| 000 | 04269nlm1a2200493 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 659547 | ||
| 005 | 20231030041632.0 | ||
| 035 | _a(RuTPU)RU\TPU\network\28157 | ||
| 035 | _aRU\TPU\network\27873 | ||
| 090 | _a659547 | ||
| 100 | _a20190227a2018 k y0engy50 ba | ||
| 101 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 102 | _aGB | ||
| 135 | _adrcn ---uucaa | ||
| 181 | 0 | _ai | |
| 182 | 0 | _ab | |
| 200 | 1 |
_aDestination development in Western Siberia: tourism governance and evolutionary economic geography _fH. Halkier [et al.] |
|
| 203 |
_aText _celectronic |
||
| 300 | _aTitle screen | ||
| 330 | _aTourism development has often been identified as a tool for balancing negative effects of economic restructuring, especially in peripheral regions. Tourism-based activities often utilize the availability of abundant nature, but although most English language studies of destination development are presented from western contexts, examples from post-Soviet Russia are rare. Western Siberia is a periphery with access to natural resources and heavy industrialization but remotely located from domestic (Russian) and international markets, where tourism is often considered a saviour, especially for the regional economies. Stakeholders in this Russian resource periphery face challenges in managing governance and cooperation in destinations development due to frequent institutional, economic and social changes. Using evolutionary economic geography and based on primary sources and interview data, tourism development and stakeholder relations are assessed in three Western Siberia regions: Tomsk, Kemerovo and Altai Krai. Findings show that for tourism to make a significant contribution, it must be more central to the economic development agenda in all three regions. However, it is currently only achieving a permanent high-profile in one of them, being crowded out by other (mostly primary) industries in the other two. Although the specific tourism governance set-up varies between the three regions, it is clear that public tourism governance still sits somewhat uneasily between state control and the market economy. Tourism receives substantial public subsidies, especially in large-scale investment projects, which depend on federal support within a governance system where decentralization seems to be somewhat limited and unstable. As a result, the tourism path development in the Siberian periphery is highly dependent on state intervention and success in other sectors. | ||
| 461 | _tTourism Geographies | ||
| 463 |
_tLatest articles _v[24 p.] _d2018 |
||
| 610 | 1 | _aэлектронный ресурс | |
| 610 | 1 | _aтруды учёных ТПУ | |
| 610 | 1 | _atourism destination development | |
| 610 | 1 | _adestination governance | |
| 610 | 1 | _apath dependency | |
| 610 | 1 | _aRussian Federation | |
| 610 | 1 | _aSiberia | |
| 610 | 1 | _aразвитие | |
| 610 | 1 | _aтуризм | |
| 610 | 1 | _aтуристический рынок | |
| 610 | 1 | _aСибирь | |
| 701 | 1 |
_aHalkier _bH. _gHenrik |
|
| 701 | 1 |
_aMuller _bD. K. _gDieter |
|
| 701 | 1 |
_aGoncharova _bN. A. _cspecialist in the field of culture studies and social communication _csenior lecturer at the Tomsk Polytechnic University _f1981- _gNatalya Aleksandrovna _2stltpush _3(RuTPU)RU\TPU\pers\32546 |
|
| 701 | 1 |
_aKiryanova _bL. G. _cphilosopher _cAssociate Professor of Tomsk Polytechnic University, candidate of philosophical sciences _f1982- _gLiliya Gennadievna _2stltpush _3(RuTPU)RU\TPU\pers\37063 |
|
| 701 | 1 |
_aYumatov _bK. V. _gKonstantin Vladimirovich |
|
| 701 | 1 |
_aYakimova _bN. S. _gNataliya Sergeevna |
|
| 712 | 0 | 2 |
_aНациональный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет _bШкола базовой инженерной подготовки _bОтделение социально-гуманитарных наук _h8033 _2stltpush _3(RuTPU)RU\TPU\col\23512 |
| 712 | 0 | 2 |
_aНациональный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет _bШкола инженерного предпринимательства _c(2017- ) _h7949 _2stltpush _3(RuTPU)RU\TPU\col\23544 |
| 801 | 2 |
_aRU _b63413507 _c20190227 _gRCR |
|
| 856 | 4 | _uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2018.1490808 | |
| 942 | _cCF | ||