AbstractThis research investigates the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Bharatpur, Chitwan, Nepal, by analyzing the spatial dimensions, constituent processes, and entrepreneurial perceptions. Adopting a qualitative, single-case methodology under an interpretivist paradigm, this study relies on 27 detailed interviews with entrepreneurs and stakeholders within the ecosystem. Results indicate that spatial inequalities—especially those dividing urban and rural areas—significantly influence access to infrastructure, resources, and opportunities. Ecosystem processes predominantly operate in an informal manner, focusing on social networks that promote the exchange of knowledge, mentorship, and collaborative adaptability, whereas formal structures like incubation programs and financial institutions are still inadequately developed. Entrepreneurs exhibit resilience alongside dual motivations—economic sustainability and social impact—despite ongoing obstacles including bureaucratic inefficiencies, financial limitations, and restricted market access. The research confirms the influence of the local context on entrepreneurial action and the functioning of the ecosystem, highlighting the necessity of localized and inclusive policy responses. It demands comprehensive support mechanisms that combine formal and informal systems, strengthen digital connectivity, and increase access to finance sources. Through recording the features of the ecosystem in a non-metropolitan environment, the paper contributes to entrepreneurial ecosystem literature and delivers actionable guidance for policy and practice in emerging economies.Keywords: Entrepreneurial ecosystem; Spatial dimensions; Informal networks; Resource mobilization; Community-based entrepreneurship; Bharatpur Chitwan; Developing regions; Qualitative research approaches.1. IntroductionEntrepreneurship is ever more recognized as an essential engine of economic growth, stimulating innovation, generating job opportunities, and facilitating regional development around the world (Gomes et al., 2022; Reiner et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2019; Westlund, 2011). Acknowledging the paramount importance of entrepreneurship, most nations and regions are strategically changing their emphasis from conventional policies aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises to comprehensive entrepreneurship policies that will stimulate dynamic and conducive ecosystems (Audretsch et al., 2015; Audretsch & Phillips, 2007; Kantis et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2019). These intricate webs of interconnected actors and resources that typify entrepreneurial ecosystems provide an integrated strategy for developing new business enterprises and building an active commercial landscape. The complexities that mark entrepreneurial ecosystems, however, call for an informed understanding of their inner workings, geographic configurations, and the various frames of reference of the actors involved (Auerswald, 2015; Brito & Leitão, 2020; Malecki, 2018; Spigel, 2015; Wurth et al., 2021). The theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems, although increasingly well established, is challenging to apply in practice, tending to exhibit a model of circular logic whereby successful entrepreneurship is explained by an enabling environment without explicit causal argument or consideration of localized historical context (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Muñoz et al., 2020; Stam & Ven, 2019).The aim of this study is to investigate the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Bharatpur, Chitwan, which is a geographical and socioeconomic unique area in Nepal. Bharatpur of Chitwan presents a fascinating background to study entrepreneurial ecosystems (Prajapati, 2019) with its fertile combination of established industries like poultry and agriculture and a growing interest in new industries such as tourism and technology (Subedi, 2017). Understanding the dynamics of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, particularly its spatial characteristics, its constituent processes, and the perspectives of entrepreneurs operating within it, is of paramount importance for informing policies and interventions that can effectively promote sustainable economic development in the region. The primary research question guiding the inquiry is: How can the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Bharatpur, Chitwan, Nepal, be understood through the lens of its spatial dimension, constituent processes, and entrepreneurial perspectives? To answer this question, the study will pursue the following specific objectives: 1) To examine the spatial dimension of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Bharatpur, Chitwan, focusing on the geographical distribution of resources, infrastructure, and networks that support entrepreneurial activity; 2) To analyze the constituent processes of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Bharatpur, Chitwan, including the interactions and relationships between different actors, the flow of information and resources, and the mechanisms for knowledge creation and dissemination; 3) To explore the entrepreneurial perspectives of individuals operating within the ecosystem in Bharatpur, Chitwan, focusing on their experiences, challenges, and perceptions of the support available to them.The present research has great importance for several reasons. First, this study will add to the general understanding of entrepreneurship ecosystem in developing country contexts, particularly in regions that are located outside of the main metropolitan areas in which most existing studes haven been concentrated. . By examining the specific case of Bharatpur, Chitwan, this research is set to make meaningful contributions to the understanding of the unique challenges and opportunities faced by entrepreneurs in such settings. Moreover, the result of this study will also bear significant practical implications for local policymakers, support agencies, government officials, and other stakeholders interested in entrepreneurship promotion in Bharatpur, Chitwan, and other similar areas. The enhanced understanding of the ecosystem dynamics can guide more precise and effective policy and initiative design for building a healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem. This research ultimately aims to present an in-depth analysis of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Bharatpur, Chitwan thereby contributing to both academic knowledge and local development initiatives.2. Literature ReviewThe concept of Entrepreneurship ecosystem concept has been explained and defined using numerous theoretical perspectives, each of which selects out distinctive aspects of this multifaceted phenomenon. These theoretical position provide a useful framework for interpreting the dynamics operating within the Bharatpur, Chitwan setting.2.1 Defining the Entrepreneurship EcosystemThere are number of theoretical approaches that augment our knowledge about the elements making up an entrepreneurial ecosystem. The stakeholder view highlights the necessity of the network of actors and their connection as the most vital part of the ecosystem (Wurth et al., 2021). Here the entrepreneurial ecosystem entails a wide array of stakeholders, such as entrepreneurs, investors, mentors, universities, government, and support organizations, whose coordinated efforts and interactions facilitate innovation and stimulate economic growth (Malecki, 2018). In this view, a thriving ecosystem demands simultaneous empowerment and productive collaboration of all stakeholder rather than merely expanding the volume of venture capital (Sedeh et al., 2021).Conversely, the resource-based perspective emphasizes both the presence and access to the essential resources like finances, human capital, intellectual capital, and needed infrastructure as fundamental drivers of entrepreneurial success (Clough et al., 2018; Ketani-Mwanakatwe & Malama, 2024; Shah et al., 2013). Initiatives such as the Babson College Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project highlight the significance of access to finance, supportive policy, infrastructure, human capital, and culture in the development of entrepreneurial activity (Farinha et al., 2020; Khanani, 2019; Spigel, 2015). According to this view, settings with plentiful and easily accessible resources will be more successful in attracting and nurtuting high-gorwth companies (Stam & Ven, 2019).The systems view perceives the entrepreneurial ecosystem as a complex adaptive system in which different elements influence one another and change over time (Roundy et al., 2018). This approach emphasizes the dynamic and interconnected nature of the ecosystem, highlighting the role of feedback loops, emergent properties, and self-organization in shaping entrepreneurial outcomes (Schmutzler et al., 2020). The entrepreneurial ecosystem as a complex system can be understood only by paying attention not just to the individual elements but to the connection and interactions that take place among them (Lu, 2021).The attribute based approach identifies particular features that characterize a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem, including a conducive cultural environment, dynamic innovation community, highly qualified labor force, and supportive regulatory frameworks (Malecki, 2018; Stam, 2015). It is strongly allied to the systemic approach (Shwetzer et al., 2019; Spigel, 2015; Thomas et al., 2019). It argues that ecosystems that possess these characteristics are more likely to support entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship ecosystems account for the persistence of high-growth entrepreneurship across various regions (Spigel, 2015).Regardless of the particular stance taken, there is a broad agreement on the major components on the major components that constitute an entrepreneurial ecosystem (Wurth et al., 2021). These components commonly comprise financial access, access to talent, access to knowledge and information, conducive policies and regulations, entrepreneurial culture, and quality supporting organizations (Alves et al., 2021; Novotny et al., 2020). These elements interact and reinforce each other, creating a virtuous cycle of entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. However, it is important to acknowledge that the “ecosystem” metaphor, while useful for highlighting interdependencies (Auerswald, 2015; Roundy & Fayard, 2018; Spigel, 2015), should be applied with caution, as real-world ecosystems are complex and dynamic (Audretsch et al., 2018; Muñoz et al., 2020) and their elements may not always interact in predictable or harmonious ways. The Bharatpur, Chitwan context will certainly alter the manner in which these components emerge and interact within the entrepreneurial ecosystem.2.2 Spatial Dimensions of Entrepreneurship EcosystemsEntrepreneurial ecosystems have traditionally been widely envisioned as geographically delimited phenomena, normally restricted to certain cities, regions, or nations (Malecki, 2018; Spigel, 2015; Spigel & Harrison, 2017; Stam & Ven, 2019). This view emphasizes the importance of local assets, proximity for knowledge spillovers, and the benefits of face-to-face contact between actors in territory. Yet, recent views question such as intrinsically local mind-set by emphasizing the growing trans-local scale of entrepreneurial action (Muathe et al., 2022; Sleutjes & Schutjens, 2012). Modern entrepreneurs are prone to tap into resources, expertise, and networks that are situated outside their direct territorial reach, leveraging online platforms and international connectivity to fuel their ventures (Dillon et al., 2020; Javalgi et al., 2011).Proximity is the key notion to comprehend the spatial dynamics at ply in entrepreneurial ecosystems (Alderete, 2015; Salvador, 2021). Whereas geographic closeness has long been touted, other proximity types such as cognitive proximity (common knowledge and understanding), social proximity (tight interpersonal relationship), organizational proximity (ties through partnerships and collaborations) and institutional proximity (common regulatory and cultural contexts) are just as important in influencing interactions and flows of resources in ecosystems (Novotny et al., 2020; Spigel, 2015; Sternberg, 2007). Growing digitalization of the economy is reshaping these proximity dynamics, and this opens up new possibilities for entrepreneurial action while possibly diminishing dependence on sheer geographic proximity (Sheppard, 2001; Traxler & Luger, 2000; Zhang & Sun, 2021).Literature demonstrates that the features of entrepreneurial ecosystem at the regional level can largely define the nature of firms and their engagement in international networking activities (Muathe et al., 2022; Spigel & Harrison, 2017). In this way, although a local ecosystem presents a fundamental framework, the capacity of entrepreneurs to establish connections and tap into external resources within these boundaries could be crucial for growth and competitiveness. In addition, research highlights the need for geographic heterogeneity across sub-national areas and citites, acknowledging that the quality and availability of factors affecting the entrepreneurial performance can differ tremendously within a nation (Stam & Ven, 2019; Xu et al., 2021). The influence of regional ecosystem conditions on the general entrepreneurial productivity is highly established (Roundy & Fayard, 2018; Tomy & Pardede, 2018). What is critical to note, however, is that this influence tends to be at an aggregate level, which means that individual entrepreneurs may not necessarily observe or feel the influence of the overall ecosystem (Ács et al., 2017). This calls for a need to analyze the particular spatial networks and resources that entrepreneurs in Bharatpur Chitwan can draw upon, and the manner in which they negotiate both local and possibly trans-lcoal relations.2.3 Constituent Processes of Entrepreneurship EcosystemsEntrepreneurial ecosystems should be thought of not as fixed entities but rather as dynamic and developing systems with ongoing processes that define their structure and performance (Roundy et al., 2018; Roundy & Fayard, 2018; Spigel, 2015). It is essential to understand these fundamental processes for an understanding of how ecosystems function and how to effectively support and grow them (Chapin et al., 1996; Richter et al., 2014). These processes can be classified into several key areas that allow for an understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Malecki, 2018).One of the core processes inherent in an entrepreneurial ecosystem is knowledge creation and distribution of knowledge (Spigel & Harrison, 2017). Entrepreneurship ecosystems distinguish themselves from clusters through an emphasis on business model innovation, the exploitation of digital affordances, organization around opportunity discovery and pursuit, voluntary horizontal knowledge spillovers, and a cluster-external locus of entrepreneurial opportunities(Autio et al., 2017; Cavallo et al., 2018). It entails the creation of new ideas, technologies, and business models along with the knowledge transfer among the actors in the ecosystem. Knowledge can be shared through many channels, such as forma research partnership, informal relationship, mentorship schemes, and employees transfer among different organizations (Bouncken & Kraus, 2021; Różewski et al., 2015).One other essential process involves the mobilization of resources, including attracting and assigning resources like financial capital, human capital, infrastructure, and social capital in the ecosystem (Clough et al., 2018; Hussenoeder, 2022). Entrepreneurial ecosystems are also marked by experimentation and learning, where entrepreneurs and other actors engage in iterative processes of trial and error, adapting their strategies and approaches in response to learning from the market and the external environment (Spigel, 2015; Stam & Ven, 2019).2.4 Entrepreneurial PerspectivesEntrepreneurial perspectives in order to fully grasp the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems, it is critical to examine the perceptions and experiences of the entrepreneurs themselves (Auerswald, 2015; Spigel, 2015). Entrepreneurs play a central role in the ecosystems, introducing innovation, forming new businesses, and adding value to the economy (Lechner et al., 2022; Pugh et al., 2019). The way individuals think, are motivated, and plan varies according to the particular ecosystem environment they are in, and reciprocally, their actions shape the ecosystem’s evolution (Roundy et al., 2018).Moving into an entrepreneurial realm, an entrepreneurial ecosystem is a collection of opportunities and limitations that affect the capacity of individuals to establish, develop, and expland their ventures (Auerswald, 2015; Novotny et al., 2020). The resource available, the quality of the networks, the institutional setup, and the prevailing cultural norms all impact the decision taken by entrepreneurs and the results they accomplish (Panda & Dash, 2014). Furthermore, how entrepreneurs perceive the ecosystems may also affect their actions (Novotny et al., 2020).Entrepreneur’s participation in the entrepreneurial ecosystem is characterized by proactive and strategic involvement rather than by passive activity (Pugh et al., 2019). Entrepreneurs take an active role in searching for resources, establishing relatioships, and dealing with the regulatory environment in order to enhance their companies. Their capacity to engage appropriately with the ecosystem relies on their skills, knowledge, and social capital, but also on their capacity to adapt to evolving circumstances and take advantage of new possibilities (Auerswald, 2015; Garud et al., 2020). Moreover, the distinctive traits of entrepreneurs and their embedment in a particular setting are closely interconnect with one another, shaping entrepreneurial venture dynamics (Pita et al., 2021). Entrepreneurs as human agents exert a key influence on the ecosystem through their strategic actions and decision, thereby underlining the sophisticated intertwinement of individual agency and structural context in entrepreneurial ecosystems (McMullen et al., 2020).2.5 The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem in Nepal and ChitwanThe Nepalese startup ecosystem is in its nascent phase compared to more advanced economies but is evolving quickly, fueled by a burgeoning population of young and aspiring entrepreneurs, rising internet penetration, and favorable government policies. The nation has experienced a deluge of startups spanning multiple sectors, such as technology, tourism, agriculture and renewable energy (Karki, 2012, 2017). The Nepalese ecosystem has a number of attributes, one of which is the poor availability of financial resources, a significant problem for entrepreneurs, especially for those in the startup stage of their venture, because of the absence of venture capital, angel investors, and conventional bank loans (Ghimire, 2009; Kharel & Dahal, 2020). Moreover, poor access to formal education and training programs discourages development in entrepreneurial capabilities and knowledge.Chitwan, recognized as a significant economic center within Nepal, exhibits distinctive attributes that influence its entrepreneurial landscape (Karki, 2012; Kharel & Dahal, 2020). Located in the southern central part of Nepal, Chitwan is known for its fertile agricultural land, thriving tourism industry centered around Chitwan National Park, and growing urban centers. The region’s economy is primarily driven by agriculture, with a significant portion of the population engaged in farming and related activities (Bhatta et al., 2023). Entrepreneurial activity in Chitwan is motivated by its geography, which links it to key urban locations such as Kathmandu and Pokhara, in addition to bordering India (Bohra-Mishra & Massey, 2011).3. Research MethodsThis study was set within an interpretivist paradigm focusing on shared meaning-making from researcher interpretations and participant views (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). Positioned within this philosophic standpoint, the study aimed to excavate the lived truths and situated meanings entrepreneurs and ecosystem stakeholders assign to their experience in the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Bharatpur. The researcher adopted a reflexive position where they acknowledged their positionality and the possibility of personal biases. Measures were taken to minimize these impacts through neutral questioning, verbatim transcription, and anonymization. Ethical approval was provided by the affiliated institution, and informed consent, confidentiality assurance, and secure storage of data procedures were strictly adhered to during the research. The study used qualitative and exploratory single case study approach (Yin, 2014) that is appropriate for examining intricate social phenomena within a particular setting. Bharatpur in the Chitwan district was selected as the empirical case due to its nascent entrepreneurial ecosystem and its strategic location as a growing urban center in a non-metropolitan part of Nepal. Phenomenological stance in this case study design enabled closer engagement with entrepreneurs’ lived experiences and interpretative processes. Data gathering relied primarily on semi-structured interviews, a systematic but flexible method that generated detailed narratives with space for context-specific issues to surface. Triangulation and contextualization were supplemented by secondary data in the form of policy documents, local media, and ecosystem reports.The research aimed at two general cohorts: (1) entrepreneurs working in Bharatpur from various industries, and (2) stakeholders in the ecosystem consisting of government officials, incubator managers, financial intermediaries, and members of business associations. Purposive sampling was employed in selecting individuals who have direct involvement in or understanding of the entrepreneurial ecosystem so that multiple viewpoints are represented in various roles, industries, and organizational backgrounds. There was also a snowball sampling process that contributed to the sample by utilizing available networks to obtain referrals for information-rich cases. In-depth interviews were completed with a total of 27 participants across 15 entrepreneurs and 12 ecosystem stakeholders. The entrepreneurial sample represented a variety of industries—agriculture, tourism, technology, and services—and a variety of organizations from nascent startups to medium-sized enterprises. Stakeholder group participants occupied leadership or advisory positions in local government, chambers of commerce, incubation programs, financial institutions, and not-for-profit support organizations. The interviews took 60 to 90 minutes, and data collection stopped at thematic saturation, thereby satisfying analytical adequacy.