Tourist Infrastructure as the Basis for Sustainable Development of

the Destination

Alexey Platov

, Anna Silaeva

and Natalia Boboshko

Moscow State University of Sport and Tourism, 43a Kronshtadsky Blvd, Moscow, Russia

Russian State University of Tourism and Service, Cherkizovo, Moscow region, Russia

The Vladimir Kikot Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 12 Akademika Volgina Moscow,

Russia

Keywords: Sustainability, Infrastructure, Tourism, Destination.

Abstract: Globalization and digitalization of the economy requires the transit of the tourism industry to the principles

of sustainable development. The most important element of sustainable tourism development is its

infrastructure model. The composition of the tourist infrastructure is extensive and is associated with all

elements of the destination that provide and stimulate the development of tourism. Therefore, the objects of

regional infrastructure can be considered as elements of the tourist infrastructure. The concept of sustainable

development determines the vector of research in the field of tourism infrastructure. The study used a

quantitative approach based on the IPA method (importance-performance analysis). A survey of tourists and

stakeholders of the tourism industry in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kazan was carried out. The results indicate

a high assessment of the tourist infrastructure in general by both groups of respondents. However, when

considering the “Importance - performance” matrices for individual groups of infrastructure, the inconsistency

of the opinions of the groups of respondents is revealed.

1 INTRODUCTION

The basic approach to the development of tourist

destinations in the current conditions should be the

concept of the integrated development of

infrastructure, transport and attractions that the region

has. At the same time, among the modern concepts of

tourism development, the theory of sustainable

development occupies a central place. In the context

of globalization and digitalization of the economy and

society, the need for the transit of the tourism industry

to the principles of sustainable development becomes

obvious. Thus, in order to create a successful and

competitive tourist destination, certain efforts should

be made to build its infrastructure (based on the main

idea of the tourist product of a given territory) and

effective management.

For a tourist destination, infrastructure is a

necessary resource that is no less important than

natural and cultural attractions. The infrastructure of

https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-8039-9992

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9725-6357

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6485-5268

the tourist destination must be developed and meet

the expectations of tourists (Slashchuk and

Bernadska, 2019). The expectations of tourists can

serve as one of the indicators in the procedure for

assessing the readiness of the infrastructure of a

tourist destination.

Sustainable tourism development can be achieved

if the level of use of various resources does not go

beyond the ability of these resources to regenerate.

The principles of sustainable tourism development

are maintaining the quality of the environment,

providing benefits for the local community and

tourists; maintaining harmony between the local

population and the environment; and joint work of

stakeholders to develop a sustainable development

strategy.

The goal of sustainable tourism is to improve the

well-being of society, the economy and the health of

the population. Tourism sustainability should not be

limited to debate. It is necessary to have a

206

Platov, A., Silaeva, A. and Boboshko, N.

Tourist Infrastructure as the Basis for Sustainable Development of the Destination.

DOI: 10.5220/0010666200003223

In Proceedings of the 1st International Scientiﬁc Forum on Sustainable Development of Socio-economic Systems (WFSDS 2021), pages 206-213

ISBN: 978-989-758-597-5

commitment on the part of stakeholders to support the

natural, socio-economic and cultural sustainability of

society as the main capital of tourism.

Thus, sustainable tourism development can be

considered in three aspects: environmental, economic

and social.

These three aspects should attract serious

attention from society, business and government. The

natural and agricultural environment must be

maintained and conserved. In doing so, from an

economic and sociocultural point of view, tourism

should be able to contribute to the development of

local society, improve its standard of living and

preserve its society, so that people have a good reason

to maintain the sustainability of tourism. (Amerta et

al., 2018).

Today, the boundaries of the concept of "tourist

infrastructure" are very vague, since there is no

generally accepted formulation of an integral system

of essential features that separate the object under

consideration from all similar ones. Often, tourism

infrastructure acts as a synonym for the entire tourism

industry, recreation infrastructure, is defined as the

material and technical base of tourism. Such

uncertainty impedes understanding of the essence of

tourism infrastructure as a basis for the development

of tourism and recreation activities and the regional

economy as a whole.

One of the main reasons for the difficulty in

defining tourism infrastructure is that tourism is a

heterogeneous industry (Dwyer et al., 2010). The

literature offers various approaches to the concept of

tourist infrastructure. Broadly speaking, tourism

infrastructure encompasses the physical, legal,

environmental and psychological factors that make a

tourism product enjoyable, reliable and sustainable

(Khadaroo and Seetanah, 2016). Hansen (1965), like

Mera (1973), views infrastructure as a collection of

economic and social overhead capital. Infrastructure

is mainly focused on the formation of prerequisites

for development, while recreational facilities are

factors for improving daily life. They should be

available every day and serve the local community

and visitors (Bell et al., 2007; Lewinson, 2001). The

tourism infrastructure is vast and linked to all the

elements of the destination that support and stimulate

tourism development (Swarbrooke and Horner,

2001). Consequently, various objects of regional

infrastructure and recreation can be considered as

elements of tourism infrastructure. Lohmann and

Netto (2017) included those facilities that tourists use

when leaving their residence, getting to their

destination and returning home.

The state of infrastructure has a strong influence

on the competitiveness of a destination (Murphy et

al., 2000), the efficiency of its production and

distribution of tourism services, and in some cases

determines the very possibility of providing tourism

services (Sakai, 2006). The emergence of the concept

of sustainable development has had a great influence

on the direction of research in the field of tourism

infrastructure. Researchers have shown interest in the

relationship between the health of transport

infrastructure and tourism development (Albalate et

al. 2017; Rehman Khan et al. 2017). The impact on

sustainability of such infrastructures, cycle paths and

hiking trails has been studied (Deenihan and

Caulfield, 2015; Olafsdottir and Runnstrom, 2013).

The results have reliably demonstrated the presence

of the influence of the state of objects on maintaining

stability. Empirical studies in Croatia have shown a

statistically significant correlation between the level

of tourism development and the state of tourism

infrastructure (Mandić et al., 2018).

State and municipal management of tourism

infrastructure mainly depends on the place of the

tourism industry in the general economic system of

the region. In some countries, the strengthening of the

tourism sector in rural and urban areas has resulted in

prioritization of the development and improvement of

hard infrastructure (physical assets), while soft

infrastructure (human resources) remains

underdeveloped (Thapa, 2012). From an economic

point of view, government intervention and

government investment are justified in a situation

where private business is unable to form the tourism

infrastructure. Infrastructure can be created and

maintained by the public or private sector, as

determined by domestic economic and social policies.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The theoretical basis of the research is the

fundamental and applied works of scientists and

specialists in the field of the theory of sustainable

development of territorial socio-economic systems,

analysis and assessment of the level of sustainability

of territorial entities. In the course of the research,

modern concepts in the field of sustainable

development and management of tourist areas were

widely applied.

The presented study is of an explanatory type. To

solve the set tasks, general scientific and specific

scientific methods of research were used, including

classification, methods of grouping and comparisons,

methods of logical and economic analysis,

Tourist Infrastructure as the Basis for Sustainable Development of the Destination

207

generalization and synthesis. Their application made

it possible to ensure the validity and reliability of the

conclusions and proposals.

The cities of Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kazan

were selected for the study as recognized centers of

international and Russian tourism.

The empirical part of the research was carried out

using the survey method.

In order to identify the unity of views or

disagreements, the survey was conducted among

consumers and stakeholders of the tourism industry.

700 questionnaires were sent by e-mail to tourists

visiting these cities. The survey was conducted during

2020. Within the framework of this study, 297 fully

completed questionnaires were received.

The stakeholder sample consisted of 29

respondents representing two types of tourism

activities:

 active entrepreneurs in the tourism sector (N =

19);

 local government representatives authorized to

represent the tourism sector (N = 10).

The study used a quantitative approach based on

the IPA method (importance-performance analysis)

(Eskildsen, Kristensen, 2006). The essence of the

methodology is to measure the level of people's

interest in the activities of other groups. Interest was

measured by comparing the level of expectations and

the level of performance.

The average scores on the criteria of "importance"

and "performance" were assessed on a five-point

Likert scale: 0-1.5 - "not at all important", 1.6-2.5 -

"not important", 2.6-3.5 - "indifferent ", 3.6-4.5 -"

important ", 4.6-5.0 -" very important "and 0-1.5 -"

completely dissatisfied ", 1.6-2.5 -" dissatisfied ", 2.6-

Possibly Overkill 3.5 - "partially satisfied", 3.6-4.5 -

"satisfied", 3.6-4.5 - "very satisfied"

At the final stage, the average scores are plotted

on a matrix for analysis. The matrix is represented by

two intersected coordinate axes “importance” and

“performance” that divide the space into four squares:

“Keep up the Good Work”, “Possibly Overkill”,

“Lower Priority” and “Concentrate Here".

The “Keep up the Good Work” square indicates

those attributes of the object that are important to

customers and with which they are satisfied. The

challenge for the tourism business is to maintain this

state of affairs. The “Possibly Overkill” square

indicates a possible overuse of resources on those

attributes of an object that are unimportant to

consumers and do not have a noticeable effect on their

behavior. The "Lower Priority" square identifies

those attributes of an object that have received

insufficient attention and resources. It is not

recommended to spend additional funds on these

attributes, as they also do not matter much to

consumers. The “Concentrate Here” square

highlights the problematic attributes of the object.

They are extremely important to consumers and

largely determine their behavior, but the tourism

industry does not devote enough attention and

resources to them.

To assess the respondents in the questionnaire, the

main groups of objects of tourist infrastructure were

presented:

Transport support: airport, railway and bus

stations, developed and accessible public transport

network, taxi, car rent, parking areas, high-quality

road network, car service modules (gas station, car

wash, sale of spare parts and minor repairs), auto

camping, equipped parking for tourist buses.

Accommodation: 4-5 star hotels, 1-3 star hotels,

hostels, recreation centers, individual residential

houses, rented apartments.

Catering: restaurants and cafes, canteens, fast

food outlets, street stalls.

Consumer, medical and financial services: malls,

supermarkets, small convenience stores, markets, dry

cleaners and laundries, hairdressing salons, repair

shops, medical centers, banks, ATM, currency

exchange offices.

Leisure and entertainment: museums, theaters, art

galleries, sports facilities, theme parks and

amusement parks, cinemas, exhibition complexes.

Information support and communication systems:

tourist information centers, mobile communication,

accessible internet.

Communal systems: power supply systems, water

supply and sewerage systems, outdoor lighting

systems.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis shows that 75% of all selected objects of

tourist infrastructure in the survey of tourists were

attributed to the square "Keep up the Good Work"

(Table 1). Stakeholders referred 68% of objects to the

same zone. At the same time, the least used square

turned out to be “Concentrate Here”: 6% among

tourists and stakeholders. Thus, we can talk about a

satisfactory assessment of the tourism infrastructure

in general by both groups of respondents. However,

these indicators are averaged; when considering the

“Importance - performance” matrices for individual

groups of infrastructure, the inconsistency of opinions

of the groups of respondents is revealed.

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

208

Table 1: The results of IPA.

№ The main objects

of tourist

infrastructure

Tourists Stakeholder

Importance

Performance

Importance

Performance

Transport support

1 airport 4.75 4.64 4.92 4.83

2 railway and bus

stations

4.87 4.75 4.56 4.43

3 developed and

accessible public

transport network

4.68 4.87 4.34 4.21

4 taxi 3.78 4.48 3.87 3.99

5 car rent 3.44 4.17 3.76 3.65

6 parking areas 4.15 3.76 3.68 3.32

7 high-quality road

network

4.59 4.44 4.54 4.21

8 car service

modules (gas

station, car wash,

sale of spare parts

and minor repairs)

3.32 4.53 3.96 3.55

9 auto camping 2.79 3.14 3.11 2.16

10 equipped parking

for tourist buses

2.96 1.98 3.43 3.08

Accommodation

11 4-5 star hotels 3.69 4.61 4.47 4.86

12 1-3 star hotels 4.64 4.12 4.56 4.24

13 hostels 3.74 3.96 4.13 3.65

14 recreation centers 3.65 3.45 3.86 3.32

15 individual

residential houses

3.01 4.29 3.21 3.97

16 rented apartments 4.54 4.21 3.67 3.43

Catering

17 restaurants and

cafes

4.67 4.32 4.94 4.54

18 canteens 3.68 3.05 2.73 2.04

19 fast food outlets 4.65 4.48 4.43 4.11

20 street stalls 4.13 3.46 3.55 3.06

Consumer, medical and financial services

21 malls 4.12 4.68 3.68 4.43

22 supermarkets 4.11 4.37 3.22 3.65

23 small convenience

stores

4.03 3.76 2.86 2.34

24 markets 3.87 3.98 3.45 3.32

dry cleaners and

laundries

2.87 3.65 3.11 3.13

hairdressing

salons

2.65 3.55 2.73 2.97

27 repair shops 3.04 3.74 2.98 3.24

28 medical centers 4.45 4.12 3.06 4.37

29 banks 4.38 4.36 4.54 4.45

30 ATM 4.68 4.59 4.46 4.21

31 currency

exchange offices

3.65 3.87 4.43 4.07

Leisure and entertainment

32 museums 4.78 4.92 4.95 4.88

33 theaters 4.05 4.87 4.13 4.54

34 art galleries 4.27 4.69 4.21 4.53

35 sports facilities 3.89 4.43 4.57 4.32

36 theme parks and

amusement parks

4.45 4.64 4.67 4.12

37 cinemas 3.98 4.15 3.54 3.65

38 exhibition

complexes

4.34 4.42 4.87 4.76

Information support and communication systems

39 tourist

information

centers

4.54 4.25 4.78 4.43

40 mobile

communication

4.87 4.75 4.46 4.31

41 accessible internet 4.85 4.23 4.33 4.16

Communal systems

42 power supply

systems

4.75 4.68 4.86 4.72

43 water supply and

sewerage systems

4.81 4.72 4.79 4.65

44 outdoor lighting

systems

4.47 4.11 4.65 4.23

Most of the objects of the "Transport Support"

group are significant for both groups of respondents

(Figure 1). For this part of the infrastructure alone, the

scores were distributed across all four squares.

Airports, rail and road transport, a well-developed

public transport network are very important for all

respondents. This opinion confirms that transport

accessibility is a prerequisite for the success of a

tourist destination. At the same time, respondents

note a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of

basic transport services. Campsites and equipped

tourist bus sites are categorized as Low Priority by

both groups.

Tourist Infrastructure as the Basis for Sustainable Development of the Destination

209

Figure 1: The Importance Performance Analysis of

Transport Support.

The respondents note the high importance of hotels,

while the importance of hotels of higher categories is

higher for stakeholders, while the segment of

inexpensive hotels and hostels is more attractive for

tourists. The matrix shows the underestimation by

stakeholders of such objects as rental apartments and

apartments (Figure 2). These objects are of very high

importance for tourists. Recreation centers,

individual dwelling houses showed an average level

of significance, in all likelihood, due to the fact that

the target group of their consumers is poorly

represented among the visitors of the selected

megacities. Finding most of the properties in the

“Keep up the Good Work”, “Possibly Overkill”

squares shows a high level of satisfaction with

destination accommodation facilities.

Figure 2: The Importance Performance Analysis of

Accommodation.

Tourists and stakeholders pointed to the high

importance of catering facilities such as restaurants,

cafes and fast food outlets (Figure 3). Canteens

received an average level of significance, mainly due

to visitors and respondents from St. Petersburg, where

this format is represented very widely. Street food for

both groups of respondents fell into the “Concentrate

Here" square, so entrepreneurs and authorities should

pay attention to this promising direction. In general,

both groups showed an excess of the level of

importance over the level of satisfaction for most

public catering facilities. This result highlights the

need to improve the quality of products and services

for this part of the infrastructure.

Figure 3: The Importance Performance Analysis of

Catering.

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

210

The composition of the objects of the group

"Household, medical and financial services" is rather

heterogeneous, the distribution of respondents'

answers in the matrix has a significant scatter (Figure

4). Trade enterprises turned out to be significant for

tourists, while they are not of high importance for

stakeholders. In the “Lower Priority” square, only the

assessments of stakeholders were found, while the

same positions were placed by the tourists in the

“Keep up the Good Work” square. On this element of

infrastructure, there is the greatest divergence of

opinions among tourists and stakeholders.

Figure 4: The Importance Performance Analysis of

Household, medical and financial services.

On the contrary, in the group “Organization of leisure

and entertainment” the respondents showed a

unanimous opinion, all positions were placed in the

square “Keep up the Good Work” (Figure 5). The

level of satisfaction consistently exceeds the level of

significance. This result can be called quite expected,

given that these facilities in Moscow, St. Petersburg

and Kazan occupy leading positions in their category

not only in the country, but also in the world.

Figure 5: The Importance Performance Analysis of

Organization of leisure and entertainment.

A similar situation has developed for the groups

"Information support and communication systems"

and "Communal systems" (Figures 6, 7). Modern

tourists are very demanding on the quality of mobile

communications and services of Internet providers.

High-quality utility services are highly significant for

all respondents. The level of satisfaction for these

positions is generally high, which is also expected for

the three largest metropolitan areas.

Figure 6: The Importance Performance Analysis of

Information support and communication systems.

Tourist Infrastructure as the Basis for Sustainable Development of the Destination

211

Figure 7: The Importance Performance Analysis of

Communal systems.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The results of the analysis indicate, on the whole, a

fairly favorable state of the tourist infrastructure of

the three largest megacities of Russia. Tourists

praised the importance and current quality of two-

thirds of the selected major infrastructure facilities.

Infrastructure is a key factor in ensuring

sustainable socio-economic development and

competitiveness of tourist destinations.

The selected destinations are the most

dynamically developing cities with a population of

over one million in Russia: the population and the

volume of tourist flow in the last decade have

outstripped the forecasts of the previous plans. The

new plans provide cities with balanced, sustainable

and polycentric development. This will make it

possible to more efficiently and more evenly

distribute the load on their infrastructure.

Moscow's strategic documents include tasks for

the implementation of the sustainable development

goals adopted by the UN. Moscow and eight other

cities and regions of the world participate in the pilot

project of the Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development "Regional dimensions

of sustainable development goals: structure and main

trends." Moscow is already ahead of other countries

participating in the project in terms of achieving

sustainable development goals.

In 2018, St. Petersburg became the first city in

Russia to join the Global Destination Sustainability

Index (GDS-Index), an international program that

contributes to the socio-economic and tourism

development of cities.

Kazan was the first city with a population of over

one million, where the regulation "On a Historical

Settlement" was adopted. It is the historical

settlement that is the core of the Kazan tourist

destination. In 2020, the Concept for Sustainable

Development of the Historical Settlement of Kazan

was adopted. It explains in detail how in 15 years to

radically change the infrastructure of the historical

core of Kazan, without losing its historical identity. It

is assumed that the Concept will become a model for

other Russian large cities.

Considering the importance of tourism

infrastructure, we can conclude that it performs a

number of functions. The tourism infrastructure

creates the necessary conditions for organizing tourist

services, organizes and maintains ties between

enterprises in the industry, forms territorial tourist

complexes, creates new jobs, affects consumer

demand, and contributes to the growth of tax revenues

to budgets of different levels.

Tourism infrastructure is a significant factor in

ensuring sustainable socio-economic development of

both destinations and regions in general. The three

studied destinations belong to cities with impressive

budgets, which partly explains the results obtained.

The application of the methodology used in other

regions would allow tourism stakeholders and

authorities to take a deeper look at the problems

associated with tourism infrastructure.

REFERENCES

Albalate, D., Campos, J., and Jimenez, J.L. (2017). Tourism

and high-speed rail in Spain: Does the AVE increase

local visitors, Annals of Tourism Research, 65: 71-82.

Amerta, I.M.S., Sara, I.M., and Bagiada, K. (2018).

Sustainable tourism development, International

Research Journal of Management, IT and Social

Sciences, 5(2): 248-254.

Bell, S., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., Pröbstl, U., and

Simpson, M. (2007). Outdoor Recreation and Nature

Tourism: A European Perspective, Living Review in

Landscape Research, 2: 1- 46.

Deenihan, G. and Caulfield, B. (2015). Do tourists value

different levels of cycling infrastructure? Tourism

Management, 46: 91-101.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., and Dwyer, W. (2010). Tourism

Economics and Policy, Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto,

Channel view publications.

Eskildsen J.K. and Kristensen К. (2006). Enhancing

importance-performance analysis, International

WFSDS 2021 - INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

212

journal of productivity and performance management,

1: 40-60.

Hansen, N.M. (1965). Unbalanced Growth and Regional

Development, Western Economic Journal, 4: 3-14.

Khadaroo, J. and Seetanah, B. (2007). Transport

infrastructure and tourism development, Annals of

tourism research, 34(4): 1021-1032.

Lewinson, D.M. (2001). Financing infrastructure over time,

Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 127(4):

146-157.

Lohmann, G. and Netto, A.P. (2017). Tourism theory

concepts, models and systems, CABI, Oxfordshire.

Mandić, A., Mrnjavac, Ž., and Kordić L. (2018). Tourism

infrastructure, recreational facilities and tourism

development, Tourism and Hospitality Management,

24(1): 1-22.

Mera, K. (1973). Regional production functions and social

overhead capital: An analysis of the Japanese case,

Regional and Urban Economics, 3: 157-186.

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M.P., and Smith, B. (2000). The

destination product and its impact on traveller

perceptions, Tourism Management, 21(1): 43-52.

Olafsdottir, R. and Runnstrom, M.C. (2013). Assessing

hiking trails condition in two popular tourist

destinations in the Icelandic highlands, Journal of

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 3-4: 57-57.

Rehman Khan, S.A., Qianli, D., SongBo, W., Zaman, K.,

and Zhang, Y. (2017). Travel and tourism

competitiveness index: The impact of air transportation,

railways transportation, travel and transport services on

international inbound and outbound tourism, Journal of

Air Transport Management, 58: 125-134.

Sakai, M. (2006). Public sector investment in tourism

infrastructure”, In: Dwyer, L., Forsyth. (eds.),

International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism,

Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, USA, Edward Elgar,

pages 266-279.

Slashchuk, A. and Bernadska, H. (2019). Scientific

approaches to conceptualization and classification of

tourist infrastructure, Ekonomichna ta Sotsialna

Geografiya, 81: 12-17.

Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (2001). Business travel and

tourism, Butterworth-Heinemann, Jordan Hill, Oxford.

Thapa, B. (2012). Soft-infrastructure in tourism

development in developing countries, Annals of

Tourism Research, 39(3): 1705-1710.

Tourist Infrastructure as the Basis for Sustainable Development of the Destination

213