinton Aigbavboac, Erastus Mwanaumod, Thandiwe Mbewee aUniversity of Johannesburg, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Johannesburg, South Africa. clechisumbe@gmail.com bCopperbelt University, School of the Built Environment, Kitwe, Zambia. musomuko@yahoo.com cUniversity of Johannesburg, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, Johannesburg, South Africa. caigbavboa@uj.ac.za dUniversity of Zambia, School of Engineering, Lusaka, Zambia. erastus.mwanaumo@unza.zm eCopperbelt University, School of the Built Environment, Kitwe, Zambia. thandiwembewe@yahoo.com Abstract Rural entrepreneurship plays a crucial role in fostering the development of rural communities and nations at large. This study aimed to investigate the role of rural entrepreneurship in delivering community development. The study employed a quantitative approach, in which a structured questionnaire containing four indicator variables identified from the literature was administered to 197 respondents drawn from entrepreneurs involved in agriculture, retail, building construction, transportation business and metal fabrication operating in the rural areas of Copperbelt province, Zambia. The data were analysed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and regression analysis. The EFA results revealed that entrepreneurship was explained by four factors: entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization and business operation. However, the regression analysis established that of the four factors explaining entrepreneurship, only two factors, entrepreneurial characteristics and business operation, were significant in predicting community development in Copperbelt rural areas. Overall, this paper reaffirms that entrepreneurship plays a critical role in rural community development, leading to improved living standards, employment opportunities, alleviation of poverty and reduced rural-urban migration. Rural entrepreneurship is an essential stimulant of economic growth in developing countries. Keywords: Community, Development, Entrepreneurship, Rural areas Introduction Rural areas are envisioned as carefree farmlands and grasslands dotted with small business stores, few social amenities and tight-knit communities. Rural areas in the Global South are diverse regarding topography, natural resources, culture and economy. According to researchers, extreme poverty levels, little economic activity and the absence of critical infrastructure and essential services characterise rural areas (del Olmo-García et al., 2023; Ihejiamaizu, 2019; Jarinaa & Manida, 2024). Historically, agriculture and other resource-based industries have been at the centre of economic activities in rural areas. In developing countries, most agricultural activities are labour-based and subsistence-level, offering little economic growth. At the commercial scale, increased mechanization has led to increased levels of unemployment (Goetz et al., 2018). Development is further hampered by low literacy levels, exacerbated by rural-urban migration, where those with some skill migrate to cities for better economic prospects. These issues point to resource-deficient rural areas, with inadequate infrastructure such as roads, water and power supply networks, insufficient human capital and limited access to credit finance (Goetz et al., 2018; Stadel, 2019). mailto:clechisumbe@gmail.com mailto:musomuko@yahoo.com mailto:caigbavboa@uj.ac.za mailto:erastus.mwanaumo@unza.zm mailto:thandiwembewe@yahoo.com 16 Rural entrepreneurship has gained significance as a local development approach with solid potential for job creation as well as improvements in quality of life (Fortunato, 2014; Galvao et al., 2020). Scholars have found a correlation between entrepreneurship and rural development (Abhijith, 2021; Lakshmanaswamy & Jasmine, 2023; Pato, 2020; Rajsinghot et al., 2024). The argument is that entrepreneurship has a multiplier effect in rural regions because it results in skill diversification among the rural population, attracts new inhabitants, drives market innovation and stimulates growth (Galambos & Amatori, 2016; Galvao et al., 2020; Pan et al., 2024). Therefore, this study sought to investigate the effects of entrepreneurship on community development in rural areas, with the Copperbelt province of Zambia as the study area. Rural entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship is a broad concept with numerous definitions and meanings. The definition of entrepreneurship is still a source of contention among scholars. The idea of entrepreneurship is multifaceted, denoting different things to different people. Entrepreneurship comprises interconnected processes of vision, transformation and invention, necessitating a great deal of energy from the individual. It also stimulates economic growth in any setting (Akiri et al., 2016; Ekanem, 2024). Rural entrepreneurship entails creating new value by utilizing resources from a given environmental setting (Lebambo & Shambare, 2020; Sharma, 2024). Rural entrepreneurs focus on creating a new organization that introduces new products, serves or creates a new market or utilizes a new technology in a rural environment. It also involves pulling resources together to respond to unmet market demands and an ability to create and build something from practically nothing. Thus, rural entrepreneurs carry out entrepreneurial activities by establishing industrial and business units in the rural sector of the economy (Kushalakshi & Raghurama, 2014). Rural entrepreneurship is one of the most essential inputs in the economic development of a country; this cannot be overemphasized, especially in countries in the Global South, where a considerable number of the population live in rural areas. Rural entrepreneurship is considered one of the solutions to reduce poverty, migration, economic disparity and unemployment and to develop rural areas and backward regions. In the Global South, rural areas are isolated, economically poor, and unmechanized (Okeke & Nwankwo, 2017). Further, these areas lack critical infrastructure, such as roads, telecommunications, internet connectivity and electricity and water supply networks. Proponents of rural entrepreneurship opine that it is a strategic development intervention that could accelerate the rural development process. The literature review underscores the importance of entrepreneurship in stirring development in rural areas and points out critical issues for consideration, as summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of reviewed works on entrepreneurship for rural development. Author(s) and year Title of research Key issues Lakshmanaswamy & Jasmine, 2023 An empirical study on the role of rural entrepreneurship on socio-economic development among rural mass Highlights the importance of rural entrepreneurship in better income- generating opportunities and serves as a means for the effective allocation of local resources 17 Author(s) and year Title of research Key issues Jarinaa & Manida, 2024 Exploring the impact of rural entrepreneurship development in India’s MSME sector Advances in investment in infrastructure and technological advancements to unlock the full potential of rural entrepreneurship Candelario-Moreno & Sánchez-Hernández, 2024 Redefining rural entrepreneurship: The impact of business ecosystems on the success of rural businesses in Extremadura, Spain Resources tailored to rural entrepreneurship must be created, leveraging the area’s endogenous resources and growth models Sima, 2015 Sustainable rural development through rural entrepreneurship Emphasizes the importance of strategic planning, feasibility and market studies and analysis and the need for a unique package of resources to exploit the opportunities Pato, 2020 Entrepreneurship and innovation towards rural development evidence from a peripheral area in Portugal Underscores the role of the community in the entrepreneurship and development process; fosters creation of a culture of entrepreneurship based on local and endogenous resources; Training and financial support Pan et al., 2024 The impact of entrepreneurship of farmers on agriculture and rural economic growth: Innovation-driven perspective The need to adopt specialized incentives and support measures to create a favourable atmosphere; Strengthen innovation; Build a distinctive innovation and entrepreneurship education system; Promote the effective integration of technologies Ihejiamaizu, 2019 The role of entrepreneurship in rural development in Cross River State, Nigeria Utilization of local resources and reduction of rural-urban migration; Provision of incentives to rural entrepreneurs in the form of tax relief and concessions; Infrastructure development and maintenance in rural areas encourage trade and business transactions and serve as stimuli in boosting the rural economy Abhijith, 2021 Role of entrepreneurship in rural development – An analysis Rural entrepreneurship is one of the solutions to reduce poverty, migration, economic disparity and unemployment and to develop rural areas and backward regions 18 Author(s) and year Title of research Key issues del Olmo-García et al., 2023 Determinant factors for the development of rural entrepreneurship Bank financing is essential for the development of rural entrepreneurship; The policy should focus on increasing investment in innovation and development that promote the discovery of opportunities in rural areas Dzapasi, 2019 Role of government in rural entrepreneurship to economic development: The case of Murewa Rural-Mashonaland East Province, Zimbabwe Need for effective rural entrepreneurship policy; Awareness programmes; Partnerships Rajsinghot et al., 2024 Strengthening sustainable rural development through entrepreneurship: An Indian perspective It is a more effective method of eradicating poverty and hunger, sustainable health and well-being, enhancing gender equality, quality education and decent work conditions, and promoting innovation in industries The reviewed literature shows gaps in the relationship between individual entrepreneurship and community development elements. This suggests that efforts to develop rural communities through entrepreneurship must be further explored. Therefore, this study sought to investigate the effects of entrepreneurship on community development in rural areas and consequently identify the main predictors of the same. Approaches to community development Community development is a process that focuses on cultivating and enhancing a community’s actions collectively to bring about improvements in social, cultural, economic, physical, political and environmental aspects of a community’s life. Community development gives individuals and organizations within a society the ability to better their lives (Buye, 2021). Community development approaches are holistic and grounded in the ideologies of inclusivity, equity, empowerment, social justice and upholding human rights (Ledwith, 2016; Uddin, 2024). The following approaches are used in community development: needs-based, problem-solving, participatory, asset-based, power-conflict, welfare and rights-based. Asset-based approach This approach begins by first considering what is available in the community. Then, it builds on the assets and capacities of community members instead of focusing on what is lacking or deficient in a particular community. It emphasizes recognizing the strengths and resources of local people in developing communities. The approach relies on community members identifying and building their asset mapping strategy before turning to external partners (Chinyowa et al., 2016). It advances the ability of external resources to be relied upon once communities develop their assets. In attracting external resources, the partnership is encouraged more than just being recipients (Khadka, 2012). It perceives external stakeholders as responsive co-investors and co-creators in community-level action. Creating partnerships points to the political nature of capacity and asset growth. The major thrusts of the approach hinge on 19 partnerships, capacity building, networking, and communities identifying, leveraging and managing the evolutionary stages of development (Arefi, 2008; Nel, 2020). The development approach anchoring this study builds on this approach. Needs-based approach Delivering development takes a top-down approach and assumes that the community is broken and thus requires external support to fix problems. A needs-based approach assesses the needs of communities through needs surveys to identify and quantify deficiencies and develop solutions to meet the identified needs (Khadka, 2012). In the process, the participation of community members is often ignored, and top leaders create policies. Here, experts quantify and assess the community’s perceived needs when designing developmental programmes. In this approach, organizations and funders are the leading investors; money from the investors drives the development process. The relationship between the communities and external organizations is vertical, with communities seen as recipients (Nel, 2020). Participatory approach The participatory approach focuses on educating and encouraging people to engage in the development process. It proposes that people should be involved in every development project or programme stage, from inception to completion (Buye, 2021). It enables the poorest and marginalized people to participate in development efforts. Community involvement aims to empower individuals by improving their abilities and skills, allowing them to interact with the development process and decide their needs. Participatory mechanisms are a crucial model for giving people a representative and democratic voice in decision- making, which benefits their welfare and health (Riswan & Beegom, 2021). The major thrust of this approach is building the capacity of local communities through information sharing, skills training and organization to achieve effective participation and sustainable development. Right-based approach This approach uses established and accepted human rights standards as a common framework for assessing and guiding sustainable development initiatives. It involves systematically applying human rights principles during all programme policy development and implementation (Kindornay et al., 2012; Noh, 2022). According to this approach, human rights abuses need to be dealt with as they have made people suffer and kept in poverty. Thus, this approach translates people’s needs into rights and recognizes the human person as the active subject and claim-holder. It recognizes that all people, including those living in poverty, have the right to be involved in processes that impact their lives; it promotes equality and non-discrimination, focusing on vulnerable or marginalized people (Moseli, 2022). Problem-solving approach The problem-solving approach focuses on different methods that can be used to create different solutions for the problems faced by communities (Kwong & Kan., 2017). According to this approach, agents of development, such as service providers and external entities, usually enter the community due to the problems and needs of the community that need to be met (Buye, 2021). It emphasizes confronting the problem, arguing that the tendency to avoid allows an escape from difficulties or dependence on others to solve the issues. Other approaches include the power-conflict approach, which fosters creating harmonious communities by coming up with solutions that seek to address conflicts, especially those with the potential to slow down 20 or impair development. Also, the welfare approach seeks to interact with working communities to enhance their capacity, consequently improving their well-being (Buye, 2021). Role of entrepreneurs in community development In many places worldwide, entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a promising response to economic challenges, such as a lack of jobs and waning economic vitality in rural and developing areas. Different community development projects and programmes have quite distinct implications for community development. At the heart of anti-poverty work is often a concern for community development and the participation of low-income people. It entails continuous improvement of social, economic and environmental standards, thereby maintaining an attractive environment, having a vital social structure that promotes collaboration, equity and liberty, and having an essential economy that is diversified, competitive and accessible (Gilchrist & Taylor, 2016). From a social perspective, community development has been linked to ensuring equity and the equitable distribution of resources and opportunities (Banks, 2019; Hale et al., 2019). Social equity is also central to Winston’s (2022) analysis of social aspects of community development. It includes social equity, which involves fair distribution of resources, avoiding exclusionary practices and allowing residents to participate fully in society. Winston (2022) also posited that social equity entails meeting the basic human needs of the present so they can participate in society while protecting the quality of earth’s life-support systems on which the welfare of current and future generations depends more so that the development is inclusive, well planned, governed and promotes a high quality of life with equality of access to decent quality services for all (Winston, 2022). Economically, regardless of the definition used, economic development is often associated with creating jobs and wealth and improving quality of life. From this perspective, community development concerns the community’s ability to be self-reliant, mobilize and build assets to sustainably improve their quality of life (Gallardo, 2015). Furthermore, entrepreneurs significantly impact local economies by helping to connect them to the larger global economy (Gherghina et al., 2020; Malizia et al., 2020). Beyond the direct economic value of entrepreneurship, Hassan et al. (2017) and Marques et al. (2019) found that entrepreneurial activity motivated by rural artisan professions or tourism can also contribute to the enhancement of local resources, cultural heritage and quality of life. Entrepreneurial activity of all origins creates new jobs and wealth that have spillover benefits into the greater region (Guerrero et al., 2016; Stuetzer et al., 2018). Zambian scenario Zambia is a middle-to-low-income country with a population of around 20 million. Zambia, like most Sub-Saharan countries, grapples with the scourge of poverty, which has continued to affect people, especially in rural areas. The World Bank estimates that 75% of Zambia’s impoverished people live in rural areas. As of 2022, the extreme poverty level in rural areas stood at 65.1% compared to about 22.4% for urban areas, almost three times higher. This implies that 65.1% of households in rural areas could not meet the cost of the basic food basket (Zambia Statistics Agency, 2022). A study by Muya et al. (2017) revealed that only a tiny percentage of the rural population had access to water points that met the prescribed standards for safe water. Further, despite the growing mobile network, its growth in rural areas was limited by poor infrastructure. In contrast, the internet service 21 quality was graded as being poor. Moreover, rural roads in Zambia are abysmal and in deplorable condition. Drains are missing, or where they exist, they are narrow, inadequate and not constructed correctly. Bridges are missing, old, inadequate, poorly constructed and usually poorly maintained (Tembo et al., 2020). The government aims to stimulate economic growth and development of rural areas, just like in many other countries. Communities, governments and other stakeholders need to collaborate to implement strategies that aim to improve the living conditions of rural people. Among these strategies is boosting socioeconomic conditions through rural entrepreneurship (World Bank, 2020). Regarding the development ideology, Zambia has been on a neoliberal trajectory since 1991, emphasizing allowing the markets to be fully involved in the development agenda. This sits well with the asset-based approach to community development, which, in a way, opines limiting the state’s role but rather fosters community empowerment and partnerships (MacLeod & Emejulu, 2014). Theoretical approach The theoretical framework anchoring this paper is based on economic theory. Economic theory classifies entrepreneurship as both a function and a personality attribute. As a function attribute, entrepreneurship is viewed as any occupation/endeavour that employs the business principles of production, trade and distribution in its operation or undertaking (Bennett et al., 2019; Zucchella & Urban, 2019). Further, entrepreneurs are viewed as people who may not be inventive but as innovators with fresh marketing concepts that can stir economic growth (Juliana et al., 2021). According to Ferreira et al. (2020), the entrepreneur actively employs all sorts of innovative techniques in the economic system to gain a competitive advantage over possible competitors in the market environment. Entrepreneurship is thus essential in economic development because of its quick responsiveness to technological needs and the ability to improve innovation to fulfil demand (Coulibaly et al., 2018). An entrepreneur is also viewed as a self-employed individual who bears the risk and provides for their economic fulfilment. Across various industrial revolutions, the concept has evolved to include the need for adequate administrative or managerial skill sets. From an economic theory perspective, the entrepreneurship literature focuses on the economic value of entrepreneurship and relates the competitive character of overall marketing forces to the entrepreneur’s inventive approaches. The argument is that an entrepreneur’s inventive abilities stem from their environment and economic conditions, which exist as the leading progression in incremental, experimental, and evolutionary ways (Malerba & McKelvey, 2020). Selection of indicator variables The variables/constructs adopted in this study were informed by similar studies by Radipere (2014), Jiménez et al. (2015), Peprah et al. (2017), Kerr et al. (2018), Vasan (2020), Sahinidis et al. (2021), Edwin et al. (2021), Gyimah and Lussier (2021), Saah (2022), as well as del Olmo-García et al. (2023). Common attributes/constructs explaining entrepreneurship were identified from the literature and categorized into four primary constructs/variables: entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization and business operation. For each variable, measurement items were equally identified from the literature, as shown in Table 2. 22 Table 2: Variables and measurement indicators informing the conceptualization. Variable Measurements indicators Authors Entrepreneurial Characteristics Age influences the ability to run a business Vasan, 2020; Sahinidis et al., 2021 Entrepreneur level of education Jiménez et al. 2015; Saah, 2022 Personality matches the business Kerr et al. 2018; Li et al., 2020; Edwin et al. 2021; Meng et al., 2022 Culture affects the way the business is run Radipere, 2014; Peprah et al. 2017 Business Conception Driven by innovations Hessels, 2019; Ahmad et al., 2022; del Olmo-García et al., 2023 Conducting market surveys to identify business opportunities Timmons et al., 2004; Gyimah & Lussier, 2021; Lin et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2019 A business plan is prepared before launching the business Gyimah & Lussier, 2021 Market completion analysis is considered before the commencement Timmons et al. 2004; Gyimah & Lussier, 2021 Business Realization An organizational structure is developed at the time of starting a business Harlin & Berglund, 2021 Registering with all necessary institutions Kumar & Borbora, 2016 Market partnerships and synergies Gyimah & Lussier, 2021 A team of people with the proper knowledge and skill set is constituted to run the business Ibrahim, 2010; Hessels, 2019; Gyimah & Lussier, 2021 Business Operation Quality goods and services Dhaliwal, 2016; Dzogbenuku & Keelson, 2019 Commitment to business Wang et al., 2015 Business satisfaction Przepiorka, 2017 Community Development Lowers unemployment levels del Olmo-García et al., 2023 Improved health of citizens Muhammed & Abubakar, 2019 Improved quality of life in the community Cusack, 2019; Muhammed & Abubakar, 2019 Improved level of education Gyimah & Lussier, 2021; del Olmo-García et al., 2023 The conceptual framework adapted for this study had four independent variables: entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization and business operation. The dependent variable in the framework is community development. Based on the literature and the preceding theory, the researchers hypothesized that community development is influenced by entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization and business operation, as presented in Figure 1. 23 Figure 1: Conceptual framework. The following four relationships were hypothesized: Hypothesis 1 Ho: Entrepreneurial characteristics have a considerable influence on community development. Ha: Entrepreneurial characteristics have no considerable influence on community development. Hypothesis 2 Ho: Business conception has a significant influence on community development. Ha: Business conception has no considerable influence on community development. Hypothesis 3 Ho: Business realization has a significant influence on community development. Ha: Business realization has no considerable influence on community development. Hypothesis 4 Ho: Business operation has a significant influence on community development. Ha: Business operation has no considerable influence on the community. Research methodology This study adopted a cross-sectional descriptive design with a quantitative approach. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire containing closed-ended questions from 197 respondents who were purposively sampled and drawn from the rural districts of Copperbelt province. These included entrepreneurs in agriculture, retail (comprising those involved in buying and selling), building construction, transportation business and metal works (welders and fabricators). The extensive literature review informed the development of the questionnaire (instrument) used for the data collection, in which variables used to explain rural entrepreneurship for community development were identified and included in the questionnaire. A summary of the respondents’ composition is shown in Table 3. 24 Table 3: Nature of respondents’ businesses. Business type n % Retail (buying and selling) 45 22.8 Agriculture 48 24.4 Transportation business 15 7.6 Building construction 24 12.2 Mining 3 1.5 Services 22 11.2 Metalworks 5 2.5 Manufacturing 14 7.1 Others 21 10.7 Total 197 100.0 The data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis, regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Factor analysis was carried out to explain the extent to which each item in the dataset was associated with the respective factor (variable). Further, regression analysis was carried out to evaluate relationships between the independent and dependent variables (community development). The hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis and standard F and tests at 95% significance level. Results Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) EFA was conducted to assess the uni-dimensionality and reliability of each factor. The extraction and rotation methods of principal components with Varimax rotation were specified. The results revealed that the attributes of all the factors had Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values of 0.605, which is slightly below the 0.7 threshold but still acceptable. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found to be significant (p = 0.000), as shown in Table 4. This indicated that the factor analysis was appropriate (Rehbinder, 2011; Chisumbe et al., 2022). The KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity are used to determine the suitability of data for factor analysis and whether the variables in the dataset are appropriate for extracting meaningful factors. Table 4: KMO value. KMO and Bartlett’s Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy .605 Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2242.145 Df 276 Sig. .000 Factor loadings were calculated for each variable. The factor loadings denoted the relationship between the items (statements) under each variable and the extracted components that explained their variation. The items not shown in Table 5 were ‘deleted’ for not loading at all, double loading and loadings below 0.5. 25 Table 5: Variables and factor loadings. Factors/variables Undeleted items Factor loadings Entrepreneurial Characteristics Age influences the ability to run a business 0.837 Level of education helps run the operations of the business 0.733 Personality matches the business 0.880 Culture affects the way the business is run 0.885 Business Conception Promotes innovations 0.624 A market survey is conducted to identify business opportunities 0.548 A business plan is prepared before launching the business 0.827 Market completion analysis is considered prior to commencement 0.819 Business Realization An organization structure is developed at the time of starting a business 0.807 Register with all necessary institutions such as PACRA, Banks and ZRA 0.875 Development of market partnerships and synergies 0.788 A team of people with the proper knowledge and skill set is constituted to run the business 0.510 Business Operation Market penetration, quality goods or services 0.727 Commitment to business 0.781 Business satisfaction 0.835 Community Development Lowers unemployment levels 0.614 There is improved health of citizens 0.860 There is an improved quality of life in the community 0.717 Improved access to education 0.778 The total variance explained was 84.62%. This implies that a more significant percentage of the variation in the scores on the Likert scale was explained. All these statistics affirm that the data’s validity was good, the research instrument was well prepared and the respondents understood the questions. Furthermore, good validity indicates that the research instrument sufficiently evaluated the phenomenon of rural entrepreneurship and community development. Table 6 shows the reliability statistics for the five main variables considered in this research. 26 Table 6: Reliability statistics. Variable Cronbach’s alpha No. of ‘undeleted items’ Entrepreneurial characteristics 0.704 4 Business conception 0.837 5 Business realization 0.644 2 Business operation 0.694 3 Community development 0.672 4 Different methods of determining reliability are used by different scholars in different situations and settings to assess the reliability of the data; this study employed consistent reliability. This method involves determination of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Entrepreneurial characteristics and business conception had Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.7, indicating strong reliability. Business realization, business operation and community development had Cronbach alpha values slightly below 0.7, but they were good enough, as they were above 0.5. Overall, the collected data were highly consistent and reproducible. The respondents answered the questions similarly and consistently. Regression analysis The regression analysis evaluated relationships between the four independent variables (entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization and business operation) and the dependent variable (community development). The strength of relationships was determined by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient (R). The research model was evaluated using ANOVA and the model summary. All statistics were generated based on a 95% confidence interval. The relationship between each predictor variable and the dependent variable was determined based on the Pearson correlation coefficients. Table 7 shows the Pearson correlation (R) values for each relationship. The P-value to denote the significance of the relationship was calculated for each value of R. The relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and community development was positive, linear, slightly above average and significant (R = 0.645; P = 0.000; P < 0.05). The relationship between business conception and community development was positive, linear, weak and not significant (R = 0.037; P = 0.679; P > 0.05). Similarly, the relationship between business realization and community development was positive, linear, weak and not significant (R = 0.062; P = 0.488; P > 0.05). The relationship between business operation and community development was positive, linear, average and significant (R = 0.648; P = 0.000; P < 0.05). The analysis revealed that only entrepreneurial characteristics and business operations significantly influenced community development in the Copperbelt rural area. In contrast, business conception and realization did not significantly influence community development. The relationships between four demographic variables (gender, age, education level and business tenure) and community development were tested. The statistics in Table 7 reveal that gender had a weak and insignificant relationship with community development (R = −0.108; P = 0.168; P > 0.05). Age had a slightly below average, linear and significant relationship with community development (R = 0.397; P = 0.000; P < 0.05). The highest qualification had an average, linear and significant relationship with community development (R = 0.538; P = 0.000; P < 0.05). Tenure of business had a weak, linear and insignificant relationship with community development (R = 0.037; P = 0.371; P > 0.05). 27 Table 7: Correlation coefficients. Community development Entrepreneurial characteristics Business conception Business realization Business operation Gender Age Education Level Tenure of business Pearson correlation Community development 1.000 Entrepreneurial characteristics .645 1.000 Business conception .037 .356 1.000 Business realization .062 .271 .134 1.000 Business operation .648 .433 .596 .433 1.000 Gender -.108 -.234 .186 -.528 -.249 1.000 Age .397 .311 .234 .683 .420 -.359 1.000 Education level .538 .373 .181 .265 .579 -.443 .221 1.000 Tenure of business .037 .295 .192 .123 .099 .059 .185 .133 1.000 Sig. (1-tailed) Community development . Entrepreneurial characteristics .000 . Business conception .679 .001 . Business realization .488 .007 .117 . Business operation .000 .000 .000 .000 . Gender .168 .018 .048 .000 .013 . Age .000 .002 .018 .000 .000 .001 . Education level .000 .000 .052 .008 .000 .000 .024 . Tenure of business .371 .004 .043 .136 .189 .302 .049 .118 . 28 The combined effect of the predictor variables, entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization and business operation on the dependent variable was tested, and the related statistics calculated are presented in the model summary shown in Table 8. The overall relationship between the independent and dependent variables was linear, positive and significant (R = 0.727; P = 0.000 < 0.05). The model’s coefficient of determination (R square) was 0.528, which shows that the variation in community development explained by the independent variables was 52.8%. The remaining 47.2% of the variation would be explained by factors not considered in this research. Table 8: Model summary statistics. Model summary Model R R- squared Adjusted R- Squared Std. error of the estimate Change Statistics R- squared change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change 1 .727a .528 .504 .39430 .528 21.292 4 76 .000 a. Predictors: (constant), entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization and operation. ANOVA was another technique used to evaluate the model developed for the research. This was done by evaluating the fit between the conceptualized relationships and the collected data. A summary of the ANOVA statistical results is presented in Table 9. Table 9: Analysis of variance. ANOVAa Model Sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig. 1 Regression 13.241 4 3.310 21.292 .000b Residual 11.816 76 .155 Total 25.057 80 a. Dependent variable: Community development b. Predictors: (constant), entrepreneurial characteristics, business conception, business realization and business operation The F-value for the model was significant at a 95% confidence interval with α at the significance level of 0.05. Thus P < α; 0.000 < 0.05. The results indicated that the data suited the model and that the model developed for the current research was significant. Hypothesis testing The research tested four hypotheses. The testing was done by comparing the P-values with the significance level (α). Since the confidence level was 95%, the significance level was 5% (0.05). The decision rule for the hypotheses was not to reject Ho, the null hypothesis if its P-value is smaller than the level of significance (P < or P < 0.05). Table 10 shows the null hypotheses for all key relationships, the respective statistics and the conclusion for each test. 29 Table 10: Hypothesis test statistics. Null hypothesis P-Value vs sig. level Conclusion There is no significant relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and community development 0.000 < 0.05 Rejected There is no significant relationship between business conception and community development. 0.679 > 0.05 Accepted There is no significant relationship between business realization and community development. 0.488 > 0.05 Accepted There is no significant relationship between business operation and community development. 0.000 < 0.05 Rejected Null hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and community development, which was rejected empirically (P-value < α; 0.000 < 0.05). It was inferred that there was a significant relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and community development. On the contrary, null hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between business conception and community development, was accepted (P-value > α; 0.679 > 0.05). It was inferred that there is no significant relationship between business conception and community development. Null hypothesis 3: There is no significant relationship between business realization and community development was accepted statistically (P-value > α; 0.488 > 0.05). It was inferred that there was no significant relationship between business realization and community development. Conversely, null hypothesis 4: There is no significant relationship between business operation and community development, was rejected statistically (P-value < α; 0.000 < 0.05). It was upheld as it is and worthwhile to infer that there was a significant relationship between business operation and community development. Discussion Influence of entrepreneurial characteristics on community development Entrepreneurial characteristics had a significant relationship with community development. Its variable coefficient for predicting community development was equally significant. Further, the associated hypothesis: There is a significant positive relationship between entrepreneurial characteristics and community development was statistically supported. The implication is that the attributes of entrepreneurs, such as age, education level, personality and culture, contribute significantly to the ability to do business and community development. Overall, the entrepreneurial characteristics were impactful. The findings are supported by Li et al. (2020) and Meng et al. (2022), positing that to speed up economic development in rural areas, it is essential to build up the critical mass of first-generation entrepreneurs. The characteristics of entrepreneurs in the Copperbelt rural area helped them contribute to community development. These findings agree with Kerr et al. (2018) and Edwin et al. (2021), emphasizing the importance of entrepreneur characteristics on community development. Influence of business conception on community development The relationship between business conception and community development was found to be weak and not significant. Furthermore, the hypothesis that business conception has a significant relationship with community development was not statistically supported. The implication is that efforts made at the conception stage of the business were not translating into community development. Another possibility is that the businesses were not effectively defined. This could be attributed to failure to properly document the business idea, poor definition of the business concept and limited knowledge and skills 30 on the part of some of the businesspeople involved in rural entrepreneurship. This result contrasts with studies by Lin et al. (2018) and Murphy et al. (2019) on the significance of business conception on rural entrepreneurship. Influence of business realization on community development The relationship between business realization and community development was found to be weak and not significant. Furthermore, the hypothesis that business realization has a significant relationship with community development was not empirically supported. The implication is that efforts made when realizing or setting up the businesses were not translating into improved community development. Another possibility was that the coordination and organization were not effectively done at the beginning. This could be attributed to limited use of tools such as organization charts, poor formalization of the business with bodies such as the Patents and Companies Registration Agency (PACRA), the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) and banks and limited knowledge and skills on the part of some of the personnel involved in business realization. The finding that business realization did not significantly influence community development is contrary to what Ibrahim (2010) found on the role played by rural entrepreneurship in employment generation, showing that rural entrepreneurship has a high potential for creating new jobs, considering the vast resources in rural areas. Influence of business operation on community development Business operation had a significant relationship with community development. Its variable coefficient for predicting community development was equally significant. Further, the associated hypothesis: business operation has a significant relationship with community development was statistically supported. The implication is that the attributes of business operations focusing on commitment, providing quality goods or services needed by the market and having business satisfaction from running the business contributed to overall entrepreneurship and community development. These results suggest that commitment to running a business is significant in explaining entrepreneurship and predicting rural community development. On the importance of commitment, the results agree with Wang et al. (2015). Similarly, the results agree with Dhaliwal (2016) and Dzogbenuku and Keelson (2019) on the need to provide quality goods or services which respond to the market in explaining business operations as an entrepreneur thereby contributing to community development. Conclusion This paper reaffirms that entrepreneurship plays a critical role in rural community development, leading to improved living standards, employment opportunities, alleviation of poverty, utilization of local resources and reduction of rural-urban migration. Specifically, rural entrepreneurship is an essential facilitator of economic development, especially in rural areas. The relationship between rural entrepreneurship and community development was assessed in this study, and the findings showed that rural entrepreneurship significantly influences community development in rural areas. Therefore, the authors recommend investing in critical infrastructure such as roads, telecommunications and electricity infrastructure in rural areas to attract entrepreneurs and stimulate rural community development. Though exciting and valuable findings have emerged from this study, they are not without limitations. Consideration should be given to the following limitations concerning this current study. First, the research was conducted in Copperbelt province only; therefore, it is recommended that a similar research study be 31 conducted in another geographical location from another developing country. Second, additional factors or constructs can be considered to improve the conceptualized framework. References Abhijith, L. (2021). Role of entrepreneurship in rural development–An analysis. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 8(5), 720–724. https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2105488.pdf Ahmad, N. A., Rasul, M. S., Othman, N., & Jalaludin, N. A. (2022). Generating entrepreneurial ideas for business development. Sustainability, 14(9), Article 4905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094905 Akiri, S. E., Onoja, E., & Kunanzang, P. S. (2016). Entrepreneurship and job creation in Nigeria. IIARD International Journal of Economics and Business Management, 2(3), 61–67. https://tinyurl.com/y85mpdkd Arefi, M. (2008). An asset-based approach to community development and capacity-building. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. https://tinyurl.com/2teay8dx Banks, S. (2019). Ethics, equity and community development: Mapping the terrain. In Ethics, equity and community development (pp. 3–36). Policy Press. Bennett, R., Smith, H., Van Lieshout, C., Montebruno, P., & Newton, G. (2019). The age of entrepreneurship: Business proprietors, self-employment and corporations since 1851. Routledge. Buye, R. (2021). Effective approaches to community development. ResearchGate. https://tinyurl.com/32sayx2k Candelario-Moreno, C., & Sánchez-Hernández, M. I. (2024). Redefining rural entrepreneurship: The impact of business ecosystems on the success of rural businesses in Extremadura, Spain. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 20(2), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.7341/20242022 Chinyowa, K. C., Sirayi, M., & Mokuku, S. (2016). Doing things differently: Using the ABCD method to negotiate with local leaders in community engagement projects. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 6(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135216.pdf Chisumbe, S., Aigbavboa, C., Mwanaumo, E., & Thwala, W. (2022). A measurement model for stakeholders’ participation in urban housing development for Lusaka: A neo-liberal perspective. Urban Science, 6(2), Article 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6020034 Coulibaly, S. K., Erbao, C., & Mekongcho, T. M. (2018). Economic globalization, entrepreneurship, and development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.028 Cusack, C. (2019). Sustainable development and quality of life. In B. Sinha (Ed.), Multidimensional approach to quality of life issues. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6958-2_3 Del Olmo-García, F., Domínguez-Fabián, I., Crecente-Romero, F. J., & del Val-Núñez, M. T. (2023). Determinant factors for the development of rural entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, Article 122487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122487 Deng, J., Chi, H., & Zhang, T. (2024). Effects of entrepreneurial activities on rural revitalization: Based on dissipative structure theory. Agriculture, 14(9), Article 1474. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091474 Dhaliwal, A. (2016). Role of entrepreneurship in economic development. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, 4(6), 4262–4269. Dzapasi, Y., 2019. Role of government in rural entrepreneurship to economic development: The case of Murewa Rural-Mashonaland East Province, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, 9(9), 171–191. https://tinyurl.com/mts4akny Dzogbenuku, R. K., & Keelson, S. A. (2019). Marketing and entrepreneurial success in emerging markets: The nexus. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 168–187. https://tinyurl.com/43vatdsc Edwin, S. F., Ali, J. K., & Noor, N. M. (2021). Entrepreneurs personality traits and business performance: A conceptual framework. Advances in Business Research International Journal, 7(3), 56–64. https://tinyurl.com/3hm6jnwj Ekanem, I. (2024). Principles of innovation, entrepreneurship and sustainability: An evidence-based approach. Taylor & Francis. Ferreira, J., Coelho, A., & Moutinho, L. (2020). Dynamic capabilities, creativity and innovation capability and their impact on competitive advantage and firm performance: The moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation. Technovation, 92, Article 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.11.004 Fortunato, M. W. P. (2014). Supporting rural entrepreneurship: A review of conceptual developments from research to practice. Community Development, 45(4), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2014.935795 Galvao, A. R., Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C. S., Braga, V., & Ferreira, M. (2020). Mentoring entrepreneurship in a rural territory: A qualitative exploration of an entrepreneurship program for rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 78, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.038 https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2105488.pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094905 https://tinyurl.com/y85mpdkd https://tinyurl.com/2teay8dx https://tinyurl.com/32sayx2k https://doi.org/10.7341/20242022 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135216.pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6020034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.028 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6958-2_3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122487 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091474 https://tinyurl.com/mts4akny https://tinyurl.com/43vatdsc https://tinyurl.com/3hm6jnwj https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.11.004 https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2014.935795 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.038 32 Goetz, S. J., Partridge, M. D., & Stephens, H. M. (2018). The economic status of rural America in the President Trump era and beyond. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 40(1), 97–118. https://tinyurl.com/y89rsw7p Gyimah, P., & Lussier, R. N. (2021). Rural entrepreneurship success factors: An empirical investigation in an emerging market. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 31(4), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.53703/001c.29470 Hale, J., Legun, K., Campbell, H., & Carolan, M. (2019). Social sustainability indicators as performance. Geoforum, 103, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.008 Harlin, U., & Berglund, M. (2021). Designing for sustainable work during industrial startups: The case of a high-growth entrepreneurial firm. Small Business Economics, 57, 807–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00383-3 Hessels, J., & Naudé, W. (2019). The intersection of the fields of entrepreneurship and development economics: A review towards a new view. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(2), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12286 Jarinaa, B., & Manida, M. (2024). Exploring the impact of rural entrepreneurship development in India’s MSME sector. Social Science and Human Research Bulletin, 1(1), 01–06. https://sshrb.org/index.php/sshrb/article/view/2 Jiménez, A., Palmero-Cámara, C., González-Santos, M. J., González-Bernal, J., & Jiménez-Eguizábal, J. A. (2015). The impact of educational levels on formal and informal entrepreneurship. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 18(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.002 Juliana, N. O., Hui, H. J., Clement, M., Solomon, E. N., & Elvis, O. K. (2021). The impact of creativity and innovation on entrepreneurship development: Evidence from Nigeria. Open Journal of Business and Management, 9(4), 1743–1770. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2021.94095 Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W. R., & Xu, T. (2018.) Personality traits of entrepreneurs: A review of recent literature. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 279–356. https://tinyurl.com/3wdnmkz3 Khadka, R. (2012). Switching gears: From needs to assets based approach to community development in Nepal. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(11), 81–88. https://tinyurl.com/5d2j3dxr Kindornay, S., Ron, J., & Carpenter, C. (2012). Rights-based approaches to development: Implications for NGOs. Human Rights Quarterly, 34(2), 472–506. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23254733 Kushalakshi, D., & Raghurama, A. (2014). Rural entrepreneurship: A catalyst for rural development. International Journal of Science and Research, 3(8), 51–54. https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=2015164 Kwong, M. T. S., & Kan, M. W. C. (2017). Applying problem-solving approach in community capacity development: Strengths, limitations, and possibilities. Chinese University of Hong Kong. https://tinyurl.com/2encb9az Galambos, L., & Amatori, F. (2016). The entrepreneurial multiplier effect. Enterprise & Society, 17(4), 763–808. https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2016.41 Gallardo, R. (2015). Community economic development: Key concepts. Mississippi State University Extension Service. https://tinyurl.com/5n7dcsws Galvão, A. R., Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C. S. E., Braga, V., & Ferreira, M. (2020). Mentoring entrepreneurship in a rural territory:- A qualitative exploration of an entrepreneurship program for rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 78, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.038 Gherghina, Ș. C., Botezatu, M. A., Hosszu, A., & Simionescu, L. N. (2020). Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): The engine of economic growth through investments and innovation. Sustainability, 12(1), Article 347. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010347 Gilchrist, A., & Taylor, M. (2016). The short guide to community development. Policy Press. Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: Evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9377-4 Hassan, H., Tan, S. K., Rahman, M. S., & Sade, A. B. (2017). Preservation of Malaysian handicraft to support tourism development. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 32(3), 402–417. https://www.inderscience.com/offers.php?id=87022 Ibrahim, H. (2010). The role of rural entrepreneurship in employment generation. Journal of Arts and Contemporary Society, 2(1), 78–89. https://tinyurl.com/2bbw5b78 Ihejiamaizu, G. C. (2019). The role of entrepreneurship in rural development in Cross-River State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 3(6), 85–91. Imedashvili, S., Kekua, A., & Ivchenko, P. (2013). Rural entrepreneurship: Challenges and opportunities. [Bachelor’s dissertation, Jönköping University]. Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet. https://tinyurl.com/v7beefzm Kumar, G., & Borbora, S. (2016). Facilitation of Entrepreneurship: The role of institutions and the institutional environment. South Asian Journal of Management, 23(3), 57–77. https://tinyurl.com/y89rsw7p https://doi.org/10.53703/001c.29470 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.008 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00383-3 https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12286 https://sshrb.org/index.php/sshrb/article/view/2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.002 https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2021.94095 https://tinyurl.com/3wdnmkz3 https://tinyurl.com/5d2j3dxr https://www.jstor.org/stable/23254733 https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=2015164 https://tinyurl.com/2encb9az https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2016.41 https://tinyurl.com/5n7dcsws https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.038 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010347 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9377-4 https://www.inderscience.com/offers.php?id=87022 https://tinyurl.com/2bbw5b78 https://tinyurl.com/v7beefzm 33 Lakshmanaswamy, D., & Jasmine, K. S. (2023). An empirical study on the role of rural entrepreneurship on socio-economic development among rural mass. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 33(3), 5504–5518. https://doi.org/10.59670/jns.v33i.4942 Lebambo, M., & Shambare, R. (2020). Entrepreneurship development framework for small-scale rural tourism establishments in South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 9, 1–19. https://tinyurl.com/46k6hd7x Ledwith, M. (2016). Community development in action: Putting Freire into practice. Policy Press. Li, C., Ahmed, N., Qalati, S. A., Khan, A., & Naz, S. (2020). Role of business incubators as a tool for entrepreneurship development: The mediating and moderating role of business start-up and government regulations. Sustainability, 12(5), Article 1822. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051822 Lin, T. L., Lu, T. Y., Hsieh, M. C., & Liu, H. Y. (2018). From conception to start-up: Who and what affect female entrepreneurship. Contemporary Management Research, 14(4), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.17957 MacLeod, M. A., & Emejulu, A. (2014). Neoliberalism with a community face? A critical analysis of asset-based community development in Scotland. Journal of Community Practice, 22(4), 430–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2014.959147 Malerba, F., & McKelvey, M. (2020). Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems. Small Business Economics, 54(2), 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0060-2 Malizia, E., Feser, E. J., Renski, H., & Drucker, J. (2020). Understanding local economic development. Routledge. Marques, C. S., Santos, G., Ratten, V., & Barros, A. B. (2019). Innovation as a booster of rural artisan entrepreneurship: A case study of black pottery. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(4), 753–772. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2018-0104 Meng, S., Gao, X., & Duan, L. (2022). Facing the COVID-19 pandemic and developing a sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem: The theory and practice of innovation and entrepreneurship policies in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), Article 8797. https://tinyurl.com/462urf8a Moseli, K., 2022. A rights-based approach to development: The link between human rights and development. Pretoria Student Law Review, 16, 196. https://doi.org/10.29053/pslr.v16i1.4513 Muhammed, Z., & Abubakar, I.R. (2019). Improving the quality of life of urban communities in developing countries. In In W. L. Filho, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, P. Gökçin özuyar, & T. Wall (Eds.), Responsible consumption and production (pp. 357–370. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_25 Murphy, P. J., Hood, A. C., & Wu, J. (2019). The heptalogical model of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 2(3), 188–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127419829394 Muya, M., Kaluba, C., Banda, I. N., Rattray, S., Mubemba, C., & Mukelabai, G. (2017). Infrastructure watch culture: Zambia’s infrastructure report card. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 5(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2017.050102 Nel, H. (2020). Stakeholder engagement: asset-based community-led development (ABCD) versus the traditional needs-based approach to community development. Social Work, 56(3), 264–278. https://tinyurl.com/za4etjap Noh, J. E. (2022). Review of human rights-based approaches to development: Empirical evidence from developing countries. International Journal of Human Rights, 26(5), 883–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1981869 Okeke, C., & Nwankwo, F. (2017). Rural entrepreneurship and rural development in Nigeria. Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review, 5(1), Article a152. https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v5i1.152 Pan, Y., Zhang, S., & Zhang, M. (2024). The impact of entrepreneurship of farmers on agriculture and rural economic growth: Innovation-driven perspective. Innovation and Green Development, 3(1), Article 100093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100093 Pato, L. (2020). Entrepreneurship and innovation towards rural development evidence from a peripheral area in Portugal. European Countryside, 12(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0012 Peprah, W. K., Ocansey, E. O. N. D., & Mintah, E. K. (2017). The influence of culture on global marketing strategies: A confirmatory study. International Journal of Business & Management, 5(10), 150–155. https://tinyurl.com/29paay9v Przepiorka, A. M. (2017). Psychological determinants of entrepreneurial success and life satisfaction. Current Psychology, 36, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9419-1 Radipere, S. (2014). The effects of culture as a start-up factor on business performance. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12(4), 141–154. https://tinyurl.com/29paay9v https://doi.org/10.59670/jns.v33i.4942 https://tinyurl.com/46k6hd7x https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051822 https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.17957 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2014.959147 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0060-2 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2018-0104 https://tinyurl.com/462urf8a https://doi.org/10.29053/pslr.v16i1.4513 https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127419829394 https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2017.050102 https://tinyurl.com/za4etjap https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1981869 https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v5i1.152 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100093 https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0012 https://tinyurl.com/29paay9v https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9419-1 https://tinyurl.com/29paay9v 34 Rajsinghot, K., Bala, S., & Singhal, P. (2024). Strengthening sustainable rural development through entrepreneurship: An Indian perspective. In A. Vinodan, S. Mahalalkshmi, & S. Rameshkumar (Eds), Informal economy and sustainable development goals: Ideas, interventions and challenges (pp. 239–256). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-980-220241013 Rehbinder, E. (2011). Do personal networks affect the success of foreign venture performance? An empirical analysis of Nordic firms in Poland. [Master’s thesis, Copenhagen Business School]. https://tinyurl.com/454ku8wf Riswan, M., & Beegom, B. (2021). Participatory approach for community development: Conceptual analysis. In COVID- 19 pandemic and socio economic issues: An experience of Sri Lanka (pp. 136–146). Faculty of Arts and Culture, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka: Department of Economics and Statistics. Saah, P. (2022). The impact of education and training on the success of small and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Innovation in Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 2(3), 32–46. https://core.ac.uk/download/572722296.pdf Sahinidis, A. G., Xanthopoulou, P. I., Tsaknis, P. A., & Vassiliou, E. E. (2021). Age and prior working experience effect on entrepreneurial intention. Corporate & Business Strategy Review, 2(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.22495/cbsrv2i1art2 Sharma, A. (2024). Eco-entrepreneurship and sustainable development in Mizoram’s mountainous landscape: Unleashing potentials for positive change. In P. K. Rai, A. Singh, B. Beingachhi, & S, K. Singh (Eds.), Natural resources management and sustainable livelihoods in the mountainous region: Evidence, gap and future strategies (pp. 45–59). Springer Nature Singapore. Sima, E., 2015. Sustainable rural development through rural entrepreneurship. Lucrări Științifice Management Agricol, 17(1), 89–94. Stadel, C. (2019). Horizontal and vertical archipelagoes of agriculture and rural development in the Andean realm. In M. J. Bastante-Ceca, J. L. Fuentes-Bargues, L. Hufnagel, F.-C. Mihai, & C. Iatu (Eds.), Sustainability assessment at the 21st century. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86841 Stuetzer, M., Audretsch, D. B., Obschonka, M., Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Potter, J. (2018). Entrepreneurship culture, knowledge spillovers and the growth of regions. Regional Studies, 52(5), 608–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1294251 Sudipta, G. (2013). Entrepreneurship: An overview of the issues and challenges in the context of rural development in India. Business Spectrum, 1(2) 12 – 19. https://tinyurl.com/5e4ndfbc Tembo, M., Mwanaumo, E. M., Chisumbe, S., & Aiyetan, A.O., 2020. Factors affecting effective infrastructure service delivery in Zambia’s local authorities: A case of Eastern Province. In E. G. Popkova, B. S. Sergi, L. Haabazoka, & J. V. Ragulina (Eds.), Supporting inclusive growth and sustainable development in Africa-Volume II: Transforming infrastructure development (pp.65–81). Palgrave Macmillan. https://tinyurl.com/bdhm8je4 Timmons, J.A., Spinelli, S., & Tan, Y. (2004). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Vasan, M. (2020). Moderating effect of demographic and business characteristics on performance of women owned small enterprises: Empirical evidence from India. Serbian Journal of Management, 15(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm15-21922 Uddin, A. (2024). Opportunities and challenges in implementing a rights-based approach to community development projects in Pakistan: A social responsibility and human rights perspective. In M. Pucelj & R. Bodinc (Eds.), Bridging human rights and corporate social responsibility: Pathways to a sustainable global society (pp. 255–282). IGI Global. Wang, X., Jessup, L. M., & Clay, P. F. (2015). Measurement model in entrepreneurship and small business research: A ten-year review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11, 183–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0285-0 Winston, N. (2022). Sustainable community development: Integrating social and environmental sustainability for sustainable housing and communities. Sustainable Development, 30(1), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2238 World Bank. (2020). Reversals of fortune: Poverty and shared prosperity 2020. World Bank. https://tinyurl.com/497uhjxa Zambia Statistics Agency. (2022). Highlights of the 2022 poverty assessment in Zambia. https://tinyurl.com/bdhf4dn8 Zucchella, A., & Urban, S. (2019). Circular entrepreneurship. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-980-220241013 https://tinyurl.com/454ku8wf https://core.ac.uk/download/572722296.pdf https://doi.org/10.22495/cbsrv2i1art2 https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86841 https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1294251 https://tinyurl.com/5e4ndfbc https://tinyurl.com/bdhm8je4 https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm15-21922 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0285-0 https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2238 https://tinyurl.com/497uhjxa https://tinyurl.com/bdhf4dn8