tourist destination dynamics in russia · 1 tourist destination dynamics in russia tourism...

1

TOURISTDESTINATIONDYNAMICSINRUSSIATOURISMDEVELOPMENTANDPUBLIC-PRIVATEPARTNERSHIPINFOURNON-METROPOLITANDESTINATIONS

HenrikHalkier,AalborgUniversity,DenmarkDieterMüller,UmeåUniversity,SwedenConstantiaAnastasiadou,EdinburghNapierUniversity,UKLiliyaKiriyanova,TomskPolytechnicUniversity,RussiaNataliaGoncharova,TomskPolytechnicUniversity,RussiaFelixKagan,IvanovoStatePowerUniversity,RussiaIrinaKolupanova,AltaiStateTechnicalUniversity,RussiaAlexanderDunets,AltaiStateTechnicalUniversity,Russia

KonstantinYumatov,KemerovoStateUniversity,RussiaAnnaSurtseva,KemerovoStateUniversity,RussiaYuliyaGizey,KemerovoStateUniversity,RussiaNataliyaYakimova,KemerovoStateUniversity,RussiaAngelaBenson,BrightonUniversity,UKTerryBrathwaite,CoventryUniversity,UKMichaelMair,FHWienUniversityofAppliedScience,Austria

TOULL–TourismandLife-longLearning

2

TITLE:TouristdestinationdynamicsinRussia-Tourismdevelopmentandpublic-privatepartnershipinfournon-metropolitandestinations

PUBLISHER:DepartmentofCultureandGlobalStudies,AalborgUniversity

ISBN:978-87-92305-24-4

FUNDING:ThereporthasbeenproducedaspartofTOULL-TourismandLife-longLearningprojectsponsoredbytheEUTempusprogramme.FormoreinformationonTOULL,seehttp://www.tempus-tourism.aau.dk

3

Contents

1 Tourismdevelopmentinnon-metropolitanRussia..................................................................................................1

2 Conceptsandmethods...........................................................................................................................................................2

2.1 Reconceptualisingtouristdestinations.................................................................................................................2

2.2 Empiricalmethods..........................................................................................................................................................3

3 Literaturereview.....................................................................................................................................................................5

4 Tomsk:Businesstourismandfragmentedpublicgovernance............................................................................7

4.1 Tomskasatouristdestination..................................................................................................................................7

4.2 Keyactors:resources,strategiesandcollaboration.........................................................................................8

4.3 PatternsofCooperation.............................................................................................................................................14

4.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................................16

5 Ivanovo:Buildingheritagetourism..............................................................................................................................18

5.1 Ivanovoasatouristdestination.............................................................................................................................18

5.2 Keyactors:resources,strategiesandcollaboration......................................................................................20


5.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................................26

6 Kemerovo:Tourisminacarbon-economyregion..................................................................................................28

6.1 Kemerovoasatouristdestination........................................................................................................................28



6.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................................36

7 AltaiKrai:Morehealthytourism?..................................................................................................................................39

7.1 AltaiKraiasatouristdestination..........................................................................................................................39



7.4 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................................48

8 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................51

9 Bibliography............................................................................................................................................................................55

9.1 Literature.........................................................................................................................................................................55

9.2 Documentarysources.................................................................................................................................................59

9.3 Interviews........................................................................................................................................................................62

10 Endnotes.................................................................................................................................................................................65

1

1 TOURISMDEVELOPMENTINNON-METROPOLITANRUSSIA

Tourismhasbeenafastgrowingareaofsocio-economicactivityinRussiainrecentdecades.Internationaltouristflowshavegrown,bothfromRussiatoEuropeandbeyond,andfromabroadtoespeciallytheRussianmetropolsMoscowandSt.Petersburg.Inparallelwiththis,domestictourisminRussiahasalsoincreased,andmanynon-metropolitandestinationsarenowattemptingtoincreasetheirshareofthemarketfortourisminordertoincreasetherobustnessoftheregionaleconomy.

Likeinthevastmajorityofcountries,tourismdevelopmentinvolvesacomplexwebofinteractionsbetweenpublicandprivatestakeholders,buttheprecisenatureoftheseinteractionsvariesgreatlybetweendestinationsdependingontheinstitutionalcontext,thetourism-relevantresourcesavailable,andthewayskeyactorsmakestrategicuseoflocalopportunities(Dredge,2006;Halkier,2013;Henriksen,2012).

Theaimofthisreportistoilluminatetheroleofthepublicsectorintourismdevelopmentinnon-metropolitanregionsinRussia,focusingontwoaspectsinparticular

• thetourismdevelopmentstrategiesandactivitiesofregionalandlocalgovernment• partnershipandotherformsofinteractionbetweenpublicandprivatestakeholders

Thereportproceedsinfoursteps.Firstabriefintroductionsetsthescenebytakingstockofthesmallbutgrowinginternationalliteratureontourisminnon-metropolitanpartsofRussia.Thentheconceptualframeworkforthestudyaswellastheempiricalmethodsaredescribed.Section3isthemainpartofthereport,presentingthefindingsofcasestudiesundertakeninfourregionsofRussiathatattempttopromotetourismwithintheirarea,namelyTomsk,Ivanovo,KemerovoandAltaiKrai.Finally,theconclusionwillcompareandcontrastthefindingsfromthefourtouristdestinationsinordertoilluminatetheroleofthepublicsectorintourismdevelopmentinnon-metropolitanRussia.

ThereporthasbeenproducedinconnectionwithaprojectsponsoredbytheEUthroughtheTEMPUSprogramme,TOULL–TourismandLife-longLearning(seehttp://www.tempus-tourism.aau.dk).TheresearchdesignedwaselaboratedonthebasisofaproposalbyHenrikHalkierandDieterMüller,theempiricalcasestudieswereundertakenbytheRussianconsortiumpartnerswhothendraftedtheregionalreports.TheresultsfromthereportswerethendiscussedatprojectseminarsbySiberianandEuropeanpartnersbeforethefinaljointwritingupofthetext.

2

2 CONCEPTSANDMETHODS

2.1 ReconceptualisingtouristdestinationsDrawingontheworkofHalkier&Therkelsen(Halkier&Therkelsen,2013),thereporttakesitspointofdeparturefromtheassumptionthattourismdestinationsareopensystemsthataredefinedbythethreekeygroupsofstakeholders–tourists,providersofservicesandattractions,andpublicregulators–andtheinstitutions–e.g.marketrelations,informationalflows,andpolicyincentives–thatinfluencetheirinteractions.

Theconceptualframework,summarisedinFigure1above,isinspiredbytraditionswithininstitutionalism(Halkier&Therkelsen,2013;North,1990;Thelen,2009).Thekeyassumptionisthatinstitutionsactassetsofrulesonthebasisofwhichindividualorcollectiveactorsoperate,andthatinmostsocietiesatanypointintimeseveralinstitutionscoexist.Translatedintothecontextoftouristdestinationdevelopment,thestartingpointoftheanalysiswillbetoidentifythekeyinstitutionsthatgoverntherelationshipbetweenthethreegroupsofactorsthatarecentraltotourismasasocialactivity,namelythevisitors,thetouristindustry,andgovernment.Althoughallthreegroupsgenerallyconsistofamultiplicityofactorswithdifferentresourcesandpreferences(Ioannides&Debbage,1997;Weaver&Lawton,2002)–e.g.leisureandbusinesstravellers,localattractionsandmultinationalairlines,touristofficesandplanningauthorities–itisstillpossibletoidentifyanumberofkeyinstitutionsonthebasisofwhichtheirinteractionstakeplace.

Figure1.Touristdestinations:StakeholdersandinstitutionsSource:Halkier&Therkelsen,2013.

3

Bothinleisureandbusinesstourismtherelationshipbetweenvisitorsandserviceprovidersisconductedprimarilyonthebasisofmarketrelations,becausevisitorshavearangeofoptionsintermsofwheretogo,howtotravel,wheretostay,and/orwhattodoatthedestination,andhenceindividualprovidersandcollectivedestinationsperceivethemselvesascompetingwithotherproviders/destinationsofferingsimilarexperiencesandservices.However,theinteractionsbetweenthevariousprovidersintheindividualdestinationwillalsoincludeacombinationofmarketandnetworkrelations:theydependonthesamevisitorsandhence,competeinsimilarmarkets.Atthesametimethissharedrelianceonthesameclientsmayalsofurtherexistingformsofcooperationwithinthedestination(Hall&Williams,2008;Hjalager,2010).Incontrasttothis,therelationshipsbetweenregulatorsandbothvisitorsandprovidershavehierarchicalelements,becausegovernmentshavetheabilitytodefinespecificrulesaboutthebehaviourofotheractors,e.g.visarequirementsorspatialplanning,andnon-hierarchicalelements,suchasplacebranding,provisionofadvice,orestablishingpublic-privatepartnershipsinordertofurtherinnovation(Dredge,2006;Hall,2008).

Therelationshipsbetweenthethreekeygroupsofactorsmaybeinstitutionalisedinavarietyofways;Fromaninstitutionalistperspectivethismeansthatthesespecificrulesformthebasisfortheperceptionsandagencyofindividualactors–andhence,makeitmoreorlessdifficulttobringaboutchangewithinthedestination,whetherincrementalorotherwise.Itisparticularlyimportanttonotethatsomeactors–visitors,multinationalfirmsorcentralgovernment–aresituatedoutsidethedestinationinwhichtouristicactivitiestakeplace,andthatinorganisationallyfragmenteddestinationscharacterisedbyalargenumberofsmallactors,policyagencybypublicbodiesislikelytobenecessaryinordertocoordinateactivitiesandbringaboutaconcertedmomentum(Dredge,2006;Halkier,2010).

Aswillbeevidentfromtheempiricalanalysis,theseconcernsareasrelevantinRussiandestinationsastheyareinintherestoftheworld.

2.2 Empiricalmethods

ThereportisbasedonfieldworkundertakenbyfourteamsofRussianresearchersworkingonthebasisofasharedconceptualframeworkandguidanceintermsofresearchquestionsandmethods.Theteamsarebasedinnon-metropolitanRussianregions(seeFigure2)thatrepresentfourdifferentformsoftourism–MICE,naturetourism,culturaltourism,activetourism–andthusbycombiningthemweshouldbeabletocapturethediversityofactorsinvolvedwithregardtoconsuming,producingandregulatingtouristexperiencesoutsideMoscowandSt.Petersburg,themetropolitantouristmagnetsintheRussianFederation.

4

Theresearchteamscollecteddataoncurrenttouristactivitiesandkeydevelopmenttrends,includingquantitativeindicatorsofrecentdevelopmenttrends,qualitativeprofilesofthemaintouristactivitiesineachdestination(reasonstogo).Onthebasisoftheseinterviewswithkeyactorsfromfourgroupsofstakeholderswereundertaken,namelyrepresentativesofprivateentrepreneurs,publicsectorrepresentatives,culturalinstitutions,andknowledgeinstitutions.Intotal70interviewswerecarriedout,assummarisedbyTable1.Thesemi-structuredinterviewscoveredthefollowingtopics:theprincipalresourcesatthedisposalofeachactor,theirdevelopmentstrategiesandactivities,andtheirpatternsofinteractionwithotheractors.Onthebasisoftheseinterviews,theopportunitiesandchallengesforcooperationabouttourismdevelopmentineachofthefourregionaldestinationshasbeenidentified,andsimilaritiesanddifferencesregardingtheroleofpublic-privatepartnershipintourismdevelopmentinnon-metropolitanRussiandestinationscanbeconcluded.

TABLE1:Distributionofintervieweesbyregionsandsector Tomsk Kemerovo AltayKrai Ivanovo TotalinterviewsPrivatesector 2 18 5 3 28Publicsector 2 6 2 3 13Culturalinstititutions 5 4 4 2 15Knowledgeinstitutions 3 9 1 1 14Totalinterviews 12 37 12 9 70

5

3 LITERATUREREVIEW

Theinternationalacademicliteratureonnon-metropolitantourisminRussiaislimited,andalthoughtheroleofpublic-privatepartnershipistouchedupon,itisrarelycentraltotheargumentofthewritingswhichinsteadfocusonRussia’sgenericdestinationimage(Stepchenkova&Morrison,2006;2008);theresourcesthatcanpotentiallybemobilisedforeconomicdevelopment(includingtouristic)purposes(Kuleshov,2012),andpublic-privatepartnershipasageneralpolicytoolinthepost-Sovietera(Mouraviev&Kakabadse,2014).Theissueofgovernanceiscentralinthe1998articlebyPeterBurns(Burns,1998),butitcanonlydocumentstheearlystagesofinstitutionalfluxandtheuncertainrelationshipbetweenpublicandprivateactorsthatcharacterisedthefirstyearsaftertheintroductionofmarket-economyreforms.Themostcomprehensivediscussionofnon-metropolitantourismincanbefoundinBraden&Prudnikova’s(Braden&Prudnikova,2008)analysisofthechallengesassociatedwithecotourism,focusingespeciallyontherelationshipbetweenlocalstakeholdersandcommunitiesontheonehand,andnational/internationalstakeholdersontheother,bothwithregardtoconflictingconceptionsoftourismdrawingonnaturalresources,andinvestmentsinnewtouristdevelopments.Intheirpapertherelationalgeographiesoftouristdestinationdevelopmentandmacro-levelanalysisis,however,themainfocus,andthustheinternalstakeholderrelationshipswithintheregionaldestinationsareonlytoucheduponbriefly.

SubstantialinputtotheconceptualisingatourismdestinationandthetourismrecreationdevelopmentofRussianregionswasmadebysuchauthorsasA.U.Aleksandrov,A.I.Zorin,andA.S.Kuskov,focusinginparticularongeographyorientedapproach;E.A.Dzhandzhugazova,O.V.Ostroumov,andL.G.Kiriyanova,developingtheconceptsofmarketingandbrandingofterritories;M.A.Morozov,M.N.Voit,andN.A.Goncharova,applyingholisticapproachandprovidinginputtoanalysingtheregionaltourismsystems;N.A.Kolodii,enrichingtheexperienceeconomypracticewithcasesofcultureclustersincitiesofRussia;andA.U.Aleksandrova(2002),oneofthefirstresearchersofthe1990’sdefinedthegeneralconceptsoftourismindustry,internationaltourism,etc.Sheanalysedandappointedthetourismindustrydemands,itsgeographyandalsothetrendsoftourismindustrydevelopmentinRussiain1990’s-2002.

InRussianpracticepublic-privatepartnershipisimplementedasinfrastructuralprojects(constructionandexploitation)basedonfederal,regionalormunicipalpropertyandregulatedbyconcessionlawandregionallegislation.Thisreflectsanarrowmeaningoftheterm(PPPDevelopmentCenter-http://pppcenter.ru).PartnershipbetweenthepublicandprivatesectorsisafairlynewtrendintheRussianeconomy,andamongthekeypublicationsonthistopicwecanmentionthemonographbyV.E.Sazonov(2010)whoanalyzedtheexperienceandexistingnationalPPPmodelsinemergingmarketsanddevelopingcountries,includingRussia,puttingemphasisonthehistoricalandculturalcontextoftheinteractionbetweenbusinessandgovernment.M.V.Tkachenkoetal.(2014)analysedtheexperienceofthestateregulationofPPPin85Russianregionsandsummarizedthebestpracticesinthe“RegionalPPPStandard”.P.LSeleznev(2009)wasoneofthefirstRussianresearcherstodiscusstheforeignexperienceofPPPandtheprospectsofitsapplicationinRussia.A.V.Bazhenovand

6

V.A.Kabashkin(2008)reviewedthepublic-privatepartnershipasatoolforattractinginvestmentstoRussianregions.

TakentogethertheexistinginternationalandRussianliteraturewould,therefore,leadustoexpectthattourismdevelopmentinnon-metropolitanRussianregionsseemstoinvolvethefollowingkeyactorgroups,namely

• touriststhatmainlytravelfromwithinadjoiningregionsorfromthemainmetropolitanareasinRussia,

• providersofservicesandexperiencesthatarepolarisedalongtwolines:largeandsmallprivatefirms,andpublicbodiesinvolvedinthemanagementofculturalandnaturalassetsforrecreationalandeducationalpurposes

• governancestructuresthathavegraduallycreatedanationalframeworkforregionaltourismdevelopment,albeitonethathasbeenimplementedunevenlyacrossRussia

Addedtogetherthisleadsustoexpectthatthefournon-metropolitandestinationsarelikelytofocusonstrengtheningtheirpositionondomesticmarkets,butthatthewaysinwhichthisunfoldswilldependonthetouristicresourcesavailable,andthewaysinwhichpublicandprivateactorsmanagestomarshaltheseinatargetedandsystematicmannerinordertodeveloptourismintheirregion.

7

4 TOMSK:BUSINESSTOURISMANDFRAGMENTEDPUBLICGOVERNANCE

4.1 Tomskasatouristdestination

TheTomskRegionissituatedinthesouth-westernpartofSiberia,withmostoftheterritorybeingoccupiedbyforestssuchastaigaandsteppes,swamps,riversandlakes,includingthemassiveObriversystemthatdividestheterritoryintotwoalmostequalparts.Theurban,economicandpoliticalcentreoftheregionisthecityofTomsk,whichinitselfaccountformorethanhalfofregionalpopulation.Theeconomyoftheregionrevolvesaroundprimaryindustriesexploitingthevastruralhinterlandofthecity,butthecityofTomskitselfalsohaslong-standingimportanceinSiberiaasacentreofeducation,research,andinnovation,basedonaconsiderableclusterofpublicuniversities,knowledgeinstitutionsandtheestablishingofaSpecialEconomicZonefocusingontechnologydevelopment.

TABLE2:DestinationTomskRegion:Keydata 2012 Touristarrivalsincommercialaccommodation(‘000)Region/km2 314,400 2011 2012 2013Region/population 1057,000 Domestic 155.6 156.0 150.2Region/personperkm2 3.4 International .4 6.0 4.7Capitalcitypopulation 539,200 Total 161.0 162.0 157.3Hotels/restaurantsshareofregionalGDP 0.95

Travelagentstotal 131Commercialaccommodationfacilities 82

Sources:http://tmsk.gks.ru(Rosstat,Tomskstat)

Themainattractionsthatdrivetourismintheregionare,ontheonehand,naturalphenomenaliketherecreationalpotentialoftheObandTomrivers,theVasyuganswamps,andtheextensivetaigaforestsdominatedbyCedar(Siberianpine)thatlendthemselvestofishingandhunting.OntheotherhandespeciallythecityofTomskhasconsiderableculturalresourcesoftouristicsignificance,includingmajormuseumsandexhibitionspaces,andasignificantpresenceofhistoricalwoodenbuildingsdecoratedwithelaboratecarvingsthatreflecttheimportanceofthecityascentreofcommerceandintellectualendeavourdatingbacktoitsfoundationin1604bydecreeoftheRussiantsarBorisGodunov.Finally,inrecentyearsthehostingofrecurringeventsfocusingoncultureandinnovation,hasgraduallybecomeamajorattractionforvisitors,buildingonthelong-standingbusinesstourismgeneratedbythecity’sstatusasamajoreconomic,knowledgeandpoliticalhubinSiberia.Forfarawaytravellers,Tomskiseasilyreachedbyairandrail,butaccessibilityforforeignvisitorsislimitedbythelackofscheduledinternationalflightsandbeinglocated50kmawayfromtheTran-Siberianrailway.

AsillustratedbyTable2,inrecentyearsvisitationhasgrownslowly,afteraperiodoffastergrowthintheprecedingdecade.Occupancyratesofcommercialbedshaveincreasedto58%,andvisitorsareoverwhelminglydomestictravellers.Nobreakdownsoftourismactivitybypurpose(nature/active,

8

culture,business/event)areavailablefordomestictravellers,andalthoughvisadataareavailableforinternationalvisitors,showingaroughlyequalbalancebetweenbusinessandleisureastravelreason,becausemorethanfour-fifthofthevisasareissuedonthebasisofforeignvisitorstravellingfor‘privatepurposes’.However,althoughtourismhasbeengrowinginrecentyears,itstillonlyaccountsforaverysmallshareofregionalGDP,asillustratedbyTable2,andiseasilydwarfedbyprimarysectorindustriesthataccountfornearly30percentoftheregion’seconomicactivity,and,indeed,theaverageroleoftourism(hotelsandrestaurants)intheRussianFederationstandingat1.1percentofGDP.Thismaybeanimportantpartoftheexplanationfor,asweshallseeinthefollowing,thedifficultiesofgettingtourismontothepoliticalagendawithintheregion.

4.2 Keyactors:resources,strategiesandcollaboration

ThissectionidentifiesthekeyactorsintourismdevelopmentinTomsk,focusinginparticularontheresources,strategiesandpatternsofcollaborationinshapingthefutureoftheregionalvisitoreconomy.

PUBLICAUTHORITIES

InRussia,likeelsewhere,multi-tieredpublicauthoritiesnotonlycreatetheframeworkwithinwhichprivateactorsoperatebutalsocontributetothedevelopmentoffacilitiesthatfacilitatesorhindersthegrowthofthevisitoreconomy.InthecaseofTomsk,thecitygovernmenthasdecidednottogiveprioritytotourismasaneconomicsectorandhencehasallocatedneitherfundsnorstaff.ThismakesTomskRegion,itspoliticalleadershipandadministration,thecentralpublicactorinrelationtothedestination.TomskRegionhastheauthoritytoregulateandplantourist-relatedactivities,andtheexecutiveunitresponsibleforthisistheDepartmentofCultureandTourism(DCT).

Theregionaltourismstrategyisdescribedinalong-termprogramentitledDevelopmentofCultureandTourisminTomskregionin2015-2020years.TheprogramwaselaboratedandcoordinatedbyDCT,withotherdepartmentsofregionalgovernmentascontributors,butwithoutinvolvementofothertourismactors,publicorprivate,inprogramdevelopment.Theoverallaimoftheregionaltourismstrategyis

’developmentofdomesticandinboundtourismontheterritoryofTomskregion

Inordertoachievethis,twokeyobjectivesareindicatedinthestrategy:

1. Thecompetitivenessenhancementofregionaltourismmarket:activitiesforpromotiontheregionaltourismpotentialtoRussianandinternationalmarkets

2. Creationtheconditionsfortourismdevelopmentandsupporttotheprioritisedtypesoftourism

Since2012therehasbeenaparadigmshiftinthefieldofgovernmentalregulationandstimulationofthedevelopmentoftourismintheTomskregion:aregionaltourismdevelopmentprogramhasbeen

9

adopted,anumberoflocalmunicipalitieshavedevelopedtheirowntourismstrategies,andinterestinthedevelopmentoftourismclustershasgrown.However,inpracticeDCTdoesnotseemtohavesufficientresourcestopursueitwide-rangingambitions,becausewithinthedepartmentonlyonesmallunit–theDivisionofdevelopmentofdomesticandincomingtourismwithjusttwograduateemployees–focusesontourism.Theregionalbudgetassignedin2013only23millionroublefortheimplementationofthetargetedprogrammesforthetourismdevelopment,and56.5millionroublein2014.Butinfact,accordingtothe“Planof2014activities”just10millionroublewereassigned,foractivitiesonemillion(consistingoftransferstomunicipalauthoritiesfortheirtourismrelatedactivities),fourmillionforeventsforchildtourism,andfivemillionforweb-siteelaboration,promotionphotoandvideo,massmediapublications,seminarsandcompetitionsforlocaltourismmarketactors,participationintouristexhibitions.AllfundingwasallocatedforauthoritiesbodiesorpublicorganisationsthatareeffectivelypartofTomskregionaladministration;forexample,allpromotionalactivities(includingmediacommunication)areprovidedbyRecreationcentreandCentreofchildandyouthactivities.TheoverallbudgetoftheProgrammehasbeenapprovedbytheGovernoruntil2017,buteveryyearbudgetrevisionsmaytakeplace.Thebudgetofthestateprogram“DevelopmentofCultureandTourisminTomskregionin2015-2020years”is12billionroublesandonly18.8millionroublesareplannedfortheprogram“DevelopmentofdomesticandinboundtourisminTomskregionin2015-2020”.

Despitetheformalconsolidationoftheregion’sregulatoryandplanningfunctionsoftouristactivityattheDepartmentofCultureandTourism,theactualimplementationofpolicyinthefieldoftourismandhospitalitywithintheregionaladministrationisveryfragmented.SupervisionofhotelsandeatingplacesbelongstotheDepartmentoftheConsumerMarket,andallactivitiesassociatedwithscientificandeducationaltourismareimplementedbytheunitheadedbytheDeputyGovernorforScientificandEducationalComplexandInnovationPolicy,somethingthatmakesitdifficultfortheregionalauthoritiestodevelopacoordinatedapproachtothedevelopmentofTomskregionasatouristdestination.

Moreover,intheabovetargetprogrammeoftourismdevelopmentthereisnopriorityformsoftourism,amaintouristproductisnotindicated.TheDepartmentofCultureandTourism,perhapsunsurprisingly,aimsitsmaineffortsatthedevelopmentofculturaltourism,whereastheDeputyGovernorforScientificandEducationalComplexattemptstocreateanevent-basedbrandthatcanattractthousandsofbusinesstouriststotheregionfromacrossthecountryandabroad.Lackofcoordinationresultsinlimitedresourcesbeingdispersed,differentactivitiesnotcomplementingeachotherorcreatingoneproduct/brand.TheTouristInformationCentreofTomsk(TIC,http://tic-tomsk.ru/)openedin2015,andthispromisingandrelativelynewprojectmaypartiallysolvethementionedproblemsonlocalleveloftourismdevelopment,althoughoneyearofitsactivityisashortperiodoftimetomakeasubstantialconclusionaboutitseffectiveness.

PRIVATETOURISMBUSINESSES

Thetwomaingroupsofprivatetourismactorsaretravelagenciesandhotels.Asnotedearlier,mosttravelagenciesarefocusingonoutboundtravel,takingSiberianstodestinationselsewhereinthe

10

RussianFederationorabroad,butaminorityoftravelagenciesalsofocusesonincomingvisitors.AnexampleofthisistheTouristexcursioncompany“Polaris”,workinginthetouristmarketsince1999.Itprovidesafullrangeofservicesforincomingtourists:visitplanning,hotelsandticketsbooking,visasupport,insurance,guidedtoursacrossthecityandtheregion,transfers,translationandetc.Moreover,thecompanyisoneofveryfewprovidingexclusiveguidedtoursacrossthecityforforeigntourists,and“Polaris”ownsalargevehiclefleetforthispurpose.In2004TomskRegionAdministrationgrantedthetravelagency“Polaris”acertificateofaccreditationthatenabledthefirmtoprovideitsservicestoofficialdelegationsandguestsofTomskregion,andatthecompetitionoftouroperatorsofTomskregion,thecompany“Polaris”receivedtheawardfor“BestTourOperator”and“BestManagerofIncomingTourism”.ThecompanyrepresentativewhowasinterviewedstatedthattheflowoftouriststoTomskhassignificantlyincreasedinrecentyears,butthatthistrendisnotyetself-sustainingincomparisontooutboundtourism,althoughthelong-termprospectsinthehospitalityandservicesareaareseenasverypromising.

CULTURALATTRACTIONS

Inadditiontoanumberofmajorgovernment-fundedmuseums–e.g.TomskRegionalMuseum,TomskMuseumofWoodenarchitecture,TomskArtMuseum,andTomskMemorialMuseumoftheHistoryofPoliticalRepression–culture-basedvisitorattractionsarealsoprovidedbynon-governmentinstitutionssuchasreligiouscommunitiesandprivatemuseums.Whilethepublicculturalattractionswouldgenerallyseemtoseetheirmissionasprovidingservicestothelocalpopulation,privately-sponsoredculturalattractionsalsoseevisitorsasanimportantpartoftheirtargetgroup.

IntheTomskregionreligiousinstitutionsareimportanttouristresources,becauseintheregionthereareoriginalplacesofworshipofOrthodoxy,Judaism,andIslam,whichareuniquearchitecturalandculturalmonuments.TomskwasalsotheresidenceofSt.TheodoreofTomsk,whoserelicsarekeptinBogoroditse-AleksievskyMonasteryofTomsk(whobypopularlegendheisconsideredtoEmperorAlexanderI,fakedhisowndeathandbecameawanderer).OnlytheOrthodoxcommunityhasitsowninfrastructureofhospitalityfacilities:atBogoroditse-AleksievskyMonasterythereisahotelfor11visitors.GuestsofTomskeparchyinmanycasesstaywiththehostelofTomskSeminary.Guestsarrivingaspartofpilgrimgroups-byadvanceagreement-getfreefoodintherefectoryofTomskSeminary.

Representativesofreligiouscommunitiesarenotdirectlyinterestedinthedevelopmentoftourism,buttheyarealwaysopentoallguestsandrecognisethatitallowsthemtotransmittheirvaluestogreaternumberofpeople,andtheysupporteffortstoincreaseinterestinvisitingTomskanditsreligioussites.Theyactivelyparticipateinthedistributionofinformationthroughthereligiousfestivals,websites,publicationbooks,filmsandpostcards,butinassessingthepotentialforattractingadditionalguestsonthebasisofreligiousattractionsandmoregenerallyinTomskandtheTomskregion,allrespondentsrepresentingreligiousorganisationsmainlypointtodisadvantages.Inparticular,forthecityofTomsktheinfrastructureisseenas,manyofthewoodenhousesareinabadconditionthatunderminesthecredibilityoftheideaofwoodenarchitectureasthekeyheritageofthecity,aswellasalackofareadytourismproductintheformofe.g.tourpackages,plusofcoursethehighpricesofhotelservicesinTomsk.Nevertheless,oneintervieweeindicatedthatTomskgivesa

11

generallyfavorableimpressionwithitsarchitecturalimageofahistoricSiberiancityandspecialglimpsesofcenturiespast.

ThefirstMuseumofSlavicMythologyoriginatedinaprivateartcollection,andthemuseumwasfoundedandremainsprivate.Itcontainsoriginalpaintings,graphicsandworksofdecorativeartbasedonSlavichistory,mythology,epictales,Russianfairytalesandcustoms.Museumactivitiesincludetours,educationalprogrammes,specialtopiceventsandmeetings.ThemuseumwasfoundedbyTomskbusinessmanGennadyPavlov.Ahistorianbytraining,atfirstheorganisedthefund“RussianWay”withafreepubliclibrarydevotedtoSlavicculture,traditionsanddomestichistory.LaterontheplaceofthefundthefirstmuseumofSlavicmythologyappeared.Initiallyhavingeducationalgoals,themuseumbecameacommerciallysuccessfulproject.Thestrategyofthemuseumistoconstantlyevolve,expandandupdateitscollections,andtoorganiseinteractiveexhibitions,thusmakingthemuseumarelevantresourcefromtheperspectiveofculturaltourism.

The“Semiluzhkyfortress”islocated30kmfromthecityofTomsk,anditisareconstructionofthemilitaryfortification–aCossackoutpostthatexistedintheXVIIcenturyinSiberia.TheOstrog(prison)isakeyelement,erectedin2010,wherefestivals,fairs,performancesbyfolkgroupsareoftenorganised.Anattractivefeatureoftheprojectistheinteractivenatureofthefortress,wherevisitorscanworkwithancienttools,eattraditionalfood,etc.TheattractionisacompletelyprivateinitiativebyV.Ilyin,whotriestorecreateRussiantraditions,financedfromhisownmeans,butwiththesupportofthelocalvillageadministrationanddonationsofstakeholders.Theattractionhasnocommercialpurpose,andinfact,thefortwasbuiltandcontinuestobebuiltbyvolunteers,andIlinplansfurtherconstructionofthefort-livingbuildingsonhistoricalprototypes,craftworkshops,outbuildings,etc.Thefacilityisnotintendedformasstourism,withamaximumcapacityofabout30people(thefortressareadoesnotexceed100squaremeters),butthefortressisverygoodforanorganisedgroupandindividualrecreation–forkidsandadults.Thismaybeforadaytriporakindof“immersion”intotheatmosphereofCossackoutpostoftheXVIIcentury.Aconvenientlocationallowstheuseofthefortressasaweekendroute,includeavisittothefortressinalongertourprogrammeasaradialroute,aswellastoattractpotentialtouristsfromneighboringregions.

ORGANISATIONOFEVENTSWITHTOURISMPOTENTIAL

Fromthestandpointoftourismdevelopment, theAssociationofmilitarysportsclubsofTomskRegionhasrecentlybecomeamajoractorasinitiatorandorganiserofvisitor-relevantevents.Theassociationis22yearsold,overthepast10yearsithasaccumulatedasubstantialfinancialbase,partlythroughorganising “Ethnoforum”, an annual series of cultural events geared towards the expansion of thetraditional culture, around thousandpeople takespart in the forumsevent. In2014 the forumwasincluded in the programme of the Government of the Russian Federation for theYearofCulture inRussiaandthusgainedaninternationalstatus.Moreover,“Tomskoutpost”-asummerprogrammeforteenagers from different regions that combine athletics training and Russian national culture – isincludedinthescheduleofRostourism’seventsaswell.Allactivitiesaretheinitiativeandenthusiasmofrepresentativesoftheassociation.Theapproximateinvestmentsintheseactivitiesconsistsof30%grants won by the team’s members (mainly grants of the Ministry of Economic Development tosupport non-government organisations), 30% from sponsorship by companies, and 30% from

12

municipalandregionalbudget(throughtheyouthpolicyauthorities,tobefundedwithatender).Themainobjectiveoftheassociationis“todevelopeventtourism,“Ethnoforum”isavividexample,andwearetryingtodevelopthistrend,especiallythisyearithasreceivedtheinternationalstatusandwillbe30%financedfromthestatebudget.”“Wehopetoopenourowntouristinformationcentre(thereisnoanytouristinformationcentreinTomsk),wehavedesignedafewtouristroutesaroundTomsk(2-3hourwalkingtours“Elan”and“VoskresenskayaMountain”),andwithinthegrantabout200peoplehave been already guided through these routes.” The Association is in other words an interestingexample of an NGO gradually assuming wider functions in the development of tourism within theTomskregion,includingpotentiallyfillingvoidscreatedbythenon-actionofpublicauthorities.

In2015“Ethnoforum”and“FestivalofAxe”hascreatedapartnereventprogram,andasaresultmorethan 100,000 people visited the event. The “Festival of Axe” is an annual cultural event in Tomskregion(contestofwoodsculpturesandfairofcrafts)thathasbeenfirstbeenorganizedin2008intheRuralPark“Okolitsa”andbecomingincreasinglypopularintheregionaltourismmarket.

Targetingratherdifferentaudiencesbutoperationinparallelways,Tomskalsohoststwoseriesofinnovativeeventsaimedatbringingtogetherthethreepartsofthetriplehelix:business,knowledgeinstitutions,andgovernment.InternationalInnovationForumInnovusandtheYouthForumU-novusarethelargesteventsinthefieldofbusinessandscientificandeducationaltourismintheregion.Innovus–Russia'sfirstinnovationforum–washeldin1998forthefirsttime.Overthepastyearstheforumgrewfromanall-SiberianeventintooneofthemainsitesinRussiatodiscussinnovativedevelopmentofthecountry.Innovusinvariablyattractsexpertsoffederalandinternationallevel.Amongthemorethan2,000participants,includingstatecorporations,Russianandforeigninvestors,venturecapitalfirmsandinnovativecompanies.TheforumU-novusisanewcommunication,discussionandcreativeplatformforyoungscientists,inventors,entrepreneursininnovations.Theeventcombinesdifferentlevelsandscalesofinteraction:paneldiscussions,foresightsessions,workshops,andlaboratories.TheeventsofthefirstU-novuswereattendedbyover12,000people,andthebusinessprogrammealoneinvolved1,300participantsfrom93citiesofRussia.ThetwoinnovationeventshavebecomeamainbrandofTomskRegion,theyareheldeverytwoyearsandalternate,sothateveryyearTomskishostingamajortriple-helixinnovationevent.Theforumsareaclassicexampleofeventtourism,andtheyaredesignedinsuchawaysothattheydonottonotjustattracttouriststothedestination,butalsotargetgroupsalong-terminteresttostrategicdevelopmentofinnovativeeconomyoftheregion.TheconceptofbothforumshasbeendevelopedbyTomskRegionAdministrationwhichisthemainorganiser,lobbyistandfinancer,butin2013and2014theoperatorofbothforumswasTomskPolytechnicUniversity.Theadministrationkeepstherightofstrategicleadershiptheforum,butallorganisationalmatters,includingformationoftheprogrammeandfinancialmanagementweretransferredtotheoperator.Accordingtotheoperator,theorganisationofmega-eventsisthemosteffectivetooltostimulatebusinesstourisminTomsk.Itallowsnotonlytoincreaseawarenessofthecity,butalsotoattractthemaintargetaudience,whichrepeatedlyreturnstoTomskafterawhile.Alsothisbusiness-orientedformofevent-basedtourismisinotherwordsdrivennotbyamainstreamtourismdevelopmentorganisation,butbyspecialistunitsofgovernment–inthiscasetheregion’sinnovationofficeandapublicknowledgeinstitution–thatfurthertheirownendsthroughtourism,ratherthanhavingtourismasagoalinitsownright.

13

KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTIONS

InrecentyearspublicallyfundedknowledgeinstitutionshavestartedtoplayagreaterroleinrelationtotourismdevelopmentintheTomskregion.

TheSiberianResourceCentreofTourismIndustryatTomskPolytechnicUniversitypreparesspecialistsinserviceindustryandtourismwithinprogramsoftrainingandretraining,aswellasconductingresearchinthedevelopmentofregionaltourism.Fundingforthecentreissupportedbytheuniversityandnationalaswellasinternationalgrantprogrammes,whilethereisnofundingfromtheregionalauthorities.Touristbusinessesarenotyetreadytoinvestintraining,buttheywillinglyparticipateintheprogrammesifadditionalfundingisnotrequired.ThestaffoftheResourceCentrebelievesthatthemostpromisingdirectionforTomskasaresearchandeducationalcentreisthedevelopmentofbusinessandeducationaltourism,whichcouldbecomeabackboneelementforthewholedestination.Theynotethatdespitetheobviousrelevanceofeducationaltourism,thisisabsentinallofficialdocumentsonthedevelopmentofthetouristindustryintheregion.TheCentreconsidersitsstrategicdevelopmentinthenearfutureinthemainstreamingofeducationalandbusinesstourismandthedevelopmentofproposalsinthisarea,includingassistanceinadaptationofinternationalstudents,anddevelopmentofthevolunteersupportofeducationaltourism.

Inparallelwiththis,andonlyashortdistanceawayingeographicalterms,theDepartmentofInternationalRelations,TomskStateUniversityhasimplementedaspecialseriesofseminarsininternationaltourism-educationalandscientificprogrammesaspartofitspreparationofspecialistsininternationalrelationsthepastfewyears.Thedepartmentbelievesthatbusiness,scientificandeducationaltourismcouldbecomeastrategicdecisionfortheentirecity.Itdevelopedtheproject“Tomsk–CentreofInternationalEducationalTourism”,whichtriedtopresenttothecityadministration(Mayoradvisorontourism),butfailed.Thereasonofthisfailurewasthatthecityadministrationdoesnotplay–orwishestoplay–asignificantroleintourismdevelopment,itismainlyaregionaladministrationcompetence.FortheshortperiodoftimetherewasaMayoradvisorontourism,butshecamefromthehistoricalheritageprotectioninstituteandwasonlyinterestedinculturalandhistoricalresources,somethingthatwasinlinewiththeemphasisplacedinculturaltourismintheregion.AtthemomentanewMayoradvisorontourismwhobecamethedirectorofnewly-openedTomsktouristinformationcenterin2015promotestheimageofTomskasthe“Emeraldcity”(likeintheWizardofOzfairytale)forcity-breaktouristsfromneighbouringregions.

TomskstateandTomskPolytechnicuniversitieshavebeencompetingforlast100yearstoattractthebeststudentsandresources.ThiscompetitionisoneofthemaindriversofeducationandsciencedevelopmentinTomsk.Unfortunately,tourismeducationisnotasubjectoftheuniversitiescollaboration,astherearenojointprojectsbetweenthesetwoimportantknowledgeinstitutions.

AllinallweseeapictureofstakeholderswithintheTomskregionwhichseemtosuggest

• alimitedinvolvementofpublicauthoritiesintermsofproactivegovernanceoftourismdevelopment

• afragmentedprivatesectorthatoperatesonthebasisofexistingtouristflowsbutrarelyattemptstodevelopqualitativenewinitiatives

14

• severalnicheinitiativesinevent-basedtourism,drivenbycivilsocietyand/orpublicbodiesinpursuitoftheirownagendas(outdoorleisure,innovation)

Withstakeholderspositionedlikethis,collaborativeeffortsareobviouslyneeded,butalsoinherentlychallengingtobringabout.

4.3 PatternsofCooperation

Asnotedabove,theregionaltourismprogrammedidnotinvolvemuchbythewayofinteractionortop-downsupportforinitiatingwithlocalauthoritiesandsupportingpublic-privatepartnership.Thelong-termtargetprogramme“DevelopmentofdomesticandincomingtourisminTomskregionin2013-2017years”wasdevelopedwithoutanyinvolvementofthekeyprivatestakeholdersofthedestination,andinsteadincludedonlydepartmentsoftheregionaladministrationandlocalmunicipalitiesaspartners.

Almostallinterviewedindustryrepresentativesnotedalowactivityoftheadministrationsoftheregionandthecityintheareaoftourism.Themainexpectationsofauthoritiesfromprivateactorsweredestinationpromotion(“wearereadytoprovidehighqualityhospitalityservice,justmakeTomskfamous»)andinfrastructuredevelopment(transportaccessibility,touristfriendlyenvironment).Commentingontheaspectoftheinteractionwithpublicauthoritiesallrespondentsindicateditsunsystematic,randomnatureofinvitingthemtotakepartinregionaltourismdevelopment,usuallyitisintheformoforderfromtheauthoritiestoorganisetoursforvisitorstothecityontheterritoryofreligiousorprivatefacilitiesorinthecaseofVIP-personscomingfromabroad.However,somenotedthattheyregularlyreceiverequestsfromtheadministrationtoprovidereports,information,videoandphotomaterials.Otherspointtounsuccessfulattemptstoreachtheauthoritieswithproposalsandprojects.Inotherwords,despitethepresenceofaspecialisedregionaltourismauthority,duetovariousfactors(fragmentationoffunctions,limitedresources,lackofconsolidatedmarketing-orientedapproach)thetargetprogrammeoftheadministrationofTomskRegioncannotconsolidateandpromotetheinterestsofallactorswithinthetourismdestination.

Conversely,allrespondentsfromtheattractionsnotedthepresenceofpartnersamongotherorganisationsintheregionwhichhelpeffectivelyimplementprojectsandincooperationwithwhichtheyseetheirfuture,andallpointedtothesponsorshipoftheirprojectsfrombusinesses(Ethnoforum,OstroginSemiuzhki,religiousorganizations).Itwasalsonotedthat,unliketheregionalauthority’ssupportwhichimpliedanexpectationofgettingassistancewiththehostingofguestsoftheregionaladministration,helpfromprivateactorsdonotcarryexpectationsofbonusesandpreferentialtreatment.Theinteractionwithprivateactorsalsooccursinthejointformationofattractioncontent:manyexhibitsofSlavicmythologyatthefortofSemiluzhkiandforEthnoforum’seventswerecollectedandimplementedasaresultofinteractionwiththecreativeandreligiouscommunities.Infactallrespondentsindicatedtheseorganisationsaskeypartners.Thissuggeststhatintheregiontherearethemostactiveorganisations,whichinitiateactivitiestopromotetourismintheregion,butinfigures,theyareasmallnumberofalltheactorsinthemarket.Allpartnershipsareinitiatedindependentlyforaspecificproject,andthustheregionhasgotnopressingreasonforestablishingawiderpartnershipinthefieldoftourismandhospitality.

15

Interestingly,thereare,however,examplesofsuccessfulcooperationwiththeregionaladministration,namelytheroleofTomskPolytechnicUniversityasanoperatoroftheforumsInnovusandU-novus.Theseeventswereinitiatedbytheadministration,butawiderangeofstakeholderswereinvolvedintheirdesignandimplementation,eachofwhichwasabletosolvetheirproblems-fromthecapacityproblemsofhotelstoattractionofinvestors.Therepresentativesoftheregionadministrationgivetheforumsasanexampleofsuccessfulimplementationofpublic-privatepartnerships,separatelynoting,thatsuchaprojectmakeitpossibletocombineddifferentcompetencestojointlysolveasharedproblem.Itisworthnotingthattheseforumswereinitiatedandoverseennotbytheregion’sDepartmentofCultureandTourism,butinsteadbyitsscientificandeducationalunitsandeconomicdevelopmentunitswithintheregion.Severalreasonsofsuchcooperationsuccesscanbeidentified:

• Firstly,itwasoriginallydecidedtoinvolveintoprojectrealisationallinterestedstakeholders:sixuniversities,techno-park,innovativecompanies,exhibitioncentre,restaurants,hotels,airport,promotionalagencies,tour-agencies,differentdepartmentsofregionaladministration,cityadministration.Eachofthemgotitsown“partoftheevent”andwasfreetorealiseitwithinframeworkofcommonstrategy.

• Secondly,theregionaladministrationdidnotcoordinatetheevent,theoperatorwasindependentbutauthoritativeandcompetentarm’s-lengthorganisation,inthiscaseTomskpolytechnicuniversity,whichmadecommunicationsbetweendifferentactorseasier.

• Thirdly,authoritiesdidnottrytoimposetheirowntasksorrealisetheirownviewsandideas,insteadeachoftheactorshadanopportunitytorealiseitsaimswithintheproject,itwasoriginallydesignedintheinterestofdifferentstakeholders,makinguseoftheirrespectivecompentencesandresources.

• Finally,inspiteofthebusinessaspectoftheevent,itwasdecidedtomakeitusefulculturaltourismdevelopmentandattractiveforcitizens:seriesofconcerts,fire-show,guidedtourswereorganised,forexamplethe“Nightofscience”wheremuseumsanduniversitylaboratorieswereopenforcitizens.

Inshort,insituationswithwell-definedgoalslikeplanningandexecutingmajorevents,bringingdifferentpartnersaroundthetableinordertohelpsolvecomplextaskscanbeachieved,alsointheTomskregion.

Figure3illustratesthecurrentsituationofTomskcityadministrationandTomsk’sTICwithregardtopatternsoftourismstakeholderspartnership.TheypromotetheideaofTourismEducational&EntrepreneurialClusterofTomsk.

16

State and municipal authorities

Educational institutions

Business-structures

Public organizations

Annual discussion platform of tourism and regional history (round table, forum)

Expert platform to formulate the request for technological solutions of cluster

Coordination Board of ClusterStakeholders’ requests processing and the development of the procedure of finding technological solutions

TomInTechTomsk

Industrial College

College of Culture &

ArtTPU TSPU TSU

Other educational institutions

Administrative structures Museums Citizens Tourism

businessCultural

institutions

Mass Media

TIC of Tomsk Business

Report of cluster’s activities

Contest of city’s and youth’s projects in

tourism and regional history

Urban Environment (tourism stakeholders)

Figure3.ThestructureofTourismEducational&EntrepreneurialClusterofTomskandthemechanismofitsactivity.TranslatedinEnglishbyauthors.TheoriginalsourceinRussianavailableathttp://tic-tomsk.ru/node/1033

4.4 Conclusions

Intermsofreasons-to-gotheculturalattractionsinTomskarenotpopularenoughtobecomeamajordestinationproduct,andproblemsoftransportandaccessibilitymakeculturaltourismevenmoredifficulttodevelop.Buttheculturalaspectcanbeaveryusefuladdedvalueinthecontextofe.g.tobusinesstourism,andthusthe“uniquesellingproposition”oftheTomskregionalsoinrelationtotourismcouldbearguedtobeitsmainstrategyofeconomicdevelopment,namelyfurtherdevelopmentofthescientific-education-innovationscomplexandthusbuildonthesignificantnumberofincomingtouriststhatvisitTomskforbusinesspurposes.

17

AllinalltheanalysisoftourismdevelopmentstrategiesandinteractionsbetweenpublicandprivatestakeholdersintheTomskregionhasproducedthreeimportantfindings.Firstly,theprevalentstrategyforprivatesectordevelopmentisa“bottom-up”strategywhereeachactorimplementsprojectsbasedonitsownbeliefsandinterests.Theseprojectsaredeveloped,andreportsthereonaresubmittedtotheauthoritiesinordertoreceivesupportandfinancialsponsorship.Themostpromisingprojectsareincludedinfederaltargetedprogrammesandsupportedbythelocalandregionaladministrationthroughcompetitions,grants.Secondly,thereislimitedhorizontalintegrationoftheeffortsofthelocalactorswhoaretryingtointegrateactionsinthedevelopmentofTomskasatouristdestination.Activitiesforincomingtourismareoftennotcoordinatedbutrathertheindividualinitiativesofprivaterepresentativesoftourismindustryoruniversities.Thirdly,theAdministrationofTomskRegionandlocaladministrationsregardingverticalintegrationandcoordinationofeffortsinthedevelopmentofincominganddomestictourismisseenaslimitedandineffectivebyprivatestakeholders.Thereisinotherwordsnocomprehensive,systematicapproachtotheproblem,mechanismoftheimplementationofstrategicdocuments,basedontheinteractionofactorsoftourisminTomskregion.Despitethisthereare,however,alsonotableexamplesofsuccessfulpartnershipsbetweenpublicandprivateactorsaroundparticulardevelopmentprojects–attractionsandeventsinparticular–andthustheprospectsoftourismdevelopmentwithintheregionwouldseemtorelypredominantlyonitbeingaspin-offfromothersocio-economicactivities–e.g.culturalactivitiesorinnovation–ratherthanaprimarygoalofpublicpolicy.

18

5 IVANOVO:BUILDINGHERITAGETOURISM

5.1 Ivanovoasatouristdestination

TheIvanovoregionissituatednorth-eastofMoscow,traditionallydominatedbyagricultureandtextileindustriesasitsmaineconomicactivities.Inrecentyears,however,tourismhascometoplayalargerpartinregionaldevelopmentstrategies,drivenbythepresenceofculturalheritageandclosenesstometropolitanMoscowandmajorRussiantouristroutes.

TABLE3:DestinationIvanoco:Keydata 2012 Touristarrivals(‘000)Region/km2 218,000 2010 2011 2012Region/population 1062,000 Domestic Region/personperkm2 4.8 Post-Sovietcountries Capitalcitypopulation 481,000 Otherinternational TourismshareofregionalGDP 0.33 Total 235 327 294Travelagentstotal N.a. Commercialaccommodationfacilities 47Sources:Rosstat

ThehistoryofdevelopmentofincominganddomestictourismintheIvanovoregioninthelast50yearsevolvedinaseriesofstages.Fromtheendofthe1960stotheendofthe1980stourismwaspredominantlyorganisedbytradeunionsinthecontextofbrandssuchas«Textileland»and«Ivanovo-thebirthplaceoftheFirstSovietWorkersCouncil»,butalsoincludedthehistoricalsettlementsIvanovo,PalekhandPlyosintheinter-regionalroute«TheGoldenringofRussia».Afterthesystemicchangesinthelater1980sandtotheendofthe1990s,thespontaneousformationoftheIvanovotourismasasphereoffreeenterprisedevelopedagainstabackgroundofpracticallyabsentfederalandregionaltourismdevelopmentstrategies.Theearlyyearsofthenewcenturywerecharacterisedbytheuncoordinatedeffortsofmanymunicipalitiesinthesphereoftourismdevelopment,eachpursuingtheirownconceptsandprogramsofdevelopment.From2005onwardsaregionalprogramoftourismdevelopmentintheIvanovoregionwaselaboratedonthebasisofprogram-targetedmethodsofplanningandmanagement,andthiswasfurtherstrengthenedbyinclusionoftheregionintheFederaltargetprogram«DevelopmentofdomesticandinboundtourismintheRussianFederation(2011-2018)»,andtheevolutionoftourismintheframeworkofthisprogram,thedevelopmentofmethodsofpublic-privatepartnership,theclusterapproachtotourismdevelopmentinrelationtothecityofPlyosanditssurroundingsasa«pilot»project.Finally,since2014theconceptofpublic-privatepartnershiphasexpandedtoothermunicipalities–theVolgacitiesYurievetsandKineshma,centresoficonpaintingPalekhandthedistrictsofKholuyandGavrilovPosad.

TourisminIvanovoregionhasinotherwordsprimarilybeenassociatedwithculturalattractions,stemmingbothfromthegloriousindustrialpastwhereIvanovowastheManchester-styletextilecapitalofRussia,andfromarichheritageofreligiousandotherbuildingsfromtheczaristpast.These

19

constituteresourcesthatcanbemaderelevantinthecontextofmoderntourismdevelopmentthroughcoordinatedefforts.Inadditiontoculturaltourism,theVolgawaterwaylendsitselftoleisuretourism,healthresortandsportstourismaredeveloping,aswellasculturalevents,clothesshopping,andbusinesstourism.TheimportanceoftheabovementionedtypesoftourismintheIvanovoregionarises,first,fromitsrichnatural,historicalandculturalpotential,secondly,fromitsgeographicallocationand,inparticular,fromitsproximitytoMoscow,thirdly,asignificantrolehereisplayedbythetraditionsoftheregionthathaveemergedontheconsciousdesiretorelyonthosefeaturesoftheareathatstanditoutagainstthesurroundingareas.Finally,thewell-directedeffortsoftheregionalauthoritiesonthedevelopmentoftouristinfrastructureareimportanthere.

Intermsofmakingtouristicvalueoftheexistingculturalheritage,theinter-regionalroutevisitorroute,the«GoldenringofRussia»,wasintroducedinthetourismturnoverinthelate1960s,combininghistoricalsettlementslocatedontheterritoryoftheVladimir,Ivanovo,Kostroma,MoscowandYaroslavlregions.Themainfeatures,inaccordancewithwhichthehistoricalsettlementsoftheaboveareaswereunitedintoacommonroute,aretheirundoubtedall-Russianvalue,involvementintoRussianhistoryandtheformationofRussianstatehood,highhistoricalandculturalpotential,adevelopedtouristinfrastructure,goodtransportaccessibilityandrelativecompactnessoflocation.Infortyyearsofitsexistencethe«Goldenring»hasbecomeoneoftheleadingbrandsofRussiantourism,well-knownbothinRussiaandabroad,standinginonerowwithMoscow,St.Petersburg,Karelia,RussianNorth,etc.

TheIvanovoregionisnotsorichinmonumentsofhistoryandcultureamongtheneighboringareas,inparticularlaggingbehindwithregardtoarchitectureofthepre-revolutionaryperiod,butintheSovietperiodithasplayedasignificantroleinbuildingofanewStatesystem.Inthisregard,theregionhasaricharchitecturalheritageoftheconstructivistperiod,includingtherichestheritageoffactoryarchitecture.Withregardtonaturalresourcesandlevelofdevelopmentoftouristinfrastructure,theyarequitecomparablewiththeneighboringregions.Besides,Ivanovoregionhasaspecialandadvantageousgeographicalpositionintheareaofthe«Goldenring».First,itisanaturallinkbetweentheareaofthe«GoldenringofRussia»,Volga,oneofthemaintouristaxesofRussia,andNizhnyNovgorodregion,EasternneighborofIvanovoregionwithasimilarhistoricaldestinyandculturaloriginality.Secondly,thecentreoftheIvanovoregion,Ivanovo,isina2-4hourcar'sdistancefromthecitiesofNizhnyNovgorodandMoscow,andalmostone-hourcar'sdistancefromthebiggestcentresofthe«Goldenring»ofRussia:Rostov,Yaroslavl,Kostroma,Vladimir,Suzdal,Plyos,Palekh.ThiscircumstancebecamethebasisforpositioningofIvanovoasthe«centreoftheGoldenring»,althoughinrelationtotheshapeofthereal«Ring»Ivanovoissituatedonitsperiphery.Third,inconnectionwiththecommissioningofthebridgeacrosstheVolganearKineshmathroughtheIvanovoregioninthenearfuturetherewillgoapowerfulroadtraffic,whichwillfollowtheshortestwaybetweentheCentralareasofRussiaanditsNorthernandNorth-Easternareas.WhileIvanovomaynotyetbetheregionthatbenefitsmostfromtouristflowsalongthe«Goldenring»,beinganintegratedpartofiscertainlyoneofthemajorstrengthsoftheregionintermsoftourismdevelopmentpotential.

20


ThissectionidentifiesthekeyactorsintourismdevelopmentinIvanovoregion,focusinginparticularontheresources,strategiesandpatternsofcollaborationinshapingthefutureoftheregionalvisitoreconomy.

PUBLICAUTHORITIES

Likeintheothercasestudyregions,theregionallevelisveryimportantinthegovernanceoftourismdevelopmentinIvanovoregion.TheDepartmentofSportandTourismisadivisionofregionalwiththecorrespondingbudgetaryfinancing.InthestructureoftheDepartmentthereistheDepartmentoftourism,thefewofficialsofwhichdealwithissuesofstateregulationoftourismattheregionallevel.Inparticular,theDepartmentdealswiththeadministrationofallregionaltargetprogramsrelatedtodevelopmentoftourism,aswellastheimplementationofpartsoftheFederaltargetprograms,includingprojectsrelatingtotheIvanovoregion.InrecentyearstheDepartmentofsportsandtourismincooperationwithotherdepartmentsoftheregionalgovernmentandmunicipaladministrationsdealswiththedevelopmentofpublic-privatepartnership,searchandattractionofprivateinvestorsfortheimplementationofprojectsaimedatthedevelopmentoftourismandhospitality.

TheDepartmentofsportandtourismisthemaindeveloperofthelong-termtargetprogramsonthetourismevolutionintheIvanovoregionandpromotionofthemostimportantprojectsintheFederaltargetprograms.ThustheIvanovoregionisamongthefewregionsofRussiathatenteredtheFederaltargetprogram«DevelopmentofdomesticandinboundtourismintheRussianFederation(2011-2018)».Thisfederalprogramaimstoestablishsystemsofthetourist-recreationalservicesonthebasisoftheterritoriespossessingsignificanthistorical,culturalandnaturalpotentialinRussia.Itincludestheprojectsthatinconditionsofsharpcompetitionbetweentheregionsshouldbeconsideredasa«pilot»,i.e.onthebasisoftheexperiencegainedontheirimplementationthewidedevelopmentoftouristdestinationsinRussiaareexpected.ThankstotheeffortsofthegovernmentoftheIvanovoregiontheprojectofdevelopmentoftourist-recreationcluster,«Plyos»wasincludedinthisprogram,andrecentlythecreationofthreemoretourist-recreationclustersontheterritoryoftheIvanovoregionwereadditionallyincludedinthisprogram.IngeneralthedevelopmentofdomesticandinboundtourismisrecognisedasthebasicdirectionofthetourismdevelopmentinRussia,whatisstatedinthe«StrategyofthetourismdevelopmentinRussia»adoptedinMay2014.

TheDepartmentalsodevelopedandimplementedtheregionalprogram«DevelopmentoftourismintheIvanovoregionin2009-2016»,followedin2013bythestateprogramoftheIvanovoregion«Developmentofphysicalculture,sportandtourismintheIvanovoregion».TheDepartmentofsportandtourismplaysaroleoftheadministratoroftheseprograms.Theseprogramscombinethepossibilitiesoftheregionalbudget,thelimitedbudgetsofsomemunicipalitiesoftheregionandtheprivateinvestorswiththepurposeofdevelopmentofthetouristinfrastructureinthesemunicipalities.Atthesametimeprivateinvestorsreceivesupportfromregionalandmunicipalinstitutionsintheformofcertaintaxpreferencesandopportunitiestousepublicadministrativeresourcesinthe

21

developmentofprivate-sectorprojects.ThemostsuccessfulprojectsofsuchprogramsgetadditionalsupportbybeingincludedintheFederalprogram.TheadministrationofsuchprogramsishandledbytheDepartmentofsportsandtourismoftheIvanovoregion.ItisalsopromotestheIvanovoregionattheRussianandinternationaltouristmarket,inparticular,introducestheregionaltourismattheexhibitionsofdifferentlevelsincooperationwithotherbodiesoftheregionalgovernment.

TheDepartmenthasadedicatedTourismofficeengagedindirectworkoncoordinationofactivityofinvestors,travelcompaniesandotheractorsinthesphereoftourismandhospitalityintheregion.AnimportantfunctionoftheDepartmentistoidentifyinvestors,includetheminthemechanismofpublic-privatepartnership,monitoringoftheiractivities,aswellasthepromotionofthetouristimageoftheregionthroughparticipationininternationalandall-Russiatourismandrecreationexhibitions.Public-privatepartnershipsasaformofinteractionoftheIvanovoregiongovernment,representedbytheDepartmentofsportsandtourism,ontheonehand,andprivateinvestors,ontheotherhand,isaregionaltargetprogramofmixedfinancing,whichsetsoutspecificobjectives,activities,termsoftheirimplementation,financing,responsibleagencies,themeansofmonitoringtheprojectsexecution.

Thebasisofpublic-privatepartnershipinthetourismdevelopmentintheIvanovoregionisthetechnologiesoftheworkingoutandrealisationoftargetprogramsoffederalandregionallevels.Inthesecondcasetheregionalgovernmentinitiatesthedevelopmentoftargetprogram,inwhichtheprogramgoals,targets,purposeindicatorsandexpectedresults,theyearvolumeoffinancing,aswellasspecifictasksoncreationoftourisminfrastructureandpromotionoftheIvanovotourismarerecorded.Theprogramprovidesfinancingfromthreesources:federalbudget,regionalbudgetandextra-budgetaryfundsinanapproximateratioof3:1:9.Financingfrombudgetarysourcesisusedforthedevelopmentofthetransportandmunicipalinfrastructure,theoverallimprovement,thedevelopmentofstateculturalinstitutionsconnectedwithtourism,financingofactivitiesonpromotionoftheIvanovotourism.BudgetutilisationiscarriedoutthroughthedepartmentsofthegovernmentoftheIvanovoregionandthroughsubsidiesfromtheregionalbudgettomunicipalitiesparticipatingintheprogram.However,thelargestamountofmoneyisspentbyprivateinvestorswhoparticipateintheregionalandrealisetheprojectsoncreationofpropertouristinfrastructureinaccordancewiththemeasuresofthisprogram.Theadministratoroftheprogramisoneofthedepartmentsoftheregionalgovernment,forexample,theDepartmentofeconomicdevelopmentandtradeoftheIvanovoregion.

InparallelwiththistheIvanovoregion’sDepartmentofEducation,incollaborationwiththeDepartmentofSportandTourism,hasdevelopedandbeguntoimplementalarge-scaleprojectofdomestictourismforchildrenandschoolage«Journeytotheprovince»,theparticipantsofwhichareinstitutionsofgeneralandadditionaleducation,administrationsofmunicipalitiesoftheregion,museumsandotherculturalinstitutions,travelagencies.Thelistofthemainobjectsofculturalheritageandrecommendedroutesaredeveloped,thecatalogueoftheprojectispublished,themonitoringmechanismofparticipationofeducationalinstitutionsintheprojectisgotstarted.Duetotheefforts,primarily,ofworkersoftheInter-regionalresourcecentrefortrainingandretrainingofpersonnelfortourismandhospitalityofISPUtheConceptofthechildren’sandyouthtourismevolutionontheterritoryoftheIvanovoregionisdeveloped.Itisaimedatmaximumrapprochementoftheschooltourismcontentswitheducationalprograms,andgrantswereusedtosupportthetrainingof29organisersofyouthtourismoutofteachersoftheregion.

22

AninterestingexampleoftourismdevelopmentinitiatedbyalocalgovernmentintheIvanovoregionistheGavrilov-Posadmunicipaldistrict,oneofthefewdistrictsthathaveapredominantlyagriculturalorientation.However,itsadministrationissystematicallyworkingontransformationoftheregionintoatouristdestination.Thedistrictobtainsasufficientnumberofsitesofnatural,historicalandculturalheritage,municipalmuseum,objectsoftouristinfrastructure,whichcanbebroughttothesufficientformoderntourismandrecreationlevel.In2007thedistrict’sadministrationhadorderedtheDepartmentofsocio-culturalserviceandtourismoftheIvanovostatetextileacademy(now–partofISPU)todeveloptheConceptofrevivalofthedistrictthroughtourismevolution.Thelong-termprogramoftourismandrecreationdevelopmentinthedistrictwascreatedonthebasisofthisconcept.

PRIVATETOURISMBUSINESSES

TheIvanovoregionhasprominentexamplesoftourismasadiversificationstrategyforexistingbusinesses,originallyoperatinginotherindustries.The«RIAT»groupofcompaniesintheregionalcapitalisoneoftheregion’slargestjointstockcompanieswithawiderangeofmanufacturedgoodsandservices,thegroupisakeyinvestorintheIvanovoregionandithasrecentlymovedintotourismtocomplementitstraditionalbaseinagro-food.

Thestrategyof«RIAT»inthesphereoftourismandrecreationisvividlysystemicandallowstosolveawiderangeoftasks,relatedtoprovidingservicestotouristsandrecreants.Thedirectionofsportstourism(especiallytennis,equestriansport,sportforchildrenandyouth)isrepresentedveryclearly.Recently«RIAT»becametheownerofthestudinGavrilovPosad,whosehistorydatesbacktothereignofIvanIVtheTerrible.Thisacquisitionmeansthebeginningofalarge-scaleprojectonthedevelopmentofinter-regionaltourism(IvanovoandVladimirregions,andpossiblybeyondthat)mostlikelyintheframeworkofthepublic-privatepartnership.

Alsothe«ForteciaRus»groupofcompaniesforthelasteightyearsplayedtheroleof«anchor»investorinthedevelopmentoftourismandrecreationinthecityofPlyosanditssurroundings.,focusinginparticularontheriverside.Afive-starhotel,«SobornayaSloboda»,isasetofauthenticoldhousesintheriverside-partofPlyos,restoredanddecoratedasinoldentime,eachonaseparatesite,withasmallprivategarden.Thehotelhasadevelopedtouristinfrastructure–restaurants,tea-room,coffeeshopandbar,saunas,SPA-services,anout-doortheatre,interactivemuseums,infrastructurefacilitiesforcorporaterest,souvenirshopsstylisedastheoldPlyos.Forlesswell-offvisitorsthereisathreestarshotel«ForteciaRus».Plyosyachtcluboffersawiderangeofservicesforstorage,parking,repairandmaintenanceofyachts,boatsandhydrocyclesandrentingofequipmentforwateractivities(jetskiing,kiting,windsurfing,snowsurfing,etc.).InadditiontothisseriouseffortshavebeenmadetofillthemodernPlyoswithculturaleventsofhighlevel:Levitanmusicfestivals,theinternationalcompetition«ShalyapinvoicesoverPlyos»,all-Russiafestival«JazzovertheVolgariver»andothers.

Theownerofthesestructures,A.V.Shevtsov,triestoreachtheideasoftherevaluationoftheobjectsofculturalheritage,responsibletourism,complexdevelopmentofPlyosasatouristcentreoftheEuropeanlevel,butwhileremaininga«symbolofRussianprovinceingeneral,thesymbolofthedeep,devoidofgloss,realRussia».Anumberofhisprojectsisimplementedasapublic-privatepartnershipintheframeworkoftheFederaltargetprogram«Developmentofdomesticandinboundtourisminthe

23

RussianFederation(2011-2018)».Inthiscontextpublic-privatepartnershiprepresentstheentryofprivatecapitalintothetargetprogramoftheFederalorregionallevel,providingmainlyinfrastructureprojectswithmixedfinancing,wherethefederaltargetprogramformsthelegalbasisofpublic-privatepartnership.

Finally,thetourist-transportassociation«Slavyanka»isanexampleofaleadingtouroperatorintheIvanovoregion.Besideawidetouristactivity,mainlywithinthe«Goldenring»andtheNorth-EasternpartofRussia,thetourist-transportassociation«Slavyanka»hascreatedtheguesthouse«PestovoSloboda»inthevillageofPestovoofthePalekhmunicipaldistrictoftheIvanovoregion.Horsetours,huntingtours,ecologicaltours,weekendtours,eventtourism,weddings,anniversaries,corporateevents,entertainmentprogramsforadultsandchildrenbasedonRussianfolkloreareimplementedonthisbasis.Thetourist-transportassociation«Slavyanka»hasawideexperienceofinteractionwithadministrationsofmunicipaldistrictsonrealisationoffairsandothereventsofmunicipalandregionallevel.

Theseexamplesofprivatestakeholdersillustratethebreadthofentrepreneurialactivity,andalsoserveasatimelyreminderofthecloselinksbetweenpublicandprivatestakeholdersintourismdevelopmentintheIvanovoregion.

CULTURALATTRACTIONS

HeritageisakeycomponentintheattractivenessofIvanovoregion,andmuseumshaveincreasinglycometoplayapartinthevisitoreconomy.

ThepublicallyfundedmuseumofIvanovoChintzisnowapartoftheIvanovostatehistoricalandlocal-historicalmuseumnamedafterD.G.Burylin.InthebasisoftheexhibitionsoftheMuseumofIvanovochintzthereisauniquecollectionofsamplesoffabricsfromancienttimestoourdays.TheacquisitionofthiscollectionwasstartedinthelatenineteenthcenturythroughtheeffortsoftheIvanovo-Voznesenskindustrialist,artcollector,philanthropistandenlightenerD.G.Burylin.Themuseumcollection,locatedintheBurylin’sfamilyhouse,hasagreatdiversity,whichreflectthefolkarttraditions,evolvedovercenturiesandcorrespondedtothetastesofwidelayersoftheRussianpopulation.SamplesoftheancientIvanovochintzrevealasignificantlayeroffolkartinyetunderexploredarea–theartdecorationoffabrics.AtthesametimetheMuseumexhibitionstellthehistoryofthetextileindustryinIvanovoregiononthecourseoffourcenturies.Specialattentionispaidtodisplayingtextileproductsasworksofdecorativeandappliedart.AlongwiththestoryaboutthetextiletechnologydevelopmenttheMuseumshowstheIvanovo-Voznesenskmanufacturers,whosedynastiesbeganintheenvironmentoftheserfs,andthefabricartistswhoseworkbroughttheworldwidefametotheIvanovochintz.

Theonlyoneofitskindintheworld,MuseumofIvanovochintzisaconstantsubjectofthegrantsupportoftheinvestmentfundofV.Potanin«Achangingmuseuminachangingworld».Anactivelyvisitedexposition«SlavaZaitsev.Life=Сreation»isfunctioningasapartofthemuseum.TheMuseumisabrandfortheregion,itisinvariablyincludedinprogramsoftouristandexcursionservicefortheIvanovoregionvisitors.TheMuseumhasaregularcreativecontactwiththeDepartmentofsocio-culturalserviceandtourismofISPU(IvanovoStatePowerUniversity),theresultofwhichis,in

24

particular,implementationoftheoriginaljointprojects:themuseumshow–the«visitingcard»oftheIvanovocity–«SouvenirsfromtheRussianManchester»andtheexhibition-animationproject«Burylin’sundercrossing».

TheP.N.TravkinarchaeologymuseumcentreinPlyosisoneofthefewprivatemuseumsintheregion.ThemuseumisbasedontheresultsofarchaeologicalresearchofitscreatorinPlyosanditssurroundings.Museumvisitorscangetacquaintedwiththe«archaeologist’scorner»,whichclearlydemonstratesthespecificsoftheworkofarchaeologists.ThemainpartofthemuseumisdedicatedtothereconstructionofthePlyosjeweller’sestateoftheXIIIcentury.AnotherexpositionofthemuseumisareconstructionofthesiteoftheStoneAge.Themuseumiswidelyusingtheinteractivetechnologiesincommunicationwithvisitors,itoffersawidespectrumofeducationalprogramsforstudents.Itisimportanttonotethatthefounderofthemuseumanditsownerarchaeologist,P.N.Travkin,isinvolvedintheconceptdevelopmentforanumberofprojects,implementedinPlyosandothersettlementsoftheIvanovoregion,andhencethemuseumengagedwiththewidertourismdevelopmentstrategiesintheregion.


TheDepartmentofSocio-culturalServiceandTourismoftheIvanovostatepolytechnicuniversity’sTextileinstitutehaveeducatedmorethan400expertsinsocio-culturalserviceandtourismsince1998.TheDepartmenthascloselinkswiththeauthoritiesoftheIvanovoregionanditsmunicipalities,museums,travelagencies,enterprisesoftouristinfrastructure.

Since1999theDepartmentcompletedtheconceptualdevelopmentofmechanismsfortherevivalofalargenumberofmunicipaldistrictsonthebasisofthetourismandrecreationevolution.ThemaindirectionsofresearchanddesignactivityoftheDepartment:actualisationofhistoricalandculturalheritage;revivaloftraditionalfairentertainmentculture;developmentofnewregionalandinterregionaltouristroutes;imagedevelopmentofthetouristinfrastructure;museumstaging;innovativeapproachestoexcursionservice;animationserviceintourismandrecreation.AfterthecreationoftheInter-regionalresourcecentrefortrainingandretrainingofpersonnelfortourismandhospitalityofISPUintheframeworkofthegrantprogram«Tempus»,theDepartmenthasincreaseditspotentialintrainingandretrainingofpersonnelfortourismandhospitality.


Theclusterapproachtotourismdevelopment,prevailedintherecentyears,requiresrathercloseconnectionbetweenthedifferentactors,operatinginthesphereofregionaltourism.Thelogicoftheapproachimpliesthatinsteadofseparateeffortstocreatesomeinfrastructureobjectsanddevelopmentoftouristproductsinmanylocalities,effortsshouldfocusonaparticulararea,possessingasufficientnaturalandhistorical-culturalpotential,andgoodtransportaccessibility.Theaimofthisspatialfocusistocoordinatetheactivitiesofthestate,regionalandmunicipalstructuresinterestedindevelopmentoftourism,business,institutionsofculture,educationandtothelocal

25

populationtoturntheareaintoazoneofsuccessfultourism,andtherebydevelopatouristdestinationwheretouristsandguestscanreceivecomplexservicesofaqualityrequiredbymoderntravellers.

Figure4.PatternsofcollaborationintourismdevelopmentinIvanovoregion

AssummarisedinFigure4,intheIvanovoregionrelativelyhighlevelsofinteractionandcooperationexistbetweendifferentgroupsofstakeholders,allofwhichinvolvemutualexchangeofresourcesbetweenthepartiesinvolved.Sixdifferentcollaborativeaxescanbeidentified:

• Betweenregional/localgovernmentandprivateinvestors-jointinvestmentofpublicandprivatefundingfortourismdevelopmentprojectsconstitutesthecorearoundwhichcollaborationisundertaken.

• Betweenprivateinvestorsandculturalinstitutions-firmsprovidegrantorsponsorshipsupportofculturalinstitutions,whilethelattersupportapositiveimageofprivateinvestors,e.g.byparticipatingintheirPRactivities.

• Betweenregional/localgovernmentandtheuniversities-publicbodiescommittheuniversitiesonacontractbasisforresearchanddevelopmentinconnectionwithinnovativeand/oreducationalprojects,andtheuniversitiesprovidescientificandmethodologicalsupportofstrategicandconceptualdevelopmentandlong-termprograms.

• Betweenprivateinvestorsanduniversitiesfirmscommittheuniversitiesonacontractbasiswithprojectsdevelopmentandalsoprovidestudentpractices,whiletheuniversitiescarryout

26

conceptualworkinrelationtoprojectdevelopment,aswellasinitiatingnewtopicsthatcanpotentiallyattracttheattentionofprivateinvestors.

• Betweenculturalinstitutionanduniversitiestheformerprovideinternshipsforstudentsandinvolveuniversitiesinjointimplementationofprojects/grantsaspartofFederalandmunicipalprograms,whiletheuniversitiesuseculturalinstitutionsintheireducationalactivities,andparticipateinjointprojects/grantswonbyinstitutionsofcultureaspartoffederalandmunicipaltourismdevelopmentprograms

• Betweenregional/localgovernmentandculturalinstitutions

Ofcourse,therearehorizontalrelationsalsobetweenprivateinvestorsworkingonthedevelopmentofthesametouristdestination.Unfortunately,oftentheserelationstakeacharacteroftoointensivecompetition.Theinterestsofdifferentprivateinvestorscanapplytooneandthesameterritoryandhavethegoalofcreationofinfrastructuralobjectswiththesamefunctionality(forexample,theconstructionofanewhotel).Atthesametimeprivateinvestorsareinterestedinpartnershipwithstatestructuresinordertosolvetheproblemsofinfrastructureprovisionoftheobject(improvementofroads,provisionofgassupply,sanitationetc.)bymeansofbudgetfunding.Inacompetitivestruggletheremaybeincidentswhenprivatebusinessappliesthemethodsofdiscreditingofthecompetitorsintheeyesoftheauthoritieswiththeuseof«blackPR»andotherinappropriatemethods.

5.4 Conclusions

InIvanovoregionpublic-privatepartnershipisundoubtedlyaneffectivemechanismfordevelopmentoftourismandrecreation.However,inouropinion,therearesomeseriouscircumstances,withoutovercomingofwhichtheeffectivenessofthismechanismcanbereducedandevenbeunderthreat.

1. TheinclusionofregionalprojectsintheFederaltargetprogram,whichistheonlypossiblewayoftheconsiderablefundsofthefederalbudgetdevelopment,makesconditionalupontheattractionofprivateinvestorstoco-financetheprojects.Therefore,theworkoftheregion'sadministrationandmunicipalitiesaimedatfindingasufficientlyseriousinvestorswhoseinterestsmaynotfullycoincidewiththedeclaredaimsoftheproject.Sotherealfundraisingactivitiesforthetourismdevelopmentintheregionarebasedonthesearchofcompromises.

2. Thepublic-privatepartnershipshouldbebasedonacarefullydesignedandseriouslyexaminedbythepubliccommunitydevelopmentstrategyoftheregion(inthiscaseinrelationtotourismandrecreation).Otherwise,thepredominanceofgroupinterestsisinevitable,whichmaycauseamisuseoffundsandcorruption.

3. Public-privatepartnershipneedsamoreelaboratelegalbasis,whichwouldclearlyregulatetheactivityofallparticipantsofthisprocess.Inconditionswhenthetourismontheterritorydoesnotfunctionasanestablishedmechanism,but,mainly,iscreated,itisveryimportantthatemergingpatternsofpublic-privatepartnershipactedinaclearlydefinedlegalfield,eliminatingmisunderstandings,differentinterpretations,breakdownsandillegalactions.InthecontemporaryRussianconditionsthepublic-privatepartnershipisstillinitsinfancy,intheabsenceofalegallyworkedatthefederal,regionalandmunicipallevels«rulesofthegame»,

27

eliminatingvoluntarismandcorruptpractices.However,theexamplesofsuccessfulpartnershipsbetweenpublicandprivateinstitutionsintheIvanovoregionareavailable.Such,forexample,isthelong-termworkwiththedevelopmentofsignificantfinancialresourcesforcreationoftourist-recreationcluster«Plyos».

4. Thecurrentpracticeofprivate-publicpartnershipsinfactexcludestheparticipationofsmallinvestorsandtheirassociations,becausesmall,butsometimesveryimportant,projectsaresimplynotconsidered.Forinstance,publictourismdevelopmentprogramsdonotactuallyprovidethefinancingofthedevelopmentofqualitytouristproducts,theirpromotion,advertising,organisationofpress-tours,imagedevelopmentofthetouristindustryenterpriseswithintouristdestinations,andworkingwiththelocalcommunity.Thecreationofsuchtouristproductsisusuallynotpossiblefortheprovincetouroperators,andthereforethereisaneedtoimplementsuchdesignsbyintegratingtheeffortsofdifferentactorse.g.intermsofpublic-privatepartnership.

5. Public-privatepartnershipdoesnotusethepossibilitiesofpubliccontroloverrealisationofprojects,whichcontradictstheunderstandingoftourismnotonlyasabusiness,butalsoasasociallyresponsiblesphereofhumanactivity.

6. Public-privatepartnershippracticallyignorestheproblemofpersonneltraining,andthisactuallymeansnotonlythattheproblemisnotpermittedcompletely,butalsothatitisnotevenraised.

Ivanovoisaninterestingexampleofaregionwherepublic-privatepartnershipispracticedtoarelativelylargeextent,andthereforeboththepotentialadvantagesanddisadvantagesareparticularlyvisible.Ontheonehand,itclearlyenablespublicandprivateactorstocollaborateinmajorprojectsaspartofoverarchingtourismdevelopmentstrategiesthroughco-investmentinespeciallynewinfrastructure–andatthesametime,ithasalsoassistedinbringingaboutmoreintensivecollaborationandknowledgeexchangebetweenuniversities,privatefirms,culturalinstitutionsand,indeed,governmentbodies.Onetheotherhand,however,somelimitationscanalsobeidentified:lessattentionisbeingaffordedto‘soft’aspectsoftourismdevelopment(e.g.productdevelopment,marketing,training),andlargenumbersofsmallactorswouldseemtobeleftoutofthepartnershipprocessbecauseoftheabsenceofinclusionmechanismstargetingactorswithrelativelyfewresourcesattheirdisposal.ThefurtheringoftourismdevelopmentintheIvanovoregionwilldependupontheextenttowhichabalancecanbestruckbetweenbuildingonexistingpositiveexperienceswhileatthesametimemovingtowardsamoreinclusiveapproach,bothintermsoftypesofpolicyinterventionsandstakeholdersinvolved.

28

6 KEMEROVO:TOURISMINACARBON-ECONOMYREGION

6.1 Kemerovoasatouristdestination

Kemerovoregion,oftenreferredtoasKuzbassafterthelargecoalbasinoccupyingmostoftheregion,wasformedinthe1940s-1950sasoneoftheprincipalindustrialandcommoditycentresoftheUSSR.Coalmining,metallurgyandchemicalindustrieswerethecoreoftheeconomicpotentialoftheregion.Touristindustrywasnotrepresented.Itwasonlyinthe1970sthatthefirstskipisteappearedinthesouthoftheregion,inTashtagoldistrict,thattourismemergedasasignificantformofeconomicactivity,andlateranothercentreinTashtagolregion–theSheregeshskiingcomplex–wasbuiltforamajornationalsportingevent,theSpartakiadofthepeoplesofRussiain1981.Inthelate1970s–early1980sthetouristicpotentialofKuzbasswasinvestigated,andasaresult12touristandrecreationactivitieszoneswereidentified,andthiszoningisstillrelevantandusedforplanningpurposes.ThestrategiccourseforthedevelopmentoftourisminKuzbassbecameparticularlyimportantintheearly21stcentury,duetothenecessitytomodernisetheeconomyandthedecreaseindemandforcoalandmetal.Todaytheregionpossessesfourleadingmountainskiingcentres(inTashtagol,Mezhdurechensk,NovokuznetskandTanay),andinparallelwiththissomehistoricalandculturalcentresarebeingdeveloped,namely:themuseum-reservesof“TomskayaPisanitsa”and“KrasnayaGorka”(Kemerovo),KuznetskFortress(Novokuznetsk),acomplexoflate19th–early20thcenturystoneandwoodenhousesinSiberianBaroquestyleinMariinsk,andShestakovopaleontologicalandarchaeologicalcomplexwhereremnantsoftheSiberianPsittacosauruswerediscovered.

TABLE4:DestinationKemerovo:Keydata 2012 Touristarrivals(‘000)Region/km2 95,500 2011 2012 2013Region/population 2763,000 Domestic 646 715 813Region/personperkm2 28.9 International 54 41 43Capitalcitypopulation 533,00 Total 700 756 856TourismshareofregionalGDP 0.47 Travelagentstotal 289Commercialaccommodationfacilities 183

Sources:1.KeydataontourismdevelopmentinKemerovoRegion//WebsiteofKemerovoRegionDepartmentforYouthPolicyandSport–accessaddress:http://www.dmps-kuzbass.ru/tourism/development/-accessedon18.05.20142.Kul’tura,otdykh,turizm[Culture,recreationandtourism]//“Kuzbass”statisticalyearbook2012.–accessaddress:http://www.kemerovostat.ru/bgd/EJEGOD/issWWW.exe/Stg/2012/9е_культура.htm3.Kuzbass.2013:statisticalabstract.–Kemerovo:Kemerovostat,2013.–P.130-136,224

TheanalysisofstatisticaldataofKemerovoregiondestinationdevelopmentin2000–20131showsconsiderablegrowthofoneofthemainrates–theinflowoftouristsintheregion.Comparedto10yearsearlier,theflowofincominginternationalvisitorshasalmostdoubled,althoughinabsolutenumbersitremainsovershadowedbyincomingvisitorsfromotherpartsoftheRussianFederation.

29

TheflowoftouriststravellingtoKemerovoin2012almostdoubledtherateof2004,andthesefigurescorrelatewiththeconstantincreaseinthenumbersofout-goingRussiantourists,reaching126051in2013,andingeneral,thedynamicsofbothratesintheanalysedperiodshowsgrowthwithafallin2009duetotherecessioninglobaleconomics.Atthesametime,itisawell-knownfactthatabout50%ofKuzbasstouriststraditionallyspendtheirvacationintheirnativeregion(58.4%in2000,onlyincreasingto52.9%in2012).Alongwiththeflowofout-goingtourists,theamountofmarketedtourism,hospitalityandhealthservicesforthepopulationisgrowingaswell.In2000theseservicesaffordedtheregion31.2millionroubles,whilein2012thisratewas107.5timeshigherandamounted3354millionroublesinnominalprices.Incomparativemeasurestheincreasewasevenhigher:from0.04%to0.47%oftheregionalGDP.

ThenumberoftouristcompaniesregisteredinKemerovoregionshowsgrowthaswell.Therewere40in2000,andin2013theirnumberreached289.Atthat,themostconsiderablegrowthtookplacein2010,whenthenumberoftouristcompaniesincreasedby46.4%inayear.Overthepastthreeyears,theirnumberincreasedfrom253to289.Regrettably,mostoftheenterprisesspecialiseinoutboundtourism,whiledomestictourismisaminoraccompanyingsphereofthecompanies’activity.Theratesoftouristcompanies’activity(thenumberandcostofthesoldtouristpackages)grewalongwiththeirnumber.From2005to2012thenumberoftouristpackagessoldincreasedby6.1times:from10.4to63.7thousand.ThecostofthepackagessoldtoKuzbasscitizensin2005-2012increasedby11.9timesinnominalprices(from307.3to3659.6millionroubles),ifcomparedtotheyear2000,itincreasedby63.2times.Incomparativemeasures,theamountofsoldpackagetoursincreasedfrom0.07%oftheregionalGDPto0.1%oftheregionalGDPin2005,and0.51%oftheregionalGDPin2012.Similartotheflowoftouristsingeneral,thegrowingdynamicsoftheserateswasinterruptedin2009.Regrettably,theincreaseinout-goinganddomestictourismdidn’tleadtotheexpectedresults:qualitativeandpermanentgrowthofrevenuesfortheregionandthestate.Inparticular,asfarastaxrevenuesareconcerned,theyarequiteirregular.Taxrevenuesamounted907.3millionroublesin2011,1299.3millionroublesin2012,and1063millionroublesin2013,andthisunderlinesthelackoffinancialstabilityintheregion’stourismindustry.

Accommodationratesdidnotgrowsignificantlyovertheperiodstudied.Despitethefactthatin2000–2012thenumberofcollectiveaccommodationfacilitieshasgrownby20(from163to183),theincreaseamounting12.3%,thedynamicswithintheperiodisunstable.Duringtheeconomicrecessionof2009,thisnumberdecreased:therewere151in2008-2009and153in2011andby2012(183)itfailedtoreachthepre-recessionrate(188in2008).In2013thenumberofcollectiveaccommodationfacilitiesremainedthesameasinthepreviousyear.Thenumberofnightsspentinthefacilitiesoverthestudiedperioddecreasedby17.6%:from2635.8thousandin2000to2170.6thousandin2012.

Thenumberofpeoplestayingincollectiveaccommodationfacilitiesgrewprogressivelyfrom303.6thousandin2000to369.5thousandin2012,theincreaseover2000-2012reaching21.7%.However,thecomparisonofthenumberoftouristsenteringKemerovoRegionwiththatoftouristsstayingatcommercialaccommodationfacilitiesshowsthattheformerexceedsthelatteralmosttwice:699.96to369.5thousandpeoplein2012.Thisfactshowsthataboutahalfoftouristsstayatrentedapartmentsandhousesorwiththeirfriendsandrelatives,orstayatsmallaccommodationfacilitieswhoseactivityisnottakenintoaccountbythestatestatisticalauthoritiessince2008.

30

TheextremelyrichnaturalcomplexofKemerovoregionallowsdevelopingdifferenttypesoftourism,namely:mountainskiing,cross-countryskiing,watertourism,hiking,caveexplorationtourism,horse-riding,snowtourism,historical,culturalandecologicaltourismandother.However,inreality,mountainskiingaccountsforabout70%oftourismflowsinKemerovoregion.Thistypeoftourismisdevelopedin16municipalunits.ThegrowthofwintertourismpopularityinKemerovoregionisduetotheavailabilityofawell-developedinfrastructureandthelengthoftheskiingseasonwhichstartsinearlyNovemberandfinishesinearlyMay.AsthehistoricalandculturalandnaturalvaluesofKuzbasshaveamuchlowerdemandoutsidetheregion,mostofthetourismindustryintheregionisthereforeseasonal.


ThissectionidentifiesthekeyactorsintourismdevelopmentinKemerovo,focusinginparticularontheresources,strategiesandpatternsofcollaborationinshapingthefutureoftheregionalvisitoreconomy.

PUBLICAUTHORITIES

InKuzbass,tourismisunderthejurisdictionofDeputyGovernorforEducation,CultureandSports.ItissuperviseddirectlybyKemerovoRegionDepartmentofYouthPolicyandSports,whichembodiestheDepartmentforTourisminitsstructure.ItistheDepartmentforTourismthatcoordinatesthetourismpolicyofKemerovoregion.IthasthekeyroleindevelopingtheStrategyforDevelopmentofTourisminKuzbass.ThemainaimoftheStrategyistoformthetourism-and-recreationalcomplexinKuzbasstodealwithin-comingandout-goingtourismflowsandinvolvingwell-developedmoderntourisminfrastructure.Ingeneral,theStrategyliststheprioritiesforthedevelopmentoftourismpolicyinKemerovoregion;analysesthecurrentstateoftourismindustryintheregion;suggeststhepossiblescenariosforthedevelopmentoftourismintheregion.TheStrategyalsocomprisesaparagraphonthestagesandtermsofitsimplementation.TheStrategyforDevelopmentofTourisminKuzbasssetsthefollowingtasks:

1. Improvingthelegalbaseforthetourismsphere.2. Supportanddevelopmentofthekeytypesofdomesticandinboundtourism(skiingtourism,

sportstourism,healthtourism,ruraltourism,heritagetourism,businesstourism,snowtourism,adventuretourismandecotourism).

3. Improvingthequalityandcompetitivenessoftourismservicesandrelatedservicestomeettheinternationalstandards.

4. Stimulatingthedevelopmentandupgradeoftourisminfrastructureandrelatedinfrastructure(transportation,catering,entertainment,educationetc.).

5. Upgradingtheleveloftourismsecurity6. Advertising,informationsupportandbrandingofKemerovoRegionasatourismregion

31

7. Developmentofinter-regionalcooperationinthesphereoftourismwiththeotherregionsoftheSiberianFederalDistrict

Atthemunicipalandcitydistrictlevels,thesefunctionsareexercisedbyspecialboards/departmentsofcityanddistrictadministrations.AsfarasthecapitalofKuzbassisconcerned,thisrolebelongstoKemerovoCityBoardforCulture,SportsandYouthPolicy,whichcoordinatestheactivitiesofthecity’sculturalandtouristiccentres.

TheroleofbindingregionalauthoritiesandthebusinesscommunitybelongstoKemerovoregionGovernor’sPublicTourismCouncil.TheCouncilisadeliberativebodyprovidingforinteraction,coordinationandconsistencyintheactivitiesoftheexecutivebodiesofstatepowerinKemerovoregion,localgovernmentbodies,publictourismorganisations,educationalinstitutionsandtourismindustryentities.TheCouncilcomprisestherepresentativesoftheprincipalpublicorganisationintouristicsphereandthemostprominentculturalorganisationsandmassmedia,somerepresentativesofhospitalityindustry(bighotels),aswellasculturalorganisations,e.g.museumsetc.thatfunctionastourismattraction..TherepresentativesoftheuniversitiesprovidingtraininginTourismareinvitedtoattendthemeetingsoftheCouncil.

Since2012,KemerovoStateUniversity,whichisprovidingtraininginBachelor’sandMaster’sDegreeprogrammesinTourism,hasbeenactivelylookingforsomeformsofcooperationwiththebusinesscommunityandtheregionalauthoritiesinordertopromotethedevelopmentoftourisminKuzbass.Thus,theactivityofKemerovoRegionTourismResourceCentreestablishedin2013withintheTempusTOULLproject,hasbeensupportedbyKemerovoRegionGovernor’sPublicTourismCouncil.

InMay2015KemerovoStateUniversityalongwithKemerovoRegionDepartmentforYouthPolicyandSportandDepartmentforCultureandNationalPolicyorganisedtheinternationalconference“TourismDestinationDevelopment:Mechanisms,ChallengesandProspects”,wherearound-tablediscussionwasheldwithrepresentativesover30oftourismcompanies.TheparticipantsdeclaredtheirinterestincollaborationfortraininghighlycompetentstaffforthetourismsphereofKuzbassandundertakingjointinformationprojectstopromoteKemerovoRegiontouristdestinations.

Finally,inApril-May2015KemerovoStateUniversityalongwithKemerovoRegionAdministrationDepartmentforInvestmentsandStrategicDevelopmentandCentreforClusterInitiativesDevelopmentelaboratedthe“StrategyofKemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationClusterDevelopmentfortheperioduntil2025”2whichwasadoptedbytheKemerovoRegionAdministrationBoardon3June2015andthereceivedthesupportoftheRussianFederationMinistryforEconomicDevelopment.

«TourismandRecreationClusterofKuzbass»wasestablishedon13October2015duringthekick-offstrategicsessionwherethe“AgreementontheestablishmentofKemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationCluster”wassignedby33participantofthesession(25tourismenterprises,3municipaltourismorganisations,2universities,Headsof2departmentofKemerovoRegionAdministrationandtheDirectorofOAO“KuzbassTechnologicalPark”thathousestheCentreforClusterInitiativesDevelopment).KemerovoStateUniversityisthecoordinatoroftheactivitiesoftheCluster.

ThestrategicpurposeofKemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationCluster inthe longterm(fortheperioduntil2025)istoincreasethecompetitivenessoftourismandrecreationenterprises,promote

32

domestictourismproducts,aswellasexpandtherangeoftouristservicesintheregion.CreationanddevelopmentoftheClusterwillfacilitate:

1. Development of the tourism complex of Kemerovo Region as the centre of domestic andinboundtourism.

2. Development of tourism infrastructure, providing material and technical base and thedevelopment of cooperation between the enterprises of the Cluster, and the promotion ofenterprisesofrelatedindustries-catering,entertainment,productionofsouvenirsetc.

3. Improvementof informationexchangeefficiencyand coordinationofbusiness, scientific andeducationalorganisations,governmentbodiesandlocalauthoritiesinthetourismindustry.

4. Establishment of research and educational complex in tourism industry, providingmethodologicalandstaffsupporttotheTourismClusterdevelopment.3

Inotherwords,anambitiouslong-termprogrammethatwillrequireextensivecollaborationbetweenpublicandprivatepartnersinordertosucceed.

BUSINESSCOMMUNITYANDREGIONALTOURISMASSOCIATIONS

IntheKemerovoregionprivatetourismstakeholdershavejoinedtogetherinseveralorganisationsinordertopromotecommoninterests.

TheKuzbassAssociationofTourismIndustryEnterprises(KATI)wasfoundedin2003.Itembraces15enterprisesmainlylocatedinKemerovo,theadministrativecentreofKuzbass.Itskeyactivitiesinclude:developmentandpromotionofregionaltourismproducts;broadeningthegeographyofcharterprogrammes;re-orientationofout-goingtouriststowardsthedomestictourismmarket;functioningasthecorporatecustomeratexhibitionsandfairs;protectionoflegal,economicandotherinterestsoftourismenterprises.KATIactivelycollaborateswithKemerovoRegionAdministrationandfunctionsastherepresentativeandlobbyistofregionaltourismindustry.Inparticular,whentheStrategyforDevelopmentofTourisminKuzbasstill2025wasdevised,itwasreviewedandapprovedbytheCoordinatingCouncilofKATIaswellastheKemerovoRegionGovernor’sPublicTourismCouncil,beforeitwasapprovedbythegoverningKemerovoregionAdministrationBoard.

Atthesametime,anumberofotherinfluentialorganisationshavebeenestablished.Inparticular,on21July2009,aneworganisationnamed“SouthKuzbassNon-ProfitPartnershipofTourismIndustry”emerged.In2012,itwasthefirstinRussiatoreceivethestatusofself-regulatingorganisationoftouroperatorsandtravelagents(RegistryNo.0268,Registrydate:29.06.2012);itwasthenrenamedasSelf-RegulatingOrganisationKuzbassNon-ProfitPartnershipofTourismIndustry.Itcomprisesover30touristcompaniesoperatingmostlyintheSouthofKemerovoRegion,namely:travelagents,touroperatorsfordomestic,in-comingandout-goingtourism,hotelsof“Sheregesh”SportsandTourismCentre.Since2012,KuzbassNon-ProfitPartnershipofTourismIndustryestablishedacompensationfund,whichwasdonewiththepartner-companies’moneytoserveasdoublefinancialliabilityforconsumersoftouristproducts.ThePartnershipintroducedsomestandardsandrulesfortourismactivitiesbasedonfederallawstobeobservedobligatorilybyallitsmembers.IntheNorthofKuzbassitisrepresentedquitefragmentarily,butitisrunningaveryactivePR-campaigntopromoteitsinterestsinthespheresofgovernment,educationandculture.

Finally,theKemerovoRegionFederationforSportsTourism,registeredin1998,organisesandholdsmasssportive,touristicandhealth-improvingevents,providestrainingandre-trainingofpersonnel,

33

certifiestourismenterprisesandpersonnel,andrunspreliminaryprocedureinapplicationsforawards.TheFederationcomprises428members.Meanwhile,over300thousandcitizensofKemerovoregiontakepartinsportsandtourism,competitionsandcampingtripsannually.

Ithardlyacoincidencethatthethreenon-governmentalorganisationsmostlydealwiththethreekeytypesoftourismlistedintheStrategyforDevelopmentofTourisminKuzbass,whichhavethebiggestpotentialfordevelopmentasfarastouristsflowsandthenumberofcreatedjobsareconcerned.Thosearemountainskiingtourism,culturalandhistoricaltourismandsportstourism.

CULTURALATTRACTIONS

Asfarastheirresources,influenceandelaboratedstrategyoftourismdevelopmentareconcerned,thepositionsoftheregion’smuseumsarequitemodest,regrettably.Themuseum-reserve“TomskayaPisanitsa”mustbetheonlyoneknownoutsidetheregion.“KuznetskFortress”(Novokuznetsk)and“KrasnayaGorka”(Kemerovo)aspirebothtogainthetitleofthecity’shistoricalandculturalcentresandtoattractin-comingandforeigntourists.Regrettably,mostmuseumslackfinancialandinformationalcapacitiesforself-promotionoutsidetheregion.Museumsarefundedbyfederalandregionalauthorities,non-budgetaryincomesmakingasmallpartofthebudgetsofmostmuseums,andhencetheincentiveformuseumstotransformthemselvestoculturalattractionswithrelevanceforthevisitoreconomyisratherlimited.


NointegratedSchoolofTourismhasyetbeenestablishedinKuzbass,andthusthedevelopmentofTourismeducationintheregionisbasedoninterdisciplinaryschools.ForalongtimeT.F.GorbachevKuzbassStateTechnicalUniversitywasmonopolistintrainingstudentsin“Tourism”and“Service”.Theprofilingofuniversities,introducedbytheRussianGovernment,hasledtoKuzbassStateTechnicalUniversitynottrainingstudentsin“Tourism”anymore(butforitsbranch).Theinitiativewasslowlypassedtootheruniversities.Thus,KemerovoStateUniversityforCultureandArtssetupadegreecourseonTourismonthebasisof“Museology”andsomeotherinterdisciplinarymajors.

Theevolutionof“Tourism”asamajorinKemerovoStateUniversitywascomplicated.Atfirst,theBachelor’sDegreecourse,Master’sDegreecourseandadvancedprofessionaleducationcourseweredistributedamong3faculties.Thisschemedidnotproveeffective,andtodayanewstructureisbeingformed,withtheFacultyofHistoryandInternationalRelationsasitscoreandtheparticipationofotherprofileddepartments.ItisonthebasisofthisstructurethattheformationofKemerovoRegionalCentreforTourismIndustrystarted,providingaplatformforknowledgedissemination,life-longlearningandinformeddialoguewithandbetweenpublicandprivatetourismstakeholdersintheregion.

34


Atthetimeofwriting(2015),tworelativelyisolatedzoneshaveemergedintherealmodelofinteractionbetweenregionalandlocalauthoritiesandbusinessinRussia:thewhitezoneandthegreyzone(thedivisionofinteractionsbetweentheauthoritiesandbusinessintothreezones–white,greyandblack,canbefoundintheworksbymanyscientists,e.g.V.Tambovtsev,M.V.Kurbatova,S.N.Levinetc.).4

Theso-calledwhitezoneembracestheformalinteractionsbetweenauthoritiesandbusiness:taxationregulation,administrativeandeconomicalregulationofbusiness(registration,licensing,controlandenforcementofthesetnormsetc.),stateorderscompetition,implementationofregionalprogrammesfortourismdevelopment,assistancetothedevelopmentofinvestmentattractivenessofKuzbasstourismindustry.Asexpertevaluationshows,intheratingofRFentitiesinvestmentattractivenessKemerovoregionbelongstothegroupofborrowerregionswithahighlevelofliability.In2011theregionranked11thinRussiabythenumberofinvestmentsinfixedcapital.5

IntheStrategyforSocialandEconomicdevelopmentofKemerovoRegiontill20256thedevelopmentoftherecreationalsectorinfrastructureisoneofthemaininvestmentprioritiesoftheregion’sdevelopment.Atthesametime,thedevelopmentofseparatespheres,includingtourism,willdependontheregion’ssuccessinsolvingoverallinfrastructuretasks.Thus,thedevelopmentoftouristicandenergeticinfrastructureremainsoneofthetoppriorities.Theworkof“Sheregesh”skiresortisavividexampleofsuchparalleldevelopment.Thebuildingofthecomplexrequiredover2billionroublesofprivateinvestments,butin2010theresortwasjustvisitedbyover320thousandRussianandforeigntourists.7TheprojectisimplementedincompliancewiththeStrategyforSocialandEconomicdevelopmentofKemerovoRegiontill2025andtheProgrammeforSocialandEconomicdevelopmentofKemerovoRegiontill2012.Theprojectrepresentsanotherstageindevelopingthe“Sheregesh”TouristicComplexinMountShoriyaintoayear-roundresortforwinterandsummerrecreationoftourists,withaviewtoalsoappealingtotheinternationalmarket.Anotherexampleofinteractionwithinthe“whitezone”isthecreationoftheregionallyfavouredeconomiczone8oftouristicandrecreationaltype“MountainShoriya”,wheremembercompaniesareprovidedwithalltheprivilegesandpreferencesaccordingtotheregionallaws.Itresultedfrominteractionbetweenprivatecompanies(tourisminfrastructureoperators)andtheeffortsoftheregionalauthoritiestoattractpotentialinvestors.ItshouldalsoberecalledthatthesectoralstrategyfordevelopmentoftourismwithintheKemerovoregionwaselaboratedindialoguewithawiderpartnershipofprivateandpublicstakeholders,thusgivingpublicplanningfortourismdevelopmentafoundationbeyondregionalgovernmentitself,incontrasttothemorecentralisedapproachadoptedintheneighbouringTomskregion.

Theso-calledgreyzoneembracesthebilateralinformalinteractionsbetweenbusinessandauthorities,alongwithsomeformalisedforms.Inthesecasesregionalandlocalauthoritiesusetheiradministrativeresourcetoforcebusinessesintomakingsomeadditionalprovisionsforsomeneedsvaluableforthecommunity.Atthesametime,theentrepreneurreceivestheguaranteethattheirpositionwillnotdeteriorate,orisevenpromisedsomeprivileges.Thus,the“greyzone”encounters

35

high-statusbargainingofbusinesswithauthoritiesconcerningtheconditionsofitsoperation,whichmeansthattheprocessofnegotiationstakesplace,withbothpartiesprotectingtheirowninterests.9

Whensolvingtheproblemofgovernmentbudgetbalance,federalauthoritiesexpandedthefunctionsandpowersofregionalandmunicipalauthorities,butreducedtheirsourcesoffinancingconsiderably.Undertheseconditionsapplyingtobusinessesforadditionalfinancingbecametheonlymeansofauthorities’“survival”,whileforbusinessesthesevoluntaryor“voluntarycompulsory”contributionsbecametheinstrumentforachievingtheirgoals.

Themainwaysofattractingadditionalfundingfrombusinessesare“quasi-tax”leviesand“organisedsponsorship”.“Quasi-tax”leviesareadditionalpaymentsthatbusinesseshavetomaketothelocalbudgetorsomespeciallycreatedfunds,beyondthoseimpliedbylaws.“Organisedsponsorship”impliesbusinessesparticipatinginfundingdifferentprojectsoftheadministration(socialprojects,organisationofpublicservicesandamenitiesetc.).10Unlike“quasi-tax”levies,“organisedsponsorship”ispurpose-oriented,andbusinessesmaketheircontributionsmostlyinkind.

Researchersestimatedthatannualadditionalfundingfrombusinessesreaches110billionroubles(about3%oftheconsolidatedbudgetsofRussianfederalentities).11ThispracticeiswidespreadinKemerovoregion.Thus,inJanuary2004afterlosing156.6millionroublesofcancelledtaxes,theauthoritiesofKemerovocityinvitedentrepreneurstomakeregularvoluntarycontributionsforthesocialdevelopmentofthecity.12InFebruary2004theagreementonpartnershipinthesphereofthecity’ssocialdevelopmentwassignedinKemerovocityadministration;itimpliedenterprisespaying1%oftheirsalarybudgets.Inreturnforthepayments,theauthoritiespromisedtosoftenadministrativebarriers,totakeintoaccounttherecommendationsforfacilitatingthedevelopmentofenterprises,andtodevelopaprogrammeofsupportinglocalcommodityproducers.13KemerovoregionDepartmentofEconomicDevelopmentestimatesthataccordingtothesignedagreements,in2006theleadingenterprises,companiesandholdingscontributedabout4.8billionroublestothesocialsphere.14

Avividexampleofinteractionwithinthe‘greyzone”isthepracticeof“quasi-Public-and-privatepartnership”intheformofagreementsonsocialandeconomiccooperationbetweenauthoritiesandbusinessgroups.Thekeysubjectsofagreementsbetweenauthoritiesandlarge-scalebusinessesinKuzbass(thosearemostlycoalminingenterpriseswhichownmiddle-scaleorsmall-scaletourismenterprises)are:increasingtheamountsofproduction;investinginproductiondevelopment;capitalmaintenance;buildingandconstruction;establishingsafeworkingconditions.Realisationofnationalprojectsintheregionandimplementationofregionalsocialprogrammesremainimportantobjectsofexpenditure.Thelistoflarge-scaleenterprisesandorganisationstoreceivesystematicsupportattheregionallevelwasdefined.In2010itincluded121enterprises,mostofwhichhadsignedagreementsoncooperationwithKemerovoregionAdministration.Thispracticeiswell-developedatthemunicipallevelaswell.Namely,sinceearly2014KemerovocityAdministrationanditssubordinateorganisationshavemade1581agreementsonsocialandeconomicpartnership.15Bothlarge-scaleandsmall-scaleandmiddle-scaleenterprises,regardlessoftheirbusinessandlegalform,takepartinsocialandeconomicpartnership.

Thus,themaininteractionsbetweentheauthoritiesandbusinessinthetouristdestination,bothfacilitatingandsimultaneouslyhinderingthePublic-and-privatepartnershipinthesphereoftourism,existinthe“greyzone”as“quasi-Public-and-privatepartnerships”intheformofagreementsonsocial

36

andeconomiccooperationbetweenauthoritiesandbusiness-groupsoperatinginthebasicfieldsofKuzbasseconomy.Thepracticeof“quasi-Public-and-privatepartnerships”inKemerovoregionhasacontroversialinfluenceonthedevelopmentofPublic-and-privatepartnershipintheregionaleconomy.

Ontheonehand,thispracticeshowsthatcloseinteractionwithregionalandmunicipalauthoritieshasbecomeanormofdoingbusinessinKuzbassforbusiness-groupownersandmanagers.Theauthoritiesdeliberatelyorientbusinessesatpartnershipandsupportofsocialprogrammes.Thedetailsofagreementsshowthatdespitehavinganinvestmentcomponent,inparticularfordevelopingtourismindustry,theyaremostlyorientedatusingtheresourcesofbusinessesforimplementationofsocialprogrammesandmaintainingsocialandeconomicstabilityintheregion.

Thisstateofaffairscannotbechangedinthenearfuture,sincethereasonsforthedevelopmentof“quasi-Public-and-privatepartnerships”practiceandthe“greyzone”ofinteractionbetweenbusinessandtheauthoritiesingeneralarebeyondthepowerofregionalandmunicipalauthorities.Undertheconditionsofbudgetarydeficit,theauthoritieshavetoresorttodemanding“voluntarycompulsory”contributionsforadditionalfundingoftheirliabilities,asitremainstheonlywayoftheregion’s“survival”.Thus,itisdifficulttoexpectregionalandmunicipalauthoritiestobeinterestedintransforming“quasi-Public-and-privatepartnerships”intoPublic-and-privatepartnershipsinwhichbusinesswillbemoreindependentfromgovernmentandlessdependentondecisionsofgovernmentofficials.

6.4 Conclusions

InKemerovoregionthesystemofPPPintourismisdevelopingalonganumberofkeydirections.First,sincetheearly2000stheregionalauthoritieshavesupportedthemostrelevanttourismandrecreationdestinations(Sheregeshskiingcomplexand“TomskayaPisanitsa”museum-reserve).Withfinancialandorganizationalsupportfromthefederalandregionalauthorities,thefavourableeconomiczone“MountainShoriya”wasestablished,theinfrastructureofMountainShoriyadestinationwassignificantlymodernizedandupgraded.Over10billionrubleswasinvestedintheSheregeshcomplex.In2015,withstatesupporttheprojectofSportandTourismCluster“Sheregesh”wasdevelopedtoattractprivateinvestments.

In2015,intheCentreforClusterInitiativesoftheKuzbasstechnologicalpark,theKemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationClusterwaslaunched,fundedbytheRFMinistryforEconomicDevelopmentandapprovedbytheCouncilofKemerovoRegionAdministration.ThestrategicaimoftheprojectistoestablishthesystemofPPPwithsmall-scaleandmiddle-scalebusinesses.Fundingisprovidedfortheclusterinitiativesoftourismbusinessesinthespheresofmarketresearch,business-plandevelopment,cooperationwithmedia,holdingandparticipatinginexhibitions,trainingpersonnel.TheClusteriscoordinatedbyKemerovoStateUniversityrepresentedbyKemSUTourismResourceCentre.TheTRCcoordinatestheactivitiesoftheCounciloftheCluster.ThemembersoftheClusterandthoseoftheCounciloftheClusterarerepresentativesoftourismindustry,theauthorities,universitiesandmuseumsofKemerovoRegion.Besides,KuzbassTourismInformationCentrewasestablishedonthebasisoftheTRC.ThemaintaskoftheTICistheinformationalpromotionof

37

KemerovoRegionresourcesandbusinessesviatheweb-portalhttp://visit-kuzbass.ruandotherinformationalmaterials.ThepatternofcollaborationofthekeytourismstakeholdersinKemerovoRegionissummarizedinFigure5below.

Figure5.PatternsofcollaborationintourismdevelopmentinKemerovoregion

Ingeneral,wecanstatethattheestablishmentofKemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationClusterhasledtotheemergenceofthemechanismforinteraction,cooperationandpartnershipbetweenthestakeholders,whichbringshopeofovercomingtheproblemsandchallengesthatwerepreviouslyencounteredinthesphereoftourisminKuzbass.However,atpresenttheClusterisbeingdevelopedduetofederalfunding,whileprivateactors,thoughactivelyinvolvedinalltheactivities,havesofar

38

beenquirereluctanttoinvestanyfunds.Thus,ifthesystemofcooperationwithintheClusterisnotelaborated,orifthefederalfundingoftheprojectisstopped,theremightbenofurtherextensivepartnershipbetweenbusinesscommunityandeducationalandculturalinstitutions.Finally,bothinKemerovoRegionandinRussia,despitetheproclaimedcoursepromotingthenecessityofpost-industrialeconomyformation,mostattentionisstillpaidtothetraditionalindustrialspheres:coalmining,metallurgyetc.Thatiswhytourismandinvestmentsinthisspherestilldependdirectlyonthesituationintheenergyandmetallurgymarkets.

39

7 ALTAIKRAI:MOREHEALTHYTOURISM?

7.1 AltaiKraiasatouristdestination

TheregionAltaiKraiislocatedinthesouth-eastofWesternSiberia.Theterritoryoftheregionis168thousandsquarekm.andborderswithNovosibirskOblasttothenorth,KemerovoOblasttotheeast,withtheRepublicofAltaitothesouth-east,andtothesouthandwestthestateborderwiththeRepublicofKazakhstan.AltaiKraiconsistsof60administrativedistricts,with12cities,thelargetofthesebyfarbeingtheregionalcapitalofBarnaul.

Tourismresourcesoftheregionarevaried.Whilemuchoftheterritoryisflat,thelandscapeofthesouth-easternpartismountainous.Theclimateistemperatecontinental,withhotsummersandcoldwinters.ThemainwaterwayistheRiverOb,formedbytheconfluenceoftheriversBiyaandKatun.Thereare11,000lakesinAltaiKrai,230ofthemwithanareaof1squarekmormore.TheterritoryofAltaiKraihasreservesofmineralmedicinalwatersusedforexternalandinternaltreatmentsandmud.ThetotalareaofforestsinAltaiKraiis26%oftheentireterritory,mostlycoveredbytheconiferoustrees,andmanynationalandlocalparksandprotectionareashavebeenfoundedintheregion.

AltaiKraiisthemostdevelopedtouristregioninWesternSiberia,leadingtheregioninhealthcareandtechnology.5-7naturalrecreationalandtherapydestinationslocatedintheterritoryofAltaiKraidistrictsareinternationallyrecognisedinqualityservices.Touristsareattractedbyplentyofnaturalsitesandlandmarks-forests,mountains,ridges,caves,lakes,rivers,landscapes,abigrangeofspecies,andavarietyoflargereservesofmineralandbiologicalresourcesaswellasuniqueculturalandhistoricalheritage.Naturalandclimaticconditionsoftheregionallowdevelopingdifferenttypesoftourism–plus,ofcourse,functioningasagatewaytotheadjoiningmountainregionsduetoAltaiKrai’sextensivetransportinfrastructure.

CentresfortourisminAltaiKraiarethefollowingareas:Altayskyarea(Altayskyvillage,LakeAyaandtouristzone"BiryuzovayaKatun"),thecity-resortBelokurikha,GornyKolyvan,Zavyalovskyarea,Yarovoyebeachareaandrecreationfacilitiesatnumerouslakes.Moreover,tourismintheregionisgrowingduetothedevelopmentprojectssuchasRussia'slargestspecialeconomiczonefortourismandrecreation"BiryuzovayaKatun"andthegamblingzone"SiberianCoin“.Thespecialeconomiczonefortourismandrecreation«BiryuzovayaKatun»occupiestheareaof3326hectaresontheleftriversideoftheKatun.Thetotalinvestmentsare3,83mlrdroublesincludingstate,Kraiandmunicipallevels,aswellasprivatefunding.Thedevelopmentincludesahealthimprovementandtouristiccomplexfor3,5thousandpeople,withfourhotelsandadditionalseasonalaccommodationfacility,aswellas3alpineskiingtracks,artificiallakeandhikingareas.Thegamblingzone«SiberianCoin»issituatednotfarfrom«BiryuzovayaKatun»andconsistsoftwohotelcomplexeswithcasinoandtwobusiness-hotels,builtbyprivateinvestorsbasedinKemerovo.

40

TABLE5:DestinationAltaiKrai:Keydata 2012 Touristarrivals(‘000)Region/km2 168,000 2011 2012 2013Region/population 2420,000 Domestic 1000 1200 1500Region/personperkm2 14.4 International 370 478 474Capitalcitypopulation 700,000 Total 1370 1678 1974TourismshareofregionalGDP N.a.

Travelagentstotal 250Commercialaccommodationfacilities 590

Sources:http://ak.gks.ru

In2013AltaiKraiwonthenationalaward"MyPlanet2013»inthenomination“ThebestregiontotravelinRussia",butstillanimportantcharacteristicaffectingthegrowthoftourismactivityintheregionisitsmarkedseasonalcharacter,asillustratedbyFigure6,withsummerandwinterbeingthemainseasonsandautumnand,especially,springexperiencinglimitedactivity.

In2013,morethan940tourismenterprisesoperatedinthetourismsector.663ofthemprovidedlodgingservicesfortourists.184hotels,44healthcareresortfacilities,149campsitesandrecreationalorganisations,186"green"cabinsand73childrencampsensuredleisureandrecreationforguestsinAltaiKrai.Thesimultaneousguestcapacityintourist,recreational,healthresortestablishments,"green"cabinsandhealthfacilitiesforchildrencountsto46.5thousandunits,includingyear-round-18.7thousandunits.In2013,outof250travelfirmsthatsoldtourpackagesinAltaiKrai,only28organisationsprovidedexcursion/tourservicesforincomingtourists.

In2013thenumberofpeopleemployedintourismbusinessgrewto16.3thousandpeople,andananalysisoftourismandhotelbusinessesinAltaiKraiintheperiod2009-2013hasdemonstratedthattheprivatesectorisdominatedbymicro-enterprisesandindividualentrepreneurs,makingup90.1%ofthetotalnumberoftravelagenciessurveyedin2013(calculatedonthebasisofhttp://ak.gks.ru).

Themainpurposesofcityhotelsvisitors(Barnaul,Biisk)arebusinessandprofessional,someofthemstayhereastransittourists,e.g.onthewaytotheadjoiningmountainareas.Asforvisitorsof

•

high seasonmedium season low season

I - January IX - SeptemberII - February X - OctoberIII – March XI - NovemberIV - April XII - DecemberV - MayVI - JuneVII - JulyVIII - August

Figure6.SeasonalityoftourisminAltaiKraj.Source:Dunets A.N. Territorial organization of mountain tourism and recreational systems (using the example of Altai-Sayans region): monograph / A.N. Dunets. – Barnaul: AltSTU publishing house, 2009. – page 167.

41

accommodationsinrecreationzones,themainpurposesforthemare,unsurprisingly,leisureandhealthimprovement.

TourisminAltaiKraiperceivedasoneofthekeyprioritiesforeconomicdevelopmentwithintheregion,ascanbeseenfromthelong-termspecial-purposeprogram"DevelopmentoftourisminAltaiKrai»for2011-2016,asthegrowthofthetourismmarkethasapositivemarkonthegrowthoftheregionaleconomyandsociallife.


ThissectionidentifiesthekeyactorsintourismdevelopmentinAltai,focusinginparticularontheresources,strategiesandpatternsofcollaborationinshapingthefutureoftheregionalvisitoreconomy.

PUBLICAUTHORITIES

InAltaiKraitheregionalleveliscrucialintermsoftourismdevelopment,operatingthroughtheAdministrationfortheDevelopmentofTourism,RecreationandHealthResortIndustryofregionalgovernment.Theoverallstrategyisoutlinedinthelong-termspecial-purposeprogram"DevelopmentofTourisminAltaiKrai»for2011-2016,wherethelong-termaimisdefinedasestablishingamoderntourismindustrywithanincreasingcontributiontosocio-economicdevelopmentintheregion.Themethodsthroughwhichthisisgoingtobeachievedisaclusterapproachtotouristicinfrastructuredevelopmentthatconcentratedevelopmenteffortsinselectedlocalitiesandcombinespublic–federal,regional,municipal–andprivatecapitalaswellasscientificsupportinordertofurthertouristicdevelopment.

ItistheAltaiKraiexecutiveauthoritybodythatensurestherealisationofthefederaltourismpolicyintheregion.Itdesignsthedevelopmentplansofspecialeconomiczonefortourismandrecreation"BiryuzovayaKatun",the"SiberianCoin“gamblingzone,andotherlong-termspecial-purposeprogramsinregionaltourism,aswellasparticipatinginfederaldevelopmentprogrammes.

Thetourismdevelopmentworkoftheregionaladministrationissupportedbytheso-calledPublicCouncil,foundedin2013asaconsultativebody.ThepurposeofthePublicCouncilistostrengthencooperationtieswithpublicassociations,academicinstitutionsandothernon-profitorganisations;tocoordinatetheireffortsformoreeffectiveimplementationofprogramsandstrategiesintourism.MembersofthePublicCouncilarethemembersoftheregionalpublicorganisations,directorsofmajoraccommodationfacilities,touristcompanies,tradeunionsandeducationalinstitutions.

42

PRIVATETOURISMSTAKEHOLDERS

AlsoinAltaiKraiwefindexamplesofthreedifferenttypesofnon-governmentactorsintourism,namelyprivateleisureresorts,travelagencies,andcollectiveassociationsrepresentingthecollectiveinterestsofprivatefirms,examplesofeachofthesearepresentedbelow.

Aprimeexampleofaprivatetouristcomplexis“BelokurikhaResorts",todayoneoftheleadinghealthresortassociationsnotonlyinSiberia,butalsointheRussianFederation.ItisthemainenterpriseinthecityofBelokurikha,itcanaccommodate1,600personsatthesametime,andabout30,000receivemedicaltreatmentandrecreationinBelokurikhahealthresorts/sanatoriumseveryyear.“BelokurikhaResorts”Ltd.operates3sanatoriums(healthcareresorts),aclinic,one-of-a-kind"WaterWorld“wellnesscentrewhereleading-edgepracticesinhydrotherapyareimplemented,sportscomplex"Siberianvillage“whichisfullyequippedforcomfortableandeffectivemethodsofanimalbreedingraw-basedtreatments(akindoftreatmentbasedonSiberiananimalbreedingrowmaterial)."Stables”isanothertouristdestinationsituatedinBelokurikhaResortthatoffersguestsservicesofhorsebackriding,fishingandrelatedtherapies.

“BelokurikhaResorts"hasitsownfundsandattractsexternalinvestmentsaswell,andprovidesmostofitsvariedpersonalandtechnicalservicesin-house.Inadditiontoitsofficialwebsite,www.belokurikha.ru,theorganisationhas16additionalsalesofficesacrossRussia.Allresortsof"BelokurikhaResorts”havethecertificateofqualityspaservicesofthehighestcategory.Theresorthealthcentresarerated"threestars"intermsofaccommodationqualityassessment,andtrainedmedicalstaffareemployedandhaveparticipatedinthedevelopmentofnewtreatmentsinnumerousareas.

Thetouristfirm“Belokurikha–Travel”hasbeenakeyactorinthefast-growingtourismmarketinBelokurikhaandGornyAltaisinceitsestablishmentinJanuary2001.Ithasenteredthesinglestateregisteroftouroperatorsfordomestictourismsince2010,itsoperationsarebasedonitsownprivatefunds,participateinregionalexhibitionsandworkshops,andprovidesservicesforincomingtravellers,includingthosegoingtothelocalhealthresort.Thefirmhasaclearcommitmenttomarshallingprofessionaltourismcompetencesinthevisitoreconomy,anditsgrowthexemplifiesthepossibilityofmajorresortsdevelopmentshavingpositivetrickle-downeffectsforlocalentrepreneurs.

Finally,thetourismtradeassociation“AltaiRegionalTourismAssociation(ARTA)"has32touristorganisationsinAltaiKraiasmembers,aswellasthreehighereducationinstitutionsinBarnaulandoneinsurancecompany.26touristorganisationshavearecordofserviceofmorethan10yearsinthetouristmarket.Managersoffirmshavehighereducationcompetenceandpracticalexperienceintourismfor,atleast,10years.8membersoftheassociationoperatetourbusinessforhomeandinternationaltourismandoffertravelagentservices.24membersofferonlytravelagentservices,butalthoughitsmembershipreflectstheoveralloutboundorientationofthetourismtradeinSiberia,ARTAisnonethelessalsoengagedinpromotionoftourismdevelopmentwithintheregion.Fundsareraisedfromentrancefeesintheamountof3000roublesbynewmembersandtheannualmembershipfeeintheamountof3000roubles,andinadditiontothismembersoftheAssociationalsomobilisefundsforvariousdevelopmentprojects.

43

ARTAmembercompanieshavesuccessfullydevelopedandimplementedtouristroutes,participateactivelyinthedevelopmentofhistoricalandculturalpotentialofAltaiKrai,andcooperatewithtouristagenciesofRussiaandEuropeancountriesARTAmembershavemorethan10yearparticipationexperienceinregionalandinternationalprofessionalexhibitions(Toursib,Sportsib,MITT,ITM,MITF,Tourism/Leisure,etc.),andthreemembersofARTAareactiveinnationwideprofessionalassociationsandalliances.StaffofARTAmembercompaniesregularlyincreasetheirprofessionalcompetence,attenduniversity-leveltrainingcourses,on-lineconferencesandseminarsheldbytheAssociationofTourOperatorsofRussiaandthelargestlegalandmarketingcompaniesinthetourismsector.

CULTURALATTRACTIONS

AlsoamongtheculturalattractionsinAltaiKraidiversityreigns,asthefollowingexampleswilldemonstrate.

AtypicalexampleofapublicallyfundedculturalattractionistheV.V.BiankiLocalHistoryMuseuminBiysk.Themuseumwasfoundedin1920.CurrentlyBiyskLocalHistoryMuseumfeaturesatotalof18roomsofpermanentexhibitions,over25annualexhibitions,morethan60,000visitorsand43staffmembers.Themuseumlistsmorethan140thousandhistoricalartifactsand20,000books.OneofthedepartmentsofBiyskLocalHistoryMuseumisso-calledChuiskyTractMuseum,aregional-statusarchitecturalmonumentandRussia'sonlymuseumdedicatedto“theroad”,includingtheChuiskytracthighwaythatleadsfromSiberiaoverthehighmountainstoAltai.Asof2010thestatusofthemuseumisofanon-profitinstitutionfundedfromtheCityofBiyskmunicipalbudget.

BiyskLocalHistoryMuseumwebsitewascreatedandsupportedbyBiyskTechnologicalInstitute(abranchofI.I.PolzunovAltaiStateTechnicalUniversity),supportedbytheAltaigroupofcompanies"Employee»,andassociatedwithnationalnetworkssuchastheMuseumsofRussiaportal.43employeeswiththeirownresearchinterestsworkatthemuseum,andthemuseum’sdevelopmentstrategyisbasedontheideaofaculturalinstitutionasopenandaccessibletothepublic.

Biyskisalsohometoaratherdifferent,NGO-driven,culturalattraction,namelytheBiyskAltaiSpiritualMissionHistoryMuseum.Themuseumopeneditsdoorsin2008ontheterritoryoftheregionalhistoricalandarchitecturalcomplexmonument-aformerBiyskBishopsMonastery-AltaicentreofOrthodoxlifein1880-1919.94,000touristshavevisitedthemuseumintheperiod2008-2014,and2800tourshavebeendeliveredforvisitors.15exhibitsaredisplayedintheonlychurchmuseumoftheregion,focusingespeciallyonthelifeofbishops.ThevaluableexhibitsfeatureincunabulaandmanuscriptsofXVII-XIXcenturies,thebishop'sceremonialrobeembroideredwithgoldandancienticons.BiyskdioceseofGreaterDioceseofBarnaulandBiyskofficeofDemidovfundinitiatedthefoundationofthemuseum,andthusthemainfundingisnon-governmental,andasignificantpartoftheexhibitshavebeendonatedtothemuseum.Themuseumparticipatesinexhibitions(e.g.,inMarch2014themuseumtookpartintheInternationalTourismExhibition"ITM2014").ThestrategyofthemuseumistostudyandpromotethehistoryofOrthodoxyinBiyskandAltaiKrai,especiallytotellthestoryaboutOrthodoxyasanimportantpartofRussianculturalandhistoricalheritage.Themajorityofvisitorsarepilgrimsthattravelonthebasisofreligiousmotivation.

44

Finally,theS.I.GulyaevBelokurikhaCityMuseumisaprivateinitiative,foundedin1997withsupportof“BelokurikhaResorts"Ltd.Initialstatusofthemuseumwas«BelokurikhaResorts"museum.Since2005,themuseumreceivedmunicipalstatus.Themuseumisnowbothself-andstate-funded,inrecognitionsofitsimportanceaspartofthelocalvisitoreconomyoftheresort.Themuseumhasastaffofthreepersons,andthestrategyofthemuseumistokeepandpopularisethehistoryoftheresorttownBelokurikha.

Intermsofculturalattractions,thepatterninAltaiissimilartothatinotherregions,namelythattourismplaysaminorroleforpublicmuseums,whileitisofcrucialimportancetoculturalinstitutionsbasedonprivateorcivilsocietyinitiative.


Today,threestateuniversitiesandanumberofcommercialschoolstrainstudentsfortourismindustryinBarnaul.TheuniversityleaderintourismtrainingisI.I.PolzunovAltaiStateTechnicalUniversity,wherethedepartmentofserviceandtourismwasvotedthebestuniversitybytheexpertsofthecontest“Leadersoftourismindustry”in2014.Staffatthedepartmenthasconsiderableacademic,internationalandpracticalexperience,andinadditiontotraininggraduatesforthetourismindustryinAltaiKrai,thedepartmentalsohoststheTourismEducationandResourceCentrewhichdevelopsandimplementstrainingprogramsforprofessionalsinserviceandtourism.


ThereviewofcollaborativepatternsbetweentourismstakeholdersinAltaiKraiisundertakenintwosteps.Firstinteractionsinfive(?)keyareasofdestinationdevelopmentarereviewed,andthenonthebasisofthistheoverallpatternsoffcollaborationaresummarised.

DEVELOPMENTOFLOCALTOURISMCLUSTERS

Theregionhasidentifiedclusterdevelopmentasapriorityintheprogram“DevelopmentoftourisminAltaiKrai"in2011-2016years,aninitiativeinitiatedbyAltaiKraiAdministrationfortheDevelopmentofTourism,RecreationandHealthResortIndustry.Clustersisseenasaconcentrationofinterconnectedorganisationsandenterprisesthatareactiveintourismorrelatedeconomicsectorsontheonelimitedterritoryinordertoincreasetheregion’scompetitivenessonnationaland(eventually)internationalmarkets.Accordingtotheregionalbody,thebasicstepsforthedevelopmentofclustersrevolvearoundcoordinationofinvestmentsinfacilitiesandinfrastructure.OnetheonehandtheregionalAltaiKraiAdministrationforEconomyandInvestmentssubsidisesconstructionofengineeringinfrastructureofclusters,officialregistrationoflandfortheconstructionoftouristfacilities.AndinparallelwiththistheAltaiKraiAdministrationfortheDevelopmentofTourism,

45

RecreationandHealthResortIndustry–togetherwithlocalauthorities,localgovernmenttourismdepartmentsandprivateinvestors–aimstoensurethefoundationoftourismindustryclusters.

Privatetouristorganisations–touroperatorsandtouragencies–arenotactingasinvestorsofSpecialeconomiczonefortourismandrecreationinAltaiKrai,becausetheydonothaveenoughfinancialresources,exceptintheirownminorprojects(smallhotels,cafésetc.).Insteadlargeconstructionprojectsareinvestedbyotherinvestors:privateinvestorsprovidehotels,foodenterprises,entertainmententerprises,alpineskiingtracksandotherservices,whileengineeringinfrastructureisfundedbyfederal,regionalormunicipalgovernmentbudgets.Itisimportanttonotethatmajorinitiativeslike“Belokurikha-2"andthe"GoldenGate"CityofBiyskwhichhavebeengivenfederalstatusastouristclustersareco-financedbyfederalandkraibudgetsaswellasprivateinvestors,andtheseinitiativesarethereforeparticularlywellresourced.

SERVICEQUALITYIMPROVEMENT

Cooperationbetweenauthoritiesandbusiness(lodgingfacilities)isaimedatincreasingmotivationandfinancialopportunitiesforpeerevaluationoflodgingtypesaccordingtotheadoptedstatehotelclassificationsystem.PartialfundingofcertificationproceduresisavailablefromAltaiKraibudget,andtheassociation«Altaihospitality”isinchargeofbetterqualitylodgingservices.Foundedin2010andcurrentlyhaving10members,theassociation’smainaimistoimprovethequalityofhotelservice,exchangetheexperience,traininganddevelopmentofstaffskills.

Inthefutureasimilarapproachmightbeadoptedforcertificationofpopulartouristproductssuchasbrandedtouristroutes–e.g.the“SmallGoldenRingofAltai”andthe“GreatGoldenRingofAltai”–forsafetyandqualityinaccordancewithapplicableStatestandards.Thiskindofinteractionofgovernment,businessandeducationobjectivelyassessestheprofessionallevelofmarketparticipantsandenhancetheprestigeoftheserviceprofessionsinacompetitiveenvironment.

DESTINATIONBRANDING

Inordertopromotetourismdevelopment,itisimportanttocreateanimageofAltaiKraiasayear-rounddestination,andtopromotetouristproductsofAltaiKraiintheRussianandforeignmarkets.Inordertoraisetheregion’sgeneralprofileandtopromotespecifictouristproducts,thebodiesofregionaltourismauthoritiesandtouristorganisationsjointlyparticipateininternationalandregionalexhibitionsandeconomicforums("ITB",«Intour-market","MITT",»Altai-Tour.Altai-Resort»,"Tour-Sib»),whileculturalinstitutions(museums,protectednaturalareas)takepartinpromotinghistoricalandculturalpotentialsforprospectivevisitors.

TheprogramsfundthedevelopmentanddesignofabrandofBarnaulandAltaiKraiandpromoteitfortheperiod2014-2018.Totalfundingof745thousandroublesand2millionroublesrespectivelyisavailableforthedevelopmentanddesignofthebrands.Contractorswillbeselectedonacompetitivebasis.Thebasisforcooperationwithregardtoexhibitionsisfinancialandinformationalisthatpublic

46

authoritiescommonlypayfortheexhibitionareawhileprivatetouristcompaniespayallotherexpenses.

Privatetourismbusiness,educational,historicalandculturalinstitutions,AltaiKraiauthoritiesandmunicipalitiesholdpresstours,roundtables,conferencesandseminarstodiscusstheissueshowtodevelopthetourismindustry.ThemostpromisingformofpromotingtouristservicesofAltaiKraiistheprogram“professionalshopper“whichoffersfamiliarisation,imageandworktripsinAltaiKraitotravelagenciesfromdifferentregions.

Butimportantstepshavealsobeentakenwithregardtocreatingsharedinformationplatformsforpromotionalandcoordinationpurpose.Thisareaofcooperationisofgreatimportanceduetothedynamicprogressofinformationtechnologiesandtheirsignificanceinpromotingtouristproductsandservicesontheonehandandsupportingtravellerswithupdatedinformationontheotherhand.ActivitiesarecoordinatedbyAltaitourcentre(www.vizitaltai.info)andincludeprovidersoftouristservices,productsandinformation,privatebusiness,operatorsofhistorical,culturalandnaturaltouristdestinations,aswellasuniversitiesasdevelopersoftechniquesandmethodsofinformationresources.AnexampleofsuchcooperationistheinnovativetechnologyQR-codingofinformationabouthistoricalsites,whichhasalreadybeenusedinBarnaulandBiysk.

INCREASINGTHEKNOWLEDGE-BASE

Inrecentyearsinteractionhasincreasedbetweenregionalknowledgeinstitutionsandbothpublicandprivatetourismstakeholders.Knowledgeexchangetakesplacealongtwolinesinparticular,namelyontheonehandtargetedknowledgeproduction,andontheotherhandtrainingandcompetencedevelopment.

LocaltourismauthoritiesinAltaiKraiandtheuniversitiesholdmarketingandsociologicalresearchtodevelopthetourismindustryandtoimplementmajorinvestmentprojectsinSiberianregions.Examplesofthisinclude

• workonarrivalstatisticsinordertoincreaseknowledgeaboutexistingvisitors• researchinordertofacilitatethedevelopmentoftwonewtouristroutes• researchinsupportofthedevelopmentofruralandsustainabletourism• newguidelinesareintroducedforthedevelopmentoftourismandserviceinthemunicipalitiesof

AltaiKrai,developedbyprivatetourismbusinessesandeducationinstitutions

Inparallelwiththisuniversitieshaveofferedshort-termandlong-termtrainingprogramsforstaffemployedintouristorganisations,accommodation/lodgingfacilities,catering,andserviceenterprises.Governmentauthoritiesandadministrationofficialswhoareresponsiblefortourismandculturalinstitutionswithprivatebusinessexpertstakepartandcontributetostudycourses.Moreover,theAltaiKraiauthorities,privatetourism,hotelandrestaurantbusiness,museums,nationalparks,wildlifepreservescooperatewiththeuniversitiesintraining:

• toofferworksitesforpracticalandwork-relatedtrainingofstudents• toofferresourcesandexpertiseforpracticaltrainingaspartofthetrainingcourse

47

• todefineandassignunderstudyandresearchmaterialsforcourseanddiplomaprojectsofstudents

SUPPORTINGSOCIALTOURISM

• TodevelopsocialtourismisoneoftheprioritiesofAltaiKrai.However,theregionisoneofanumberofthoseRussianregionswhichdonothavespeciallegislativeactsoraspecial-purposeprogramtosupportlong-termregionalspecial-purposesocialprograms,notjustad-hocexcursion/touringfordisadvantagedcitizen.Nevertheless,todayanumberofprojectsareunderwaywiththecontributionofsocialsupportcentres,universities,touristfirmsandmuseumsinAltaiKrai.Theexamplesoftheprojectsare"tourismforseniors”,toursofBarnaulandBiyskforchildrenfromlow-incomefamiliesandchildrenwithdisabilities.

COLLABORATIVEPATTERNSINALTAIKRAI

TheanalysisoftheinteractionsbetweenpublicandprivateactorsintourismdevelopmentinAltaiKraiissummarisedinFigure7.

Government Privatebusiness

Culturalinstitutions

Universities

Figure7.Patternsofcooperationbetweentheactorsofthetouristmarketintheregion.

Legendforareasofcollaboration• tourismclusters• servicequality• destinationbranding• knowledge-base• socialtourism• productdevelopment• legislativeandinformationalinfrastructure

48

Thefiguredemonstratesthat,unsurprisingly,governmentisthemostcentralactor,withnumerouslinkstoallotherstakeholders.Conversely,bothprivatebusinessandculturalinstitutionsarebothprimarilyorientedtowardsgovernment,astheirregulatorandsponsorrespectively,exceptwithregardtoproductdevelopmentwhereculturalinstitutionsseemtobeamorerelevantpartnerforprivatefirms.

Theuniversitieshavegraduallyincreasedcollaborationwithallotheractors,especiallywithregardtoknowledge,servicequalityandproductdevelopment.Giventhewiderangeofuniversitylinkswithbothgovernment,privatebusiness,andculturalinstitutions,publicknowledgeinstitutionsmaywellcometoplayanimportantpartinfuturecollaborativeventuresintheregion,particularlybecausethetourismindustryisrelativelyimportantinAltaiKrai,andtheneedtotakeinformeddecisionsandincreasethefitbetweensupplyandmarketdemandthereforeisamatterofstrategicimportance.Thisisofcoursenotwithoutdifficulties,especiallybecause–likeinmanyothertouristdestinationsintheRussianFederationandbeyond–waysneedtobefoundtoreachthelargenumberofsmallprivatefirmsprovidingservicesandattractions,and–potentiallyequallychallenging–toinfluencegovernmentdecisionsonlarge-scale,oftenfederal,tourismdevelopmentprojectsthatplayanimportantroleinthetourismindustryintheregion.

7.4 Conclusions

InmanyrespectsAltaiKraiwouldseemtohavearelativelyfavorablepositionwithregardtotourismdevelopment.Fromthepublicsectorfederalfundingfordevelopmentoflargeinvestmentprojectsintourismsectorisavailableinseveraldesignatedzone,andregionalgovernmenthasgivenprioritytothesectorinitslonger-termdevelopmentprogramme.IntermsofimagewithintheRussianFederation,AltaiKraiisrecognisedasasteadilygrowingregionwhichensurespeaceandsecurityforvisitors,andavarietyoflodgingtypesandserviceswiththecapacitytoaccommodateupto500,000motivateseffortstodeveloptourismcooperationtowardslimitingseasonalityandimprovingthequalityofservices.Moreover,theavailabilityofhumanresourcethatcanbebroughtintousethroughtheconstructionofnewfacilities,and,indeed,trainingcentresandcentresforretrainingofstaffintotourismandservice.Finally,growinginternationalcollaborationbetweenbusinessesintheregionandinternationalpartnerswouldseemtosuggest,thatAltaiKraimaydevelopamoreinternationalvisitorprofileinthefuture,supportedbydigitalmarketinginnovationsusedintourismthatstimulatecooperationbetweenuniversitiesandotherstakeholdergroups.

ThereisanumberofpositivefactorsinfluencingonthecooperationbetweenthestakeholdersactingintourismsphereofAltaikrai:

• federalbudgetfundingforthedevelopmentoflargeinvestmentprojectsintourismsector(specialeconomiczonefortourismandrecreation,gamblingzone,federal-statustouristclusters);

49

• statestatustothelong-termspecial-purposeprogram"DevelopmentoftourisminAltaiKrai”in2011-2016years;

• positiveimageofAltaiKraiinRussiaasasteadilygrowingregionthatensurespeaceandsecurityforyourstay;

• developedagricultureinmostareasofAltaiKraiastheresourcewhichenablesthecooperationtowardsthegrowthofruraltourism;

• avarietyoflodgingtypeswithavarietyofservicesthathavecapacityofaccommodatingupto500,000guestsasamotivatingfactortodeveloptourismcooperationtowardsminimizingitsseasonalityandimprovingthequalityofservices;

• avarietyofresourcesfortourismdevelopment(includingprotectednaturalareas:35statenaturereserves,51naturalsites,1naturalparkandfederal-statusnaturereserve"Tigireksky”);opportunitiesforcooperationinenvironmentalprojectsandprotectionofnaturalresources;

• unemployedlaborasthehumanresourceforfurthercooperationtowardscreatingnewjobsthroughtheconstructionofnewfacilities,trainingcentersandcentersforretrainingworkersintourismandservice;

• productivebusinessactivitiesintheregion,anumberofcooperationtreatiesandagreementsinvarioussectorsofeconomy,includingtourism(China,Italy,France,Kazakhstan);

• scienceandtechnologyalongwithtechnologicalinnovationsininformationtechnology;andmarketinginnovationsusedintourismthatstimulatecooperationbetweenuniversitiesandotherstakeholdergroups.

However,despitethispromisingstartingpoint,somechallengesarealsonoticeable:

• Tourismdevelopmentstatisticsandaccommodation/lodgingdatabyregionalauthoritiescurrentlycontradictthedatacollectedbyprivatetourismbusinessduetodifferentstatisticalmethods.Thiscontradictioncallsforclosercooperationinthefieldofstatisticsandreportingbetweentheseactors,anareainwhichpublicknowledgeinstitutionssuchastheTourismResourceCentrecouldplayaconstructiverole,sothatdiscussionsabouttourismdevelopmentcanproceedonthebasisofabasisagreedtobystakeholdersacrosstheregion.

• Thelimitedresourcescurrentlydevotedbyregionalgovernmenttothe“Altaitourcentre”makesthisorganisationapotentialbottleneck,andtransferringsometypesofworktoothercompetentactorsofthetouristmarket-universities,privatebusiness,culturalinstitutions–couldimprovetheflowandqualityofregionalmarketingandinformationservices.

• RecentinternationalcooperationagreementsintourismbetweentheAltaiKraiAdministrationandtheregionalgovernmentofthePeople’sRepublicofChinacreateanurgentneedtoadaptlodgingamenitiesandtouristproductstotheneedsandmentalityofChinesetourists,alsothroughtrainingofemployees.Iftheexchangeoftouristsbecomesastrategicgoalfortheregion,theauthoritiesandprivatebusinesseswillhavetocooperatemoreactivelyinthisarea.

• Limitedfundingoffederal,regionalandmunicipaltourismdevelopmentprogramsthatresultsinviolationofprogramimplementationschedulesanddetersprivateactorsfrombecominginvolved.

• Ongoingreviewsoftourismindustrylegislationmaychangethemarketstructureofthestakeholdersandadverselyaffectthecurrentcooperationbetweenleadingprivatetourismbusinessesandotherstakeholdergroups.

• Paradoxically,theestablishmentofspecialeconomiczoneswhereriskisparticularlylowbecauseofthoroughscreening/supportofinvestors/residentsbytheauthorities,mayadverselyaffect

50

long-termdevelopmentimplementationofnewprojectsresultedasmutuallybeneficialrelationsbasedoncollaborationbetweenthemainprivateactorsofthetouristmarket,becauseprivatestakeholderswaitforthestatebringinitiativesandresourcestothetable.

• Theriskofabusingpartnershipinterestsinfavourofindividualcommercialinterestsiscriticalforthebusinesscommunity,aswellaspartnershiprelationswhichfavourpersonalinterestswithinthepublicsector,asbothwilladverselyaffecttrustandtherebytheeffectivenessofcooperation.

Finally,theglobaleconomyingeneral,andtheRussianeconomyinparticular,ischaracterisedbygreatuncertaintiesofmarket,technological,politicalandotherfactors,whichmaybeincreasedbyrisingtensionsinintergovernmentalrelations,wheresanctionsresultinvisapoliciesmakingentryintoandexitfromtheRussianFederationmoredifficultandtherebyhampertourism,especiallyinnon-metropolitanregionslikeAltaiKraiwhere30%ofthepublicbudgetconsistsofsubsidiesfromfederalgovernment.

Uncertaintiesliketheseinfluencetheinteractionbetweenthestakeholdersinterestedinthedynamicdevelopmentoftheindustry.Ontheonehanditmakescollaborationandrisk-sharingevenmoreimportant,butatthesametimeitalsomakesindividualstakeholderscautiousandfocusingonshort-termgoals,tothedetrimentoflong-terminvestmentinsustainabletourismdevelopment.TherelativeadvantageofAltaiKraimay,however,bethattourismisarelativelyimportantpartoftheregionaleconomy,thatthisforsomeyearshasbeenrecognisedbyregionalgovernment,andthatsomeprivateactorsandpublicknowledgeinstitutionsengageincollaborationonanongoingbasis.

51

8 CONCLUSION

Thefourcasestudiesoftourismdevelopmentinnon-metropolitanRussianregionshaveidentifiedmanycommonalitiesbutalsoimportantdifferences,reflectingspecificconditionsinthefourregionswithregardtotourismresourcesandgovernancestructures.Inlinewiththeinternationalliteratureondestinationdevelopmentandtourismclusters(e.g.Dredge2006,Hjalager,2000,2010)wearenotsuggestingthatoneformof‘bestpractice’existinthesensethate.g.particularorganisationalpatternsmustbeadheredtoinordertosuccessfullysupporttourismdestinationdevelopment.Ifthereisoneargumentrunningthroughtheliteratureitisindeedtheneedtoadaptorganisationalframeworkslikedestinationmanagementorganisationsortourismclusterstothespecificconditionsineachdestinations.Havingsaidthis,itis,ofcourse,alsoclearthattheabsenceofe.g.richandsustaineddialogueandinteractionbetweenpublicandprivatepartnersinmanycasesarelikelytoconstituteachallengesfortourismdevelopment,becausethistypicallyimplieseitherpreponderanceofshort-termfinancialinterestsbasedoncurrentmarketconditions,orpreferenceforvisiblephysicalinvestmentsthatcanbeclaimedassuccessesinthenextpoliticalelection.InadevelopingmarketeconomyliketheRussianFederation,partnershipbetweenpublicandprivateactorsisthereforeparticularlyimportant,andinthisrespecttheexperienceofthefournon-metropolitanregionsareclearlyparallel,yetalsoreflectsthedifferencesonfourverydifferenttourismdestinations.

InTomskregiontheanalysisoftourismdevelopmentstrategiesandinteractionsbetweenpublicandprivatestakeholdersintheTomskregionhasproducedthreeimportantfindings.Firstly,theprevalentstrategyforprivatesectordevelopmentisa“bottom-up”strategywhereeachactorimplementsprojectsbasedonitsownbeliefsandinterests.Theseprojectsaredeveloped,andreportsthereonaresubmittedtotheauthoritiesinordertoreceivesupportandfinancialsponsorship.Themostpromisingprojectsareincludedinfederaltargetedprogrammesandsupportedbythelocalandregionaladministrationthroughcompetitions,grants.Secondly,thereislimitedhorizontalintegrationoftheeffortsofthelocalactorswhoaretryingtointegrateactionsinthedevelopmentofTomskasatouristdestination.Activitiesforincomingtourismareoftennotcoordinatedbutrathertheindividualinitiativesofprivaterepresentativesoftourismindustryoruniversities.Thirdly,theverticalintegrationandcoordinationofeffortstheAdministrationofTomskRegionandlocaladministrationsregardinginthedevelopmentofincominganddomestictourismisseenaslimitedandineffectivebyprivatestakeholders.Thereisinotherwordsnocomprehensive,systematicapproachtotheproblem,mechanismoftheimplementationofstrategicdocuments,basedontheinteractionofactorsoftourisminTomskregion.Despitethisthereare,however,alsonotableexamplesofsuccessfulpartnershipsbetweenpublicandprivateactorsaroundparticulardevelopmentprojects–attractionsandeventsinparticular–andthustheprospectsoftourismdevelopmentwithintheregionwouldseemtorelypredominantlyonitbeingaspin-offfromothersocio-economicactivities–e.g.culturalactivitiesorinnovation–ratherthanaprimarygoalofpublicpolicy.

52

Ivanovoregionpublic-privatepartnershipispracticedtoarelativelylargeextent,andthereforeboththepotentialadvantagesanddisadvantagesareparticularlyvisible.Ontheonehand,itclearlyenablespublicandprivateactorstocollaborateinmajorprojectsaspartofoverarchingtourismdevelopmentstrategiesthroughco-investmentinespeciallynewinfrastructure–andatthesametime,ithasalsoassistedinbringingaboutmoreintensivecollaborationandknowledgeexchangebetweenuniversities,privatefirms,culturalinstitutionsand,indeed,governmentbodies.However,atthesametimetherearecircumstancesthatmayunderminetheeffectivenessofthismechanism.Firstly,theinclusionofregionalprojectsintheFederaltargetprogramrequirestheattractionofprivateinvestorstoco-financetheprojectswhoseinterestsmaynotfullycoincidewiththedeclaredaimsoftheproject.Secondly,inthecontemporaryRussianconditionsthepublic-privatepartnershipisstillinitsinfancy,intheabsenceofalegallyworkedatthefederal,regionalandmunicipallevels«rulesofthegame»,eliminatingvoluntarismandcorruptpractices.Moreover,thecurrentpracticeofprivate-publicpartnershipsinfactexcludestheparticipationofsmallinvestorsandtheirassociations,becausesmall,butsometimesveryimportant,projectsaresimplynotconsidered.

InKemerovoregionthesystemofPPPintourismisdevelopingalonganumberofkeydirections.Mostimportantly,theestablishmentofKemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationClusterhasledtotheemergenceofthemechanismforinteraction,cooperationandpartnershipbetweenthestakeholders,whichbringshopeofovercomingtheproblemsandchallengesthatwerepreviouslyencounteredinthesphereoftourisminKuzbass.However,atpresenttheClusterisbeingdevelopedduetofederalfunding,whileprivateactors,thoughactivelyinvolvedinalltheactivities,havesofarbeenquirereluctanttoinvestanyfunds.Thus,ifthesystemofcooperationwithintheClusterisnotelaborated,orifthefederalfundingoftheprojectisstopped,theremightbenofurtherextensivepartnershipbetweenbusinesscommunityandeducationalandculturalinstitutions.Finally,bothinKemerovoRegionandinRussia,despitetheproclaimedcoursepromotingthenecessityofpost-industrialeconomyformation,mostattentionisstillpaidtothetraditionalindustrialspheres:coalmining,metallurgyetc.Thatiswhytourismandinvestmentsinthisspherestilldependdirectlyonthesituationintheenergyandmetallurgymarkets.

InmanyrespectsAltaiKraiwouldseemtohavearelativelyfavorablepositionwithregardtotourismdevelopment.Fromthepublicsectorfederalfundingfordevelopmentoflargeinvestmentprojectsintourismsectorisavailableinseveraldesignatedzone,andregionalgovernmenthasgivenprioritytothesectorinitslonger-termdevelopmentprogramme.Moreover,growinginternationalcollaborationbetweenbusinessesintheregionandinternationalpartnerswouldseemtosuggest,thatAltaiKraimaydevelopamoreinternationalvisitorprofileinthefuture,supportedbydigitalmarketinginnovationsusedintourismthatstimulatecooperationbetweenuniversitiesandotherstakeholdergroups.However,despitethispromisingstartingpoint,somechallengesarealsonoticeable.Firstly,limitedfundingoffederal,regionalandmunicipaltourismdevelopmentprogramsunderminesprogramimplementationschedulesanddetersprivateactorsfrombecominginvolved.Secondly,ongoingreviewsoftourismindustrylegislationmaychangethemarketstructureofthestakeholdersandadverselyaffectthecurrentcooperationbetweenleadingprivatetourismbusinessesandotherstakeholdergroups.Thirdly,paradoxicallytheestablishmentofspecialeconomiczoneswhereriskisparticularlylowbecauseofthoroughscreening/supportofinvestors/residentsbytheauthorities,mayadverselyaffectlong-termdevelopmentimplementationofnewprojectsresultedasmutuallybeneficialrelationsbasedoncollaborationbetweenthemainprivateactorsofthetouristmarket,becauseprivatestakeholderswaitforthestatebringinitiativesandresourcestothetable.Fourthly,

53

theriskofabusingpartnershipinterestsinfavourofindividualcommercialinterestsiscriticalforthebusinesscommunity,aswellaspartnershiprelationswhichfavourpersonalinterestswithinthepublicsector,asbothwilladverselyaffecttrustandtherebytheeffectivenessofcooperation.Andfinally,theglobaleconomyingeneral,andtheRussianeconomyinparticular,ischaracterisedbygreatuncertaintiesofmarket,technological,politicalandotherfactors,whichmaybeincreasedbyrisingtensionsinintergovernmentalrelations,wheresanctionsresultinvisapoliciesmakingentryintoandexitfromtheRussianFederationmoredifficultandtherebyhampertourism.Uncertaintiesliketheseinfluencetheinteractionbetweenthestakeholdersinterestedinthedynamicdevelopmentoftheindustry.Ontheonehanditmakescollaborationandrisk-sharingevenmoreimportant,butatthesametimeitalsomakesindividualstakeholderscautiousandfocusingonshort-termgoals,tothedetrimentoflong-terminvestmentinsustainabletourismdevelopment.TherelativeadvantageofAltaiKraimay,however,bethattourismisarelativelyimportantpartoftheregionaleconomy,thatthisforsomeyearshasbeenrecognisedbyregionalgovernment,andthatsomeprivateactorsandpublicknowledgeinstitutionsengageincollaborationonanongoingbasis.

Despitethesedifferences,itis,however,alsoabundantlyclearthatthereareimportantsimilaritiesbetweenthefourregionsandnon-metropolitantouristdestinations.

Itisimmediatelynoticeablethattourismdevelopmentstrategiesaregenerallyseenasanimportantwayofattemptingtoinfluencethedevelopmentofthelocalvisitoreconomy,andthatthesestrategiestendtoemphasisetheimportanceofongoing,evensystematic,interactionbetweenawiderangeofpublicandprivatestakeholders.Itis,however,alsoobviousthattheregionallevelisengagedinadifficultbalancingactwhentryingtomobiliseexistingculturaland/orresourcesbybringingtogetherpublicandprivatefundinginsearchofviabletouristicdevelopmentconcepts.GiventherelativelyweakfinancialpositionoftheregionallevelofgovernanceintheRussianFederation,thismeansthatexternalresourcesareofvitalsignificance.Theregionsthereforecometorelyheavilyonbecomingpartoffederaltourismdevelopmentprogramsgettingmicro-destinationsdesignatedasspecialeconomiczones–or,alternatively,teamingupwithlargeprivateinvestorswhoseesthevisitoreconomyasaprofitableinvestmentopportunity.

Moreover,public-privatepartnershipisgenerallyperceivedtobeausefulwaytobringtogethergovernmentandprivatefirmsascollaboratorsindevelopmentprojects.Itis,however,alsoclearthatthisparticularmodeofcollaborationisprimarilyused–andpossiblyinitscurrentlegalformonlyrelevant–inconnectionwithmajorinvestmentprojectsthatinvolvephysicalinfrastructures,e.g.buildings,resorts,ortransportfacilities.Inpracticethismeansthatotheraspectsofproductdevelopmentinrelationtotouristexperiences–e.g.serviceconcepts,experiences,branding–areeffectivelylefttootherstakeholdersandhencenotnecessarilyintegratedinindestinationdevelopmentinaconvincingmanner.

Paradoxically,thisweaknessofthecurrentpolicyset-upmayprovetobeanadvantageforknowledgeinstitutionsworkingwithtourismdevelopment.Becausewhen‘soft’policyinstrumentssuchasadvisoryservicesorinter-firmnetworksremainmarginalingovernmenttourismpolicy,theseservicescanbeprovidedbyuniversities,e.g.throughplatformsliketheTourismResourceCentreswhichhavebeeninitiatedaspartoftheTEMPUS-sponsoredTOULLproject.Inthiswayuniversitiescanhelptofillapolicygapcurrentlyleftbygovernmentandatthesametimehelptomaketourismdevelopmentstrategiesmoreknowledgebased.TheexampleoftheactivitiesofKemerovoTourism

54

ResourceCentreasthecoordinatorofKemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationClusterhasprovedtheefficiencyofthismodel.

Inthecurrentinternationalclimateofglobaleconomicuncertaintyandpoliticaltensions,tourismmaynotseemtobetheobviousstrategyforregionaldevelopment,becauseitinvolvesextensivemobilityofpersonsandgoodsacrossbordersthatincreasinglyarebeingpolicedbygovernmentsforreasonsofnationalsecurity.However,theseimpedimentstointernationaltravelmayactually,atleastinashort-termperspective,turnouttobeablessingfornon-metropolitantourismregionsinRussia,becauseextensiveinvestmentshavealreadybeenmadeindevelopingtourismfacilitiesandexperiencesthatisoverwhelminglygearedtowardscateringtowardsthedomesticmarket.

Thefourcase-studyregionseachhavetheirwaysofapproachingregionaltourismstrategiesandpublicprivatepartnership.InmanywaysTomskstandsoutfromtherest,withcomparativelylowlevelofvisitationand,atbest,fragmentedpublicpolicies–butatthesametimethisregionhasdevelopedacapacitytocollaboratearoundspecificeventsthatarecrucialtostrengtheningthelocalvisitoreconomy.Intheotherthreeregions–Kemerovo,IvanovoandAltaiKrai–thegovernanceset-upsaremoresystemic,anddifferencesbetweentheregionsappeartoreflectthedifferentresourcesthatcanbemobilisedfortouristicpurposes:healthcareandnatureinAltaiKrai,culturalheritageinIvanovo,andoutdoorresourcesinKemerovo.

Inallfourregions–and,presumably,manyothernon-metropolitanregionsintheRussianFederation–itremainsachallengetosecure(continued)politicalsupportfortourismasapriorityinregionaldevelopment,incompetitionwithtraditionalmanufacturingandextractiveindustries.Heretheexperiencefromtheregionalstudieswouldseemtosuggestthatknowledgeinstitutionscanplayanimportantpartinbringingstakeholdersandknowledgetogether,andthatthiscouldhelpfutureprojectstobecomemoresustainableinthelongrunbyhelpingtomobiliseandcoordinatetheeffortsofthewiderangeofactorsinvolvedintouristdestinationdevelopment.

55

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY

9.1 Literature

AleksandrovaA.U.Internationaltourism,Aspect-press,Moscow,2002,470p.

BazhenovA.V.,KabashkinV.A.Novyefinansovyevozmozhnostirealizatsiiregionalnyhinvestitsionnyhoriektovnaosnovegosudarstvenno-chastnogopartnerstva[Newfinancialprospectsofregionalinvestmentprojectsimplementationonthepasisofpublic-privatepartnership].Financialanalytics:Problemsandsolutions.2008.№8(8).

Braden,K.,&Prudnikova,N.(2008).TheChallengeofEcotourismDevelopmentintheAltayRegionofRussia.TourismGeographies,10(1),1–21.

Burns,P.(1998).TourisminRussia:backgroundandstructure.TourismManagement,19(6),555–565.http://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00060-0

Dredge,D.(2006).PolicyNetworksandtheLocalOrganisationofTourism.TourismManagement,27(2),269–280.

DunetsA.N.TemporaryfeaturesoftourisminAltairegion/A.N.Dunets//SocialgeographyofRussianregionsandadjacentareas:fundamentalandappliedresearch.–Irkutsk:PublishinghouseofV.B.SochavaInstituteofGeographySBRAS,2008.

DunetsA.N.Territorialorganisationofmountaintourismandrecreationalsystems(usingtheexampleofAltai-Sayansregion):monograph/A.N.Dunets.–Barnaul:AltSTUpublishinghouse,2009.

DzhandzhugazovaE.A.Marketingturistskihterritoriy[Marketingoftouristterritories].Moscow,AcademiaPubl.,2006,224p.

GoncharovaN.A.Approachestointerpretingtheconceptoftourismdestinationinthediscourseoftourismstudies//BulletinofSiberianScience:electronicjournal,TPU,2015,no.2,pp.100-115.Modeofaccess:http://sjs.tpu.ru/journal/article/view/1332/889

GoncharovaN.A.SistemaupravleniyaturizmomvTomskoyoblasti[SystemoftourismmanagementinTomskRegion][electronicresourse],Tomsk,2013.Modeofaccess:http://www.lib.tpu.ru/fulltext/c/2013/C26/008.pdf

GoncharovaN.A.Localcommunityasakeyactoroftourismdestination,BulletinofKemerovoStateUniversity,2015,2/7(62),158-163.

GoncharovaN.A.,KolodiiN.A.,SmedK.M.Creativeclustersandregionalinnovationsystems:practiceandperspectivesinRussia.2016,Articleatapproval

56

GoncharovaN.A.,KiriyanovaL.G.Rolissledovaniypotrebitelskogopovedeniyaturistovvrazrabotkestrategiituristskogoregiona[Theroleoftouristbehaviorstudyinginthedevelopmentoftouristregionstrategy].BulletinoftheTomskPolytechnicUniversity,2010,vol.316,no.6,pp.41–47.

Halkier,H.(2010).PlatformsofInnovation:DynamicsofNewIndustrialKnowledgeFlows.InP.Cooke,C.deLaurentis,C.collinge,&S.MacNeill(Eds.),PlatformsofInnovation:DynamicsofNewIndustrialKnowledgeFlows(pp.233–250).London:EdwardElgar.

Halkier,H.(2013).TourismPolicyandKnowledgeProcessesinEuropeanTourism.InC.Costa,E.Panyik,&D.Buhalis(Eds.),TrendsinEuropeanTourismPlanningandOrganisation(Vol.22,pp.220–234).http://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.784594

Halkier,H.,&Therkelsen,A.(2013).BreakingoutofTourismDestinationPathDependency?ExploringtheCaseofCoastalTourisminNorthJutland,Denmark.GermanJournalofEconomicGeography,57(1-2),39–51.

Hall,C.M.(2008).TourismPlanning:Policies,ProcessesandRelationships.SecondEdition.Harlow:PearsonPrenticeHall.

Hall,C.M.,&Williams,A.(2008).TourismandInnovation.Abingdon:Routledge.

Henriksen,P.F.(2012).Smalltourismfirms'inter-organisationalrelationsandknowledgeprocesses:Theroleofsocialembeddednessinnetworks:ThecaseofthemunicipalityofViborg,Denmark.(H.Halkier,Ed.)CultureandGlobalStudies.AalborgUniversity.

Hjalager,A.-M.(2000).TourismDestinationsandtheConceptofIndustrialDistricts.TourismandHospitalityResearch,2(3),199–213.

Hjalager,A.-M.(2010).AreviewofInnovationResearchinTourism.TourismManagement,30(1),1–12.

Ioannides,D.,&Debbage,K.G.(1997).Post-fordismandflexibility:TheTravelIndustryPolyglot.TourismManagement,18(4),229–241.

KaganF.I.«TheLordsofRing».Journal«OurMotherland–Ivanovo-Voznesensk»,№20.

KaganF.I.Interculturalcommunicationandsocio-culturalmissionoftourism:challengesandresponses.MaterialsofInternationalscientific-practicalconference«Tourismandhospitalitybeyondborders:tendenciesandprospectsofdevelopment».Ivanovo,2013.

KolodiyN.A.Kulturakakresursekonomikioschuscheniy[Cultureasaresourceofexperienceeconomy].TomskStateUniversityJournalofPhilosophy,SociologyandPoliticalScience,2011,no.4(16),pp.94-102.

KolupanovaI.A.(2010)Tourismpolicy,Aalborg,Denmark.

KolupanovaI.A.,VnuchkovaT.N.,ZhidkovaI.V.ElaborationoftheresourceacademiccenterinAltSTUasapartofTempusproject“Tourismlifelonglearningnetwork”//ESTC-2014,p.67-70,Barnaul,AltSTU,2014.

57

KolupanovaI.A.,BelayaI.A.,VnuchkovaT.N.Theroleofpublicandprivatepartnershipinthedevelopmentofthetouristdestination“AltaiKray”//VestnikKemSU,Kemerovo,2015.Modeofaccess:http://vestnik.kemsu.ru/

KovalevskyD.N.Theprogrammethodinthepublic-privatepartnershipinsphereoftourismbytheexampleofcluster«Plyos»inIvanovoregion.MaterialsofInternationalscientific-practicalconference«Tourismandhospitalitybeyondborders:tendenciesandprospectsofdevelopment».Ivanovo,2013.

KruzhalinV.I.Nauchnyeosnovyformirovaniyaturistsko-rekretsionnyhklasterovnaprintsipahgosudarstvenno-chastnogopartnerstva[Scientificfoundationsoftouristclusterscreationbasedontheprincipalsofprivate-publicpartnership].TrudyIIIMezhdunarodnoynauchno-prakticheskoykonferentsii.Ulan-Ude,2009,pp.308-316.

KruzhalinV.I.Teoreticheskieimetodologicheskiepodhodykizucheniuturistsko-rekreatsionnyhterritoriy[Theoreticalandmethodologicalapproachestotheresearchoftourismandrecreationterritories].Turizmirekreatsianaputiustoychivogorazvitiya:otechestvennieizarubezhnieissledovaniya,Moscow,Sovietsport,2008,432p.

Kuleshov,V.(2012).SiberiaasaTerritoryforDevelopment.ProblemsofEconomicTransition,55(4),65–76.http://doi.org/10.2753/PET1061-1991550407

Kurbatova,M.V.,Levin,S.N.(2010)Deformalizatsiyapravilvsovremennoyrossiyskoyekonomike(naprimerevzaimodistviyavlastiibiznesa[DeformalizationofrulesincontemporaryRussianeconomy(theexampleofinteractionbetweentheauthoritiesandbusiness)]//Terraeconomicus,8(1).27–50.Tambovtsev,V.L.(2003)Neformal’nyyevozdeystviyagosudarstvanabizness[Informalinfluenceofthestateonbusiness].In:Bremyagosudarstvaiekonomicheskayapolitika:liberal’nayaal’ternativa(Stateburdenandeconomicpolicy:theliberalalternative)(pp.97–100).Moscow.

MorozovM.A.,VoitM.N.Teoretiko-ekonomicheskoesoderzhanieponyatiya«turistskayadestinatsiya»[Theoreticandeconomicaspectsoftouristdestinationconcept].BulletinoftheRussianNewUniversity,2013,no.2,pp.188-195.

Mouraviev,N.,&Kakabadse,N.K.(2014).Public–privatepartnershipsinRussia:dynamicscontributingtoanemergingpolicyparadigm.PolicyStudies,35(1),79–96.http://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2013.875140

Nizhegorodtsev,R.M.,Levin,S.N.,Nikitenko,S.M.etal.(2012).Gosudarstvenno-chastnoepartnerstvovinnovatsionnoysfere:mirovoyopytiperspektivy(Public-and-privatepartnershipintheinnovativesphere:globalexperienceandperspectives).

North,D.C.(1990).Institutions,InstitutionalChangeandEconomicPerformance.Cambridge:CambridgeUP.

PokrovskiyN.E.Turizm:otsocialnoyteoriikpraktikeupravleniya[Tourism:fromsocialtheorytowardspracticeofmanagement].Moscow,Universitetskayakniga,Logos,2009,400p

RomanovA.A.Tourismgeography:studyguide/A.A.Romanov,R.G.Saakyants.–Moscow:SovietSport,2004.

58

SaranchaM.A.,KuskovA.S.Evolutsiyapodhodovkissledovaniyuterritorialnyhturistsko-rekreatsionnyhsistem[Theevolutionofapproachestotheresearchoftouristandrecreationsystems].BulletinoftheUdmurtStateUniversity,2011,no.3,pp.101-113.

Sazonov,V.E.Public-privatepartnership:thelegalframework,problemsandprospects.(Moscow,2010).

SeleznevP.L.(2009)Mezhdunarodnyopytiperspektivyrealizatsiigosudarstvenno-chastnyhpartnerstvvRossii[Internationalexperienceandprospectsofrealizationofstate-privatepartnershipsisinRussia].BussinessinLaw:ThejournalonEconomicsandLaw,2009,No5.

ShevtsovA.V.RepublicofPlyos.TheconceptofcomplexdevelopmentofthePlyosresortarea.Plyos,2010.

Stepchenkova,S.,&Morrison,A.M.(2006).ThedestinationimageofRussia:Fromtheonlineinducedperspective.TourismManagement,27(5),943–956.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.10.021

Stepchenkova,S.,&Morrison,A.M.(2008).Russia'sdestinationimageamongAmericanpleasuretravelers:RevisitingEchtnerandRitchie.TourismManagement,29(3),548–560.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.003

SuprunenkoY.P.Luringmountains(mountainandrecreationalnature)/Y.P.Suprunenko.–Moscow:Trovant,2003.

Surtseva,A.A.(2012)Sotsial’nyykontraktvsovremennoyRossii:metodologiyaanalizairegional’nyeaspektyformirovaniya[SocialcontractincontemporaryRussia:methodsofanalyzingandregionalaspectsofformation]//Omskiynauchnyyvestnik.–Obshchestvo.Istoriya.Sovremennost’[OmskScienceBulletin–Society.History.Thepresent],1(105).69–71.

TkachenkoM.V.,DolgovA.A.,BorshevskyG.A.,ShabaevR.E.(2014)Metodicheskierekomendatsiiporazvitiyuinstitutsionalnoysredyvsferegosudarstvenno-chastnogopartnerstvavsubjektahRF«RegionalnyGChP-standart»[MethodologicalrecommendationsforthedevelopmentoftheinstitutionalenvironmentinthesphereofpublicprivatepartnershipinthesubjectsoftheRussianFederation“RegionalPPP-standard”].Moscow:CentreforPPPdevelopment.

ThenumberofforeigntouristsintheAltaiRepublichasdoubled.Travel.ru.Access:http://www.travel.ru/news/2008/12/02/163888.html

Thelen,K.(2009).InstitutionalChangeinAdvancedPoliticalEconomies.BritishJournalofIndustrialRelations,47(3),471–498.

TravkinP.N.Themuseumwithout«patulouscranberry»(urgentproblemandPlyosexperience).MaterialsofInternationalscientificconference«ProblemsofdevelopmentoftourisminCentralRussia:culturalpotentialasafactorofsustainabledevelopmentoftheregion».Yaroslavl,2012.

Weaver,D.,&Lawton,L.(2002).TourismManagement,2ndedition.Milton:Wiley.

ZorinA.I.Kontseptualnoedidakticheskoeproektirovanieturistskihdestinatsiy[Conceptualanddidacticalelaborationoftouristdestinations].–Moscow:Sovetskiysport,2012.–80p.

59

9.2 Documentarysources

FederalStateStatisticsServiceofRussianFederation(2015).Statisticalbulletin“RegionsofRussia.Socialandeconomicindicators”[electronicresource].-Modeofaccess:http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/publications/catalog/doc_1138623506156

Analyticalreportundertheresearch“Thedevelopmentofinfrastructureandpublic-privatepartnershipintheregionsofSiberianfederaldistrict”[electronicresource].–Moscow:TheAssociation“Public-PrivatePartnershipDevelopmentCenter”(PPPDevelopmentCenter),2011.–Modeofaccess:http://pppcenter.ru/ru/projects-center/research_projects

TOMSK

TouristInformationCentreofTomsk.ThestructureofTourismEducational&EntrepreneurialClusterofTomskandthemechanismofitsactivity,2015,Modeofaccesshttp://tic-tomsk.ru/node/1033

TomskRegionAdministration(2012)DecisionofTomskRegionAdministrationdated26November2012#467a“AboutApprovingtheLong-termTargetProgramme“DevelopmentofDomesticandIncomingTourisminTomskregionin2013–2017”[electronicresource].-Modeofaccess:http://storage.esp.tomsk.gov.ru/files/31616/467а.pdf

TomskRegionAdministration(2014)DecisionofTomskRegionAdministrationdated12December2014#489a“AboutApprovingtheStateProgramme“DevelopmentofCultureandTourisminTomskregionin2015–2020”[electronicresource].-Modeofaccess:http://depculture.tomsk.gov.ru/ru/programm-project/GP_Kul_Tur_2015-2020/

TomskRegionAdministration(2014)OfficialinformationportalofTomskRegionAdministration.Modeofaccess:http://tomsk.gov.ru/ru/regionalnoe-razvitie/regionalnoe-strategicheskoe-planirovanie/

IVANOVO

60

TheFederallaw«AboutbasesoftouristactivityintheRussianFederation».AdoptedbytheStateDumaon4October1996.ApprovedbytheFederationCouncilonNovember14,1996(asamendedbytheFederallawsdated10.01.2003№15-FZ,dated22.08.2004№122-FZ,dated05.02.2007№12-FZ,dated30.12.2008№309-FZ,dated28.06.2009№123-FZ,dated27.12.2009№365-FZ,dated30.07.2010№242-FZ,dated01.07.2011№169-FZ,dated03.05.2012№47-FZ).

TheFederallaw«AboutspecialeconomiczonesintheRussianFederation».AdoptedbytheStateDumaon8July2005.ApprovedbytheFederationCouncilonJuly13,2005(asamendedbyFederallawsdated03.06.2006№76-FZ–itintroducedtourist-recreationalspecialeconomiczones,dated18.12.2006№232-FZ,dated30.10.2007№240-FZ,dated23.07.2008№160-FZ,dated25.12.2009№340-FZ,dated01.07.2011№169-FZ,dated18.07.2011№215-FZ,dated18.07.2011№242-FZ).

TheOrderoftheGovernmentoftheRussianFederationdatedJuly19,2010№1230-p«AbouttheconceptofFederaltargetprogram”DevelopmentofdomesticandinboundtourismintheRussianFederation(2011-2016)”».

ResolutionoftheGovernmentoftheRussianFederationdatedSeptember18,2012№936«AboutmodificationintheFederaltargetprogram“DevelopmentofdomesticandinboundtourismintheRussianFederation(2011-2018)”».

TheorderoftheGovernmentoftheRussianFederationdated27December,2012№2567-p«AboutthestateprogramoftheRussianFederation“Developmentofcultureandtourism”in2013-2020».

ResolutionoftheGovernmentoftheRussianFederationdatedOctober3,2013№863«AboutamendmentstocertainactsoftheGovernmentoftheRussianFederationinthepartofallocationofauthoritiesofFederalbodiesofExecutivepowerinthesphereoftourism».

Long-termtargetprogramoftheIvanovoarea«DevelopmentoftourismintheIvanovoregionin2009-2016».ApprovedbyResolutionoftheGovernmentoftheIvanovoregiondatedNovember21,2008№300-p.

ThestateprogramoftheIvanovoregion«Developmentofphysicalculture,sportandtourismintheIvanovoregion».ApprovedbyResolutionoftheGovernmentoftheIvanovoregiondatedNovember13,2013№455-p.

KEMEROVO

KemerovoRegionLaw#5-OZof6February2009“Ontouristicactivity”;

KemerovoRegionLaw#67-OZof8June2009“OndevelopmentofsnowtourisminKemerovoRegion”;

KemerovoRegionLaw#88-OZof13July2009“Ondevelopmentofin-comingandout-goingtourism”;

KemerovoRegionLaw#87-OZof8July2010“Onfavouredeconomiczones”;

KemerovoRegionLaw#42-OZof25April2011“Ondevelopmentofmountainskiingtourism”;

61

DecreeofKemerovoregionAdministrationBoard#194-pof1March2013“OnStrategyforDevelopmentofTourisminKuzbasstill2025;

KemerovoRegion(2013)StrategyforDevelopmentofTourisminKuzbassfortheperioduntil2025/adoptedbytheDecreeofKemerovoRegionAdministrationBoarddated1March2013№194-p

Strategy(2015)ofKemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationClusterDevelopmentfortheperioduntil2025/adoptedbytheDecreeofKemerovoRegionAdministrationBoarddated3June2015№301-p

KemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationCluster//ThewebsiteofKemerovoRegionTourismResourceCentre–accessaddress:http://visit-kuzbass.ru/en/tur-klaster/o-klastere.html

Socialandeconomicpartneship//OfficialwebsiteofKemerovoCityAdministration–accessaddress:http://www.kemerovo.ru/glavnoe/socialno-ekonomicheskoe_partnerstvo.html

ALTAIKRAI

InvestmentpassportsofAltaiKrairegion-AltaiskyDistrict/Access:http://www.econom22.ru/investment/investment_passport_of_municipalities/inves_pasport2.doc.

InvestmentpassportsoftheresorttownBelokurikha/Access:http://belokuriha-gorod.ru/index/pasport_goroda/0-90.

StatisticalYearbook.AltaiKrai.2005-2010:Statistics/territorialbodyoftheFederalStateStatisticsServiceofAltaiKrai.-B.,2011.-392pages

Strategyofsocio-economicdevelopmentofAltaiKraiuntil2025/Access:http://www.altaicpp.ru/strat/strategija/s7/s73.html

FederalSpecial-PurposeProgram"DevelopmentofhometourismintheRussianFederation(2011-2018)",approvedbyRFGovernmentDecreedated02.08.2011№644/URL:http://fcp.economy.gov.ru/cgi-bin/cis/fcp.cgi/Fcp/ViewFcp/View/2011/361

Long-termspecial-purposeprogram"DevelopmentoftourisminAltaiKraiin2011-2016",approvedbytheAdministrationofAltaiKraionDecember23,2010N583,asamendedon18.08.2011,03.10.2011N560)/Access:http://alttur22.ru/zakonodatelstvo/pravovye_akty_altajskogo_kraya/mestnoe_1/

Program"DevelopmentoftourisminthecityofBarnaulin2014-2018",approvedbytheadministrationofBarnaulDirective№3374dated31.10.2013/access:http://barnaul.org/pravo/decisions_1/postanovlenija_administracii_go/postanovlenija_2013g/postanovlenie-3374-ot-31-10-2013-ob-utverzhdenii-programmy-razvitie-turizma-v-gorode-barnaule-na-201/

StateProgramoftheRussianFederation"DevelopmentofCultureandTourism"for2013-2020,approvedbytheGovernmentDecreedated15.04.2014N317/access:http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_162185/#p15

62

9.3 Interviews

TOMSK

AndreyBobilev,DeputyDirectoroftheMuseumofSlavicMythology

VladimirIlyin,ownerandfounderofthefortinSemiluzhki

JuliaKaljuzhnaja,directorofthetouristexcursioncompany“Polaris”

RabbiLeviKaminezki,JewishcommunityofTomsk

AlexeyKnyazev,DeputyGovernorofTomskRegiononScientificandEducationalComplex

ProfessorKolodii,N.A.,HeadofSiberianResourceCentreoftheTourismIndustry,HeadoftheDepartmentofCulturalStudiesandSocialCommunicationofTPU

MullahHazratNurulla,MuslimcommunityofTomsk

IrinaShpachenko,DeputyHeadofDepartmentforHigherVocationalEducationofTomskRegionAdministration

FatherVictorSirotin,TomskeparchyofRussianOrthodoxChurchEparchy

DmitrySon,DeputyViceRectorforAdministrativeandSocialWorkofTomskPolytechnicUniversity,ProgrammeDirectorofForumsInnovusandU-novus

AlexeyVasilyev,chairmanoftheAssociationofMilitarySportsClubs

AssociateprofessorSavelyWolfson,PhDinHistory,headoftheInternationalRelationsDepartmentoftheFacultyofHistoryofTSU

IVANOVO

AntonovaOlgaGenrikhovna,DeputyHeadoftheEducationDepartmentoftheIvanovoregion.

AstafievEvgenyGennadyevich,HeadofadministrationoftheGavrilov-PosadmunicipaldistrictoftheIvanovoregion.

KaganFelixIosifovich,headoftheInterregionalresourcecentreoftrainingandretrainingofpersonnelfortourismandhospitality,headoftheDepartmentofsocio-culturalserviceandtourismofISPU.

KalininaNataliaAleksandrovna,directorofthetourist-transportassociation«Slavyanka»,theleadingtouroperatorintheIvanovoregion.

63

KarevaGalinaAlevtinovna,directoroftheMuseumofIvanovochintz.

ShevtsovAlexeyVladislavovich,theownerofthehotel«SobornayaSloboda»,thepresidentofthePlyosyachtclub,oneofthekeyinvestorsofPlyos.

TravkinPavelNikolaevich,founderanddirectoroftheArchaeologistP.N.TravkinmuseumcentreinPlyos.

VlasovVladimirDmitrievich,generaldirectorofJSC«RIAT»,oneofthekeyinvestorsintheIvanovoregion.

ZotovNikolaiNikolaevich,headoftheDepartmentofsportsandtourismoftheIvanovoregion.

KEMEROVO

1)theofficialsworkingforKemerovoRegionDepartmentofYouthPolicyandSports,KemerovoCityBoardforCulture,SportsandYouthPolicy,andmembersofKemerovoRegionGovernor’sPublicTourismCouncil(numberofinterviewees:6).

2)membersoftheprofessionalcommunity–associatesofKuzbassAssociationofTourismIndustryEnterprisesandKuzbassNon-ProfitPartnershipofTourismIndustry(numberofinterviewees:18).

3)professorsandtrainersteachingTourismdisciplinesatKemerovoStateUniversity,KemerovoStateUniversityforCultureandArtsandT.F.GorbachevKuzbassStateTechnicalUniversity(numberofinterviewees:9).

4)directorsandassociatesofmuseumsofKemerovoCityandKemerovoRegion(numberofinterviewees:4).

ALTAIKRAI

O.S.Akimov,DeputyDirectorforStrategicDevelopmentandLegalAffairs,“BelokurikhaResorts”Ltd.

S.A.Bartysheva,Director,BiyskAltaiSpiritualMissionHistoryMuseuminBiysk

S.I.GulyaevBelokurikhaCityMuseum(DirectorBatuyevaTamara)

V.V.BiankiBiyskLocalHistoryMuseum(directorBatyshevaS.A)

R.V.Emelyanova,HeadofSector,MarketingandTourismAdministrationSectorofBiysk

E.V.Evsyukova,DeputyChief,AltaiKraiAdministrationfortheDevelopmentofTourismRecreationandHealthResortIndustry

N.V.Gordeeva,President,NonprofitPartnership“AltaiRegionalTourismAssociation(ARAT)"

I.A.Kolupanova,Director,TourismResourceCentreatPolzunovAltaiStateTechnicalUniversity

64

T.I.Sazhaeva,Director,AltaiKraiIndependentInstitution"TouristcentreofAltaiKrai"("Altaitourcentre")

A.V.Shershneva,Manager,”Altaitourist"LLC

N.Y.Starikova,Director,Touristfirm«Belokurikha-Travel“

V.N.Fedorov,director,AltaiKraiCentreforYouthTourism

65

10 ENDNOTES

1Thedataforanalysisweretakenfrom:OsnovnyepokazateliravitiyaturizmavKemerovskoyoblasti(KeyfiguresoftourismdevelopmentinKemerovoregion//websiteofKemerovoRegionDepartmentofYouthPolicyandSports//accessaddress:http://www.dmps-kuzbass.ru/tourism/development/-accessedon18.05.2014;Sotsialnayasfera(Socialsphere)//“Kuzbass”statisticalyearbook2009//accessaddress:http://www.kemerovostat.ru/bgd/EJEGOD/issWWW.exe/Stg/2009/(7)%20социальная%20сфера.htm–accessedon18.05.2014;Kul’tura,otdykh,turizm(Culture,recreationandtourism)//“Kuzbass”statisticalyearbook2012.–accessaddress:http://www.kemerovostat.ru/bgd/EJEGOD/issWWW.exe/Stg/2012/9е_культура.htm-accessedon18.05.2014;Kuzbass.Istoriyavtsifrakh(Kuzbass.Historyinnumbers):statisticalabstract.–Kemerovo:Kemerovostat,2008.–P.139-141,253;Kuzbass.2013:statisticalabstract.–Kemerovo:Kemerovostat,2013.–P.130-136,224;Turistskayadeyatel’nost’IotdykhvKuzbasse(TourismandrecreationinKuzbass):Statisticalabstract.–Kemerovo:Kemerovostat,2005.–P.9,15,37;Turistskayadeyatel’nost’IotdykhvKuzbasse(TourismandrecreationinKuzbass):Statisticalabstract.–Kemerovo:Kemerovostat,2009.–P.9,14,61.2Strategy(2015)ofKemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationClusterDevelopmentfortheperioduntil2025/adoptedbytheDecreeofKemerovoRegionAdministrationBoarddated3June2015№301-p3KemerovoRegionTourismandRecreationCluster//ThewebsiteofKemerovoRegionTourismResourceCentre–accessaddress:http://visit-kuzbass.ru/en/tur-klaster/o-klastere.html4Kurbatova,M.V.,Levin,S.N.Deformalizatsiyspravilvsovremennoyrossiyskoyekonomike(naprimerevzaimodistviyavlastiIbiznesa(DeformalizationofrulesincontemporaryRussianeconomy(theexampleofinteractionbetweentheauthoritiesandbusiness))//Terraeconomicus.–2010.–Vol.8.-№1.–P.27-50;Tambovtsev,V.L.Neformal’nyyevozdeystviyagosudarstvanabizness(Informalinfluenceofthestateonbusiness)//Bremyagosudarstvaiekonomicheskayapolitika:liberal’nayaal’ternativa.–Мoscow,2003.–P.97-100.5Investitsionno-innovatsionnyypassportgorodaKemerovo(InvestmentsandinnovationspassportofKemerovoCity).–Kemerovo,2012.//accessaddress:http://www.kemerovo.ru/archive/file/2027/2027.pdf.–accessedon25.05.2014.6StrategyforSocialandEconomicdevelopmentofKemerovoRegiontill2025.7Gosudarstvenno-chastnoepartnerstvovinnovatsionnoysfere:mirovoyopytiperspektivy(Public-and-privatepartnershipininnovativesphere:globalexperienceandperspectives)/NizhegorodtsevR.M.,LevinS.N.,NikitenkoS.M.etal.–Kemerovo,2012.–P.426.8KemerovoRegionLawN87-ОЗof08.07.2010(ed.on03.11.2011)"Onfavouredeconomiczones"(AdoptedbyKemerovoRegionCouncilofPeople’sDeputieson08.07.2010)9Cf.:SurtsevaA.A.Sotsial’nyykontraktvsovremennoyRossii:metodologiyaanalizairegional’nyeaspektyformirovaniya(SocialcontractincontemporaryRussia:methodsofanalyzingandregionalaspectsofformation//Omskiynauchnyyvestnik.–Obshchestvo.Istoriya.Sovremennost’.–2012.-№1(105).–P.69–71.10Kurbatova,M.V.,Levin,S.N.Deformalizatsiyspravilvsovremennoyrossiyskoyekonomike(naprimerevzaimodistviyavlastiIbiznesa(DeformalizationofrulesincontemporaryRussianeconomy(theexampleofinteractionbetweentheauthoritiesandbusiness))//Terraeconomicus.–2010.–Vol.8.-№1.–P.27-5011Tambovtsev,V.L.Neformal’nyyevozdeystviyagosudarstvanabizness(Informalinfluenceofthestateonbusiness)//Bremyagosudarstvaiekonomicheskayapolitika:liberal’nayaal’ternativa.–Мoscow,2003.–P.97-100.12KarzovaV.Nalognalyubov’kgorodu(Taxesonlovetothecity)//Kuzbass.–2004.–23January.13Sotsial’noepartnerstvo:Kemerovskiyvariant(Socialpartnership:KemerovoVersion//Kuzbass.–2004.–27February.14LoginovaE.Soyuzporasschetu(Allianceofconvenience)//DelovoyKuzbass.–2006.–№5.–P.24-27.15Socialandeconomicpartneship//OfficialwebsiteofKemerovoCityAdministration–accessaddress:http://www.kemerovo.ru/glavnoe/socialno-ekonomicheskoe_partnerstvo.html-accessedon25.05.2014.

tourist destination dynamics in russia · 1 tourist destination dynamics in russia tourism...

Documents