GGeeooJJoouurrnnaall ooff TToouurriissmm aanndd GGeeoossiitteess Year XXIIII, vol. 25, no. 22, 22001199, p.556699–557799 [617053]

GGeeooJJoouurrnnaall ooff TToouurriissmm aanndd GGeeoossiitteess Year XXIIII, vol. 25, no. 22, 22001199, p.556699–557799
ISSN 22006655–11119988, E-ISSN 22006655–00881177 DOI 10.30892 /gtg. 2255222233–338811

http://gtg.webhost.uoradea.ro/

INFLUENCE OF BORDER REGIONS RELATIONS
ON THE TOURIST CHOICES OF THE POPULATION

Valentin S. KORNEEVETS**
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Department of Socio -Cultural
Service and Tourism, Kaliningrad, Russia, e -mail: [anonimizat]

Alexander G. REDKIN
Altai State University, Faculty of Geography, Department of Recreational Geography,
Tourism and Regional Marketing, Barnaul, Russia, e-mail: [anonimizat]

Tomash STUDZIENIECKI
Gdynia Maritime Academy, Gdynia, Poland, Morska 81/87, 81 -225 Gdynia,
Polonia , e-mail: [anonimizat]

Natalia A. ZAITSEVA
Immanuel Kant B altic Federal University, Department of Socio -Cultural Service and Tourism,
Kaliningrad, Russia; Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Department of Hospitality,
Tourism and Sports Industry, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: zaitseva -[anonimizat]

Citation: Korneevets, V.S., Redkin, A.G., Studzieniecki, T., & Zaitseva, N.A. (2019 ).
INFLUENCE OF BORDER REGIONS RELATIONS ON THE TOURIST CHOICES OF THE
POPULATION . GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites , 25(2 ), 569–579.
https://doi.org/10.30892/gtg.25223 -381

Abstract : The relevance of the research topic is determined by the differences in
the conditions of Russian border regions development depending on their type, as
well as certain tourism features in these territories. The purpose of the study is to
identify and justify differences in the tourist preferences of border regions
residents. The subjects of this research are so called development corridorborder
region, re presented by the Kaliningrad region, and the peripheral resource region,
represented by the Altai Krai. The choice of regions is defined by the high level of
tourist industry development. While doing the research, the authors of the article
used general re search methodology, quantitative and qualitative assessment,
methods of economic, statistical, comparative and factor analysis, statistical
groupings, and sociological observation. A statistical analysis revealed and
analytically justified the difference i n the level of socio -economic development of
the Kaliningrad region and the Altai Krai. Development corridors show significant
advantages in foreign trade and the size of the gross regional product, which
confirms the correctness of the considered approach es to the classification of
border regions. A sociological survey of tourist preferences showed differences in
the tourist orientation of young people that correlate with the typology of border
regions, which may define the developed programs for the marke ting promotion of
tourist destinations considering the main barriers.

* Corresponding author

Valentin S. KORNEEVETS, Alexander G. REDKIN, Tomash STUDZIENIECKI, Natalia A. ZAITSEVA

570 Keywords : cross -border cooperation, border regions, socio -economic development,
Russian Federation, tourism

* * * * * *

INTRODUCTION
The development of cross -border relations and cros s-border cooperation is an
important tool for overcoming the negative consequences of the peripheral nature of
border regions. Therefore, the study of the cross -border relations experience and the
development of cross -border regions are particularly releva nt for the border regions of
Russia. Only 5 out of 37 Russian regions are located on the border with the European
Union (the Republic of Karelia, the Murmansk Leningrad, Pskov and Kaliningrad
regions), but these regions are currently the most active parti cipants in cross -border
cooperation and initiate the development of integration processes between Russia and the
European Union. The extended length of Russian land borders (including river and lake
borders) of 24,625.3 km increases the importance of inter national cooperation for the
state, especially cooperation between the Russian Federation and the border states, which
confirms the relevance of research on cross -border and border regions .
Russian land border is the longest. It is 7512.8 km with Kazakhst an, 4209.3 km
with China, and 3485 km with Mongolia. The minimum length of land borders with
North Korea (DPRK) is 17.3 km, South Ossetia is 70 km, and with Poland it is 204.1 km.
However, in itself, the length of borderlines with the countries and region s does not affect
the intensity of cross -border links. Thus, in terms of foreign trade turnover with Russia,
Kazakhstan (with a maximum length of land borders) and Poland (with a minimum
length of borders) are approximately equal: 15.5 billion US dollars w ith Kazakhstan and
14.5, with Poland (http://www.customs.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id =
13858&Itemid=2095) respectively. During this period, according to the border service, the
number of Russian tourists amounted to 3.4 thousand in Kazakhstan, and 32 thousand
went to Poland, which absolutely does not correlate with the length of borders. Therefore,
in order to make decisions about the intensification of re lations between border and
cross -border regions, it is necessary to have a good understanding of their specifics and
development potential, including the clustering of goods production and services.

RESEARCH METHODS AND MATERIALS
The study of key issues o f developing and adapting quantitative and qualitative
indicators for assessing the competitiveness of the hospitality industry was carried out
using some information sources like Tourism Market Trends UN WTO, The Travel &
Tourism Competitiveness Report 20 17, materials of scientific conferences on the
development of tourism in the regions, research papers on the role of tourism in the
development of border areas. While studying the problems of quantitative and qualitative
assessment of differences in touris t preferences of residents of border regions, traditional
research methods were used. In addition, when conducting a comparative analysis of
various types of border regions, general scientific methods of cognition were used,
including theoretical studies ( analysis, synthesis, aggregation) and empirical (observation,
comparison), as well as a systematic approach, economic and statistical methods,
comparative and facto r analysis, statistical methods groupings, sociological observation.

PUBLICATIONS’ REVIEW
TYPES AND FEATURES OF BORDER REGIONS
Based on the study of previously published works on the border regions
development ( Zubarevich, 2010; Klemeshev et al., 2004; Mezhevich, 2002; Korneevets

Influence of Border Regions Relations on the Tourist Choices of the Population

571 et al., 2015; Korneevets et al., 2017), it can be concluded that t hese regions represent
special types of territories, the specific development of which is determined by
functional dualism of the border, combining barrier and contact functions. In case of
unfriendly relations between the countries, the border can become an insurmountable
barrier to the communication, as it happened with the Russia – Ukraine border. When
the cooperation between neighbors is developing, like between Russia and China,
growing flows of goods, services, and the population pass across borders. In such cases,
the border regions may become “development corridors” (Klemeshev et al., 2004). That
is, the functionality of the boundaries is dynamic and may change either to increase the
contact function, or to enhance the barrier function of the boundar y.
At the same time, as noted by J. Berdell and An. Goshal (2015), border regions may
be either active areas of commercial exchange that contribute to the development of their
larger economies, or, on the other hand, they may be relatively isolated periphe ral areas
where their stagnation reduces national progress as a whole. We agree with Cooper and
Rumford (2013), who believe that boundaries should be considered as mechanisms of
connectivity and interaction, but not as markers of separation. The unique loc ation of cities
near the borders (on the example of Gdansk and Kaliningrad), according to Studzińska and
Domanevsky (2016), can be a major factor in the development of border regions. That will
affect the transformation of the border function by increasing its permeability and will be a
resource for the development of local communities. J. Frie dmann’s (1968) typology of the
border regions which is recommended to be applied to Russian ones (with a land border),
distinguishes between the following types of regions: core regions, transitional developing
regions; transition crisis regions; periphera l resource regions; development corridors. St.
Petersburg and the Leningrad Region have the highest level of development of cross –
border ties, which we consider as a single territorial system that belongs simultaneously
to core regions and development corr idors. The function of the development corridor here
is implied in the conditions of a developed industrial, scientific, educational, and socio –
cultural potential of St. Petersburg, which is also the second most important center of
inbound foreign tourism in Russia after Moscow. The regions – development corridors in
Russia include the Kaliningrad region and the Primorsky Krai, which connect other
Russian regions with foreign countries in the west and east of Russia, respectively, and
the development of the se two regions is largely determined by their transit role .
Gumenyuk and Studzieniecki (2018) note that transport is both a tool for
strengthening cross -border links, and an object of cross -border cooperation, which
includes joint transport projects and th e creation of transport and logistics corridors. A
number of researchers (A.P. Klemeshev, G.M. Fedorov) additionally distinguish a special
subtype of regions — development corridors located not between national regions (as in J.
Friedmann), but between the m and the core regions of foreign countries.
These regions include, on the one hand, the Kaliningrad region (as a development
corridor between Russia and the EU), and on the other, the Baltic Euro -region, which
functions as a development corridor in the e conomic system of the Baltic space
(Klemeshev et al., 2004) . Given transitional developing regions, transitional crisis regions
and peripheral resource regions, we can distinguish various groups of border regions
(with land borders) according to their deve lopment, calculated on a set of indicators of
GRP and foreign trade per capita, the ratio of nominal wages to the cost of consumer
goods and services , population migration dynamics (Korneevets, 2010).

REVISION OF THE TYPOLOGY OF BORDER AREAS CONSIDERING
THE CURRENT FEATURES OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT
Given the specificity of the border regions development, manifested in various

Valentin S. KORNEEVETS, Alexander G. REDKIN, Tomash STUDZIENIECKI, Natalia A. ZAITSEVA

572 combinations of border barrier and contact functions, a common typology of Martinez
(1994) can be added to the classification of borde r (with land border) regions according to
the degree of development of their relations with neighboring regions. Based on the
classification of B. Van der Velde (1997), a number of researchers, including V.
Korneevets and N. Zaitseva, distinguish the follo wing types of Russian border regions
(Korneevets et al., 2017 ; Zaitseva et al., 2016 ).
A) alienated border regions: the Republic of the North Caucasus (except for
Dagestan) and, in part, the border regions of Russia and Ukraine;
B) co -existing border regio ns (Dagestan; a number of regions on the borders with
China and Mongolia);
C) interdependent border regions (regions on the borders with Kazakhstan, Belarus
and partly with the countries of the European Union, the trend in this direction is in
regions bord ering on China);
D) there are still no integrated border regions, although all regions on the borders
with Kazakhstan and Belarus have the same prerequisites, to the greatest extent – the
Smolensk region.
The typology of border regions was further develope d in the works of L.
Osmolovskaya, who transforms definitions of types of border regions in accordance
with current trends and complements typology with a fifth type of border regions: open
(barrier -free) border regions. First of all, interior regions with in the European Union
may be related to this type of border region (Osmolovskaya, 2016). In general, the
factors that determine the development of relations between various subjects located on
both sides of the border, the development of border regions and the formation of cross –
border regions are diverse. We can distinguish between objective and subjective,
internal and external, general, private and special factors.
They can be classified in accordance with the functional structure of the society
dependi ng on which of the territorial socio -economic systems is involved in the
formation of cross -border regions. It is most advisable to consider political, economic,
social, demographic, ethnic, ekistics, environmental and natural factors. In some cases,
it is possible to use the basic factors of spatial development identified by the World
Bank, which can fall into three main groups, as states N. Zubarevich (2010):
A) density, taking into account the agglomeration effect;
B) economic distance, determined by rem oteness from the global and domestic markets;
C) various institutional divisions, including the barrier function of borders.
Although these factors are most often considered in relation to the development of
countries and national regions, since the latter include the border regions, it can be
argued that these groups of factors are significant to various types of cross -border
regions. At the same time, as Voloshenko (2018) notes, the border position of a region
and its assumed distance or isolation (for ex ample, in our study such are the Kaliningrad
region and the Altai Krai) from the largest industrial -technological, resource and
production centers places special demands on balanced development of such territories
from the standpoint of ensuring internal g rowth and socio -economic development .
Considering the development of border regions, it should be noted that in the
early stages tourism can be one of the mechanisms to facilitate cross -border
cooperation followed by transformation into a diversified econo mic center due to the
multiplication effect and the formation of a favorable investment climate, followed by a
transition from alienated to integrated regions. At the same time, the administrative
focus on tourism in transboundary regional development can be considered as a tool for
gaining socio -economic and political power through a commitment to broader
participation in the development of international cooperation ( Stoffelen et al., 2017 ;

Influence of Border Regions Relations on the Tourist Choices of the Population

573 Ilies et al., 2018 ). Conversely, borders can serve as additional o bstacles for sustainable
development if they lead to situations where “different interest groups in the region are
differently involved in the process of cross -border regionalization”.

OUTCOMES OF THE RESEARCH
ASSESSMENT OF THE STATE AND DEVELOPMENT PROSP ECTS OF
THE BORDER REGIONS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Previously, the author's research showed that in addition to St. Petersburg, the
Leningrad and Kaliningrad regions, Belgorod and Tyumen regions are among the most
developed border regions of Russia. The level of development of such frontier
industrial -agrarian regions, as Orenburg, Chelyabinsk and Novosibirsk, as well as a
number of raw material regions (Murmansk Region, Karelia, Khabarovsk Krai) is above
the average. Accordingly, they have a greater pote ntial of their own for cross -border
cooperation. The southern regions of the European part of the country and the
Krasnodar Krai are of the average level of development. All of them have a certain
potential for the development of cross -border relations. A low level of development is
characteristic of the three border regions located on the border with Belarus (the Pskov,
Smolensk, Bryansk regions), which belong to transitional crisis regions, and the Kurgan
region, which is a group of peripheral resource re gions .
In the east of the country, as far east as from the Altai Krai and the Jewish
Autonomous Region, the regions have a low and a very low (Tyva) level of development.
All the border republics of the North Caucasus belong to regions with a very low lev el of
development; their potential for cross -border cooperation is poor, which makes it
possible to attribute them to transitional crisis regions .
All regions of the Russian Federation bordering on Kazakhstan can be attributed to
peripheral resource region s, less densely populated and less developed, the economy here
is primarily industrial -agrarian, and a number of regions are characterized by an
increased specific weight of the extracting industries. Among the transitional and
peripheral resource regions, in addition to developing and crisis ones, we can distinguish
an intermediate type – stable regions, which do not show either serious crisis phenomena
or dynamic development. These regions include the Krasnodar and Altai Krais, the
Astrakhan and Novosibir sk regions. It should be noted that in conditions of political
crisis situations leading to sanctions policy (border regions with the European Union)
or interrupting economic ties (border regions with Ukraine), the typology of border
regions may change fro m developing to stable. But most often, this influence has a
short -term effect, prior to the search for new trading partners and markets.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF BORDER REGIONS
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
In their studies, the authors condu cted a comparative analysis of two Russian
border regions belonging to different classification types, based on the above -mentioned
analysis of approaches to the typology of regions (Ilies et al., 2014) . The objects of
research are the Kaliningrad region, which has common borders with the states of the
European Union Poland – 236.3 km and Lithuania – 288.4 km, and the Altai Krai, which
has a border with Kazakhstan – 844 km, a member of the Commonwealth of Independent
States (Fig ure 1). At the same time, des pite the shorter length of the borders, the
Kaliningrad region has more border -crossing checkpoints: 14 in the Kaliningrad region
and 13 in the Altai Krai. The density of land border -crossing checkpoints in the
Kaliningrad region is much higher than in the Altai Krai: from 50 km to one checkpoint
on the border with Poland, up to 170 km on the border with Kazakhstan. In accordance

Valentin S. KORNEEVETS, Alexander G. REDKIN, Tomash STUDZIENIECKI, Natalia A. ZAITSEVA

574 with J. Friedmann’s typology of the regions and the previous studies, the Kaliningrad
region belongs to development corridors, wh ile the Altai Krai, as less densely populated
and less developed, has an industrial -agrarian economy, belongs to peripheral resource
regions with 17.4% in the structure of the gross regional product against 4.8% for the
Kaliningrad region. The population density in the Altai Krai (table 1) is 14.1 people / km2,
which is significantly lower than the Kaliningrad region with its 65.2 people / km2.

Figure 1. Geographic location of the Kaliningrad region and the Altai Krai

Table 1. Socio -economic chara cteristics of the Kaliningrad region and the Altai Krai
(Data source: Complied and calculated on http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b17_14s/IssWWW.exe/Stg/.doc )

Indicators The Kaliningrad regi on The Altai Krai
Total area, thousand km2 15,1 168,0
Population, thousand people (as of January 1, 2017) 986,3 2365,7
Population density, people / km2 (as of January 1, 2017) 65,2 14,1
The largest cities, thousand people Kaliningrad – 467,3 Barnaul – 633,3
Biysk – 203,1
Rubtsovsk – 145,3
National population structure, 2010 census, % Russians – 86,4
Ukrainians – 3,7
Belorussians – 3,6 Russians – 93,9
Germans – 2.1
Ukrainians – 3,7
Per capita cash income (per month), rub. 25903 21485
Consumer basket (at the end of the year) 14547 12721
The ratio of cash income to the cost of the
consumer basket 1,78 1,69
Gross regional product, per capita, rub . 337990 206712
Revenues of the consolidated budget of the subject,
mln. rub. 85509 99465
Revenues of the consolidated budget of the subject
per capita, rub. 86697 42045
Foreign trade turnover, mln. 7047 968,4

Influence of Border Regions Relations on the Tourist Choices of the Population

575 Considering the demographic, ethnic, ekistics factors of border regions
development, it should be noted that the dominance of the titular nation in th e national
composition of the population does not make much difference between regions: 86.4% of
Russians in the Kaliningrad region and 93.9% in the Altai Krai. The structure of
settlement in the Altai Krai is more optimal than in the Kaliningrad region, w here 47.4%
of the region’s inhabitants live in the regional center (26.8% in Barnaul), and the
population in the secondary urban center is almost 12 times higher than in the major
one (in the Altai Krai, this ratio is slightly higher than 3). The most sign ificant
differences between regions are manifested in the demographic situation: the
Kaliningrad region is characterized by increasing migration dynamics – from +4 ppm in
2008 to +10 ppm in 2016, in contrast to the growing negative migration balance in the
Altai Krai (respectively: -2.0 and -2.7 ppm). Since 2000, the population in the Altai Krai
has decreased by 10.8%, while in the Kaliningrad region it has increased by 2.9% .
Regarding the Kaliningrad region, it should be noted after G. Fedorov (2018) that
the maritime situation clearly has a positive effect on its more favorable demographic and
socio -economic characteristics. In general, the border regions, including the Altai Krai,
being peripheral (according to the polarization hypothesis), find themselve s in a
demographically more difficult position than the internal ones (especially if the barrier
functions prevail over the contact ones). To identify the subtype of the border region, we
will conduct a comparative assessment of the regional development dy namic factors for
both the Kaliningrad region and the Altai Krai in 2008 and 2016 (Table 2).

Table 2. Dynamic factors of regional development of the Kaliningrad
region and the Altai Krai in 2008 and 2016 (Data source: Complied and calculated on
http://ww w.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b17_14s/IssWWW.exe/Stg/.doc)

GRP per
capita
(thousand
rubles) Foreign trade
turnover per
capita
(US dollars) The ratio of nominal
wages to the cost of
consumer goods and
services Migration growth
(+) or loss ( -), pers.
per 1000 tota l
population
The Kaliningrad
region 2008 193,9 10799 2,06 +4,0
2016 338,0 7140 2,02 +10,0
The Altai Krai 2008 107,4 790 1,61 -2,0
2016 206,7 409 1,67 -2,7

As can be seen from table 2, the social development factors of the two border
regions are som ewhat better in the Kaliningrad region, since the level of per capita cash
income and the ratio of income and nominal wages to the cost of consumer goods and
services are higher than in the Altai Krai. Although it is worth noting the decline of this
indica tor in the Kaliningrad region from 2.06 in 2008 to 2.02 in 2016, against the
growth in Altai Krai from 1.61 to 1.67, which is primarily due to the greater orientation
of the Kaliningrad regional consumer market for imported goods, which in the
conditions o f decrease in the exchange difference of the national currency led to a more
significant increase in prices. Economic factors were described with three main
indicators, i.e. gross regional product, foreign trade turnover and the consolidated
budget of the region. All economic indicators of the effectiveness of regional
development per capita are significantly higher in the Kaliningrad region .
The gross regional product in 2016 amounted to 338 thousand rubles per capita
(in the Altai Krai – 206.7 thousand r ubles), and the revenue of the consolidated budget
is 86.7 thousand rubles per capita (in the Altai Krai it is 42.0 thousand rubles.). But the
difference in the gross regional product between the regions gradually decreases: if in

Valentin S. KORNEEVETS, Alexander G. REDKIN, Tomash STUDZIENIECKI, Natalia A. ZAITSEVA

576 2008 the gross regional p roduct per capita of the Altai Krai was 55.4% of the level of the
Kaliningrad region, then in 2016 this figure was 61.1%. However, this was not due to
higher rates of economic development, but due to the multidirectional dynamics of
population change: grow th in the Kaliningrad region and decline in the Altai Krai.
The most significant difference between the regions is manifested in the foreign
trade turnover of the regions: $ 7,140 per capita in 2016 in the Kaliningrad region and
only $ 409 in the Altai Kr ai, with an average Russian figure of $ 3,215.
These economic indicators confirm the Kaliningrad region to be one of
development corridors, and the Altai Krai to be a stable peripheral resource region in
accordance with the considered typology of border re gions.

EVALUATION OF THE TOURIST CHOICES OF THE RF BORDER
REGIONS POPULATION (ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE KALININGRAD
REGION AND THE ALTAI KRAI)
The tourism sector in the Kaliningrad region and the Altai Krai is quite developed
and has developed dynamically in recent years, especially after 2013. In 2016, 1,300
tourists visited the Kaliningrad region and 2050 people came to the Altai Krai
(http://tourism.gov39.ru/ ; http://alttur22.ru/pages/turizm -v-cifrah -v-altayskom -krae ).
In the national tourist rating of the Information Communications Center “Rating” for
2016, Altai Krai ranks the 7th, while the Kaliningrad Oblast is the 9th (http://russ ia-
rating.ru/info/10950.html). Although Altai Krai is rated higher for tourist
attra ctiveness, the density of tourist flows is higher in the Kaliningrad region: 1.32
tourists per region or 86 tourists per km2. In the Altai Krai, these figures are 0.9 tourists
per capita and 12.2 tourists per km2. At the same time, both border regions spec ialize in
health tourism and have areas with the status of federal resorts: for example,
Belokurikha in Altai or Svetlogorsk in the Kaliningrad region .
The number of sanatorium and recreation centers in the Altai Krai significantly
exceeds that in the Kal iningrad region. Also, in these regions gambling and
entertainment zones have been established. Both regions have a high level of
development of rural and event tourism. However, it should be noted the low level of
inbound foreign tourism and, if in the Ka liningrad region it reaches a figure of 10% of
the total tourist flow, in the Altai Krai the share of foreign tourists is only 0.5%. When it
comes to outbound tourism there are significant differences in travel destinations. In
the Altai Krai, the share of travel to other Russian regions is high in sales of package
tours, 72.2% go to other regions of Russia and 27.8% in other countries. In the
Kaliningrad region, they are more focused on foreign tourism than on holidays in
Russia: 70.7% travel to other coun tries and only 29.3% travel around Russia
(http://akstat.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat/ts/akstat/resources/.htm ; http://kalin
ingrad. gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect /rosstat_ts/kaliningrad/ resources/).
To assess the impact of the typology of these regions and their border location on
the population tourist orientation, including that of young pe ople, a survey of students
whose major is geography or tourism was conducted in the Immanuel Kant Baltic
Federal University and Altai State University. The choice of these study fields was
determined by a higher level of knowledge about countries and desti nations so that to
reduce the number of random responses and provide for comparability of the groups.
The survey methodology is presented in the work of T. Studzieniecki (2018).
The question “Where would you go with a tourist purpose?” emphasized the
touri st attractiveness of border countries and cross -border macro -regions. Altai
students in their responses identified 43 countries, and Kaliningrad residents only 29,
which partly indicates a better formation of tourist preferences, and higher proportion

Influence of Border Regions Relations on the Tourist Choices of the Population

577 of people traveling abroad. Country preferences also have a significant difference. In the
Altai Krai, countries such as Italy, USA, Norway and China received the highest
preference among young people (from 10 to 12 answers out of 161 or from 6.2% to 7.5%
of the respondents), while in the Kaliningrad region Germany was the top choice for 15,
8% of respondents and Sweden for 14.2%. Of greatest interest is the tourist orientation
to the border countries and cross -border macroregions. Only 3.1% of Altai respondent s
(in Kaliningrad, -0) mentioned bordering Kazakhstan.
In Kaliningrad, Poland was chosen by 2.5% of the respondents, and no one
mentioned Lithuania. Why do such a small number of respondents choose bordering
countries for traveling? The main reason relate s to the fact that the majority of
respondents have already visited these countries: 66.7% of respondents have visited
Lithuania, and 65% have been to Poland. To this is added the so -called accessibility
phenomenon, when a short -term trip to a neighboring country or region is easily made
at any convenient time and with no planning.
For a cross -border macroregion, the situation is somewhat different. Less remote
Asian countries, including Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China, account for 13% of
potential tourist d emand from the Altai Krai. Having added South Korea and Japan,
this figure rises to 18%. As for Kaliningrad, the potential demand for this region
amounted to only 2.4% (one response per China, Japan and South Korea).
The Baltic Sea region, which includes the Kaliningrad region as well, is more
attractive for tourists: 38.4% of respondents would like to visit the Baltic region
countries from Kaliningrad, and 6.2% from the Altai Krai (Germany, ranked first, is
likely to be visited by 5% of respondents). The distribution of potential tourist demand
for the Baltic region from the side of Kaliningrad students was: Germany – 41.1%,
Sweden – 37.1%, Denmark – 10.9%, Poland – 6.5% and Finland – 4.4% (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Structure of potential tourist demand fo r the
Baltic Sea region countries by Kaliningrad students

As it can be seen from Figure 2, none of the respondents identified the Baltic
countries (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) as potential travel destinations, which is
primarily associated with a ne gative assessment of the political situation and inter -ethnic
relations, in particular official attitudes towards the Russian -speaking population.
When travelling, visa formalities cause the greatest troubles, – for 54.2% of all
interviewed, while financia l well -being – 45.8%. For Altai students, these problems are

Valentin S. KORNEEVETS, Alexander G. REDKIN, Tomash STUDZIENIECKI, Natalia A. ZAITSEVA

578 more acute, given the distance from the main centers of tourism and the lack of visa
centers and consulates. Even for visa -free countries, the cost of tours between regions
is significantly diffe rent. For example, for the most popular outbound destination, the
cost of an all included tour package in a five -star hotel in Turkey for 10 nights (other
things being equal) in July 2018 was 61479 rubles from Kaliningrad and 77722 rubles
from Barnaul whic h is 16 thousand rubles more.
For weekend tours there is also a big difference due to the remoteness of cities,
which leads to higher travel costs and reduce the time spent in the tourist center.
According to the Autodispatcher (https://www.avtodispetcher .ru/distance/), in the
vicinity of 100 km from Kaliningrad’s there are urban centers with a population of over
100 thousand: Elblag, Poland, is 102 km away, Klaipeda, Lithuania, is 136 km away and
Berlin is 684 km away. In Barnaul, the situation is differe nt because of the peripheral
nature of the situation: the distance to Pavlodar in Kazakhstan is 517 km, to Astana –
1027 km, and to Beijing – 4380 km. The cost of air travel from Kaliningrad to Berlin is
9,278 rubles, and from Barnaul – 28,390 rubles.
Thus, residents of the Kaliningrad region, including students, have a number of
advantages in implementing their tourism plans compared to residents of the Altai Krai
and are more oriented towards neighboring countries.

CONCLUSION
The study was based on seve ral ideas: firstly, the development of cross -border
relations and participation in various forms of cross -border cooperation is an important
tool for overcoming the negative consequences of the peripheral character of border
regions, secondly, the types of border regions from core regions to transition crisis
regions determine behavioral characteristics of the population.
At the same time, in the early stages of the development of border regions,
tourism can be one of the mechanisms to start developing cros s-border cooperation
with subsequent transformation into a diversified economic center due to the
multiplication effect and favorable investment climate. The border Kaliningrad region
as a development corridor brings significant economic advantages in the development
of cross -border relations in comparison with the Altai Krai, which belongs to peripheral
resource regions. These advantages are transformed into a higher standard of living of
the population, which ultimately determines the tourist preferences .
Research on tourism preferences can influence the adjustment of marketing
policies with respect to a number of destinations, as well as the coordinated
development of border areas of neighboring states, with the aim of diversifying the
economy and creati ng favorable conditions for stimulating inbound tourism.

REFERENCES

Berdell , J., & Ghoshall , An. (2015). US –Mexico border tourism and day trips: an aberration in globalization? Lat
Am Econ Rev 24:15.
Cooper , A., & Rumford , C. (2013). Monumentalising the border: bordering through connectivity . Mobilities 8(1),
pp. 107 –124.
Fedorov , G.M. (2018). Demographic Situation and Demographic Security in the Regions of Russia’s Western
Borderlands. Baltic Region , Vol. 10, № 3. pp. 119 -135.
Friedmann , J. (1968) . Regional development policy, 173 p. Mass.: The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Gumenyuk , I.S., & Studzieniecki , T. (2018). Current and Prospective Transport Connections between Poland’s
Border Voivodeships and Russi a’s Kaliningrad Region. Baltic Region , Vol. 10, № 2, pp. 114 —132.
Ilies A. (Coord.), Baias S ., Baias Iuliana, Blaga L., Buhaș S., Chiriac A., Ciocan Janeta, Dăncuș M., Deac Anca,
Dragoș P., Dumitrescu G., Gaceu O., Godea I., Gozner Maria, Grama V., Herman G., Hodor N.,
Hurley P., Ilieș Dorina, Ilieș Gabriela, Ilieș M., Josan Ioana, Leșe G., Măduța F., Mojolic Diana, Morar

Influence of Border Regions Relations on the Tourist Choices of the Population

579 C., Olaru M., Stașac M., Stupariu M., Sturza Amalia, Ștefănescu B., Tătar Corina, Vârnav R., Vlaicu M.,
& Wendt J.A., (2014) . Crisana -Mar amures. Atlas geografic al patrimoniului turistic/ Geographical
atlas of tourism heritage, 302 pp., Editura Universității din Oradea, ISBN 978 -606-10-1298 -5.
Ilies, D.C., Buhas, R., Ilies, M., Ilies, A., Gaceu, O., Pop, A.C., Marcu, F., Buhas, S.D., Gozner , M., & Baias, S.
(2018). Sport Activities and Leisure in Nature 2000 Protected Area – Red Valley, Romania. Journal of
Environmental Protection and Ecology , 19, No 1, 367 –372
Klemeshev , A.P., & Federov , G.M. (2004). From an isolated exclave – to the "devel opment corridor": alternatives to
the Russian exclave in the Baltic, Kaliningrad: Kaliningrad State University, p. 253 (in Russ.).
Korneevets , V.S. (2010). Classification of border regions of Russia. Regional Studies , Smolensk: Smolensk
Humanitarian Univer sity, no. 4, pp. 48 -53 (in Russ.).
Korneevets V.S., & Zaitseva , N.A., Dragileva I.I., Shabliauskene E.V. (2017). Assessment of the Prospects for
Cross -Border Cooperation in the Conditions of the Changing Function of the Border. Eurasian Journal
of Analitic al Chemistry , 12 (Interdisciplinary Perspective on Sciences 7b), pp. 1375 –1382.
Korneevets , V.S., Kropinova , E.G., & Dragileva , I.I. (2015). The Current Approaches to the Transborder Studies in
the Sphere of Tourism. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5 (Special Issue), pp. 65 -73.
Martinez , O.J. (1994). The dynamics of border interaction. Glob Bound World Bound , 1:1–15, Routledge, London.
Mezhevich , N.M. (2002). Regional economic policy of the Russian Federation: the impact of cross -border
cooperation on traditional and new implementation mechanisms. Saint -Petersburg: St Petersburg
University, p. 172 (in Russ.).
Osmolovskay , L.G. (2016). Border functions as a factor of development of border regions and the formation of
cross -border regi ons. IKBFU's Vestnik. Ser. Natural and medical sciences , no. 1, p. 45 -54 (in Russ.).
Stoffelen , A., Ioannides , D., & Vanneste D. (2017). Obstacles to achieving cross -border tourism governance: A multi –
scalar approach focusing on the German -Czech borderland s. Annals of Tourism Research , 64, pp. 126 –138.
Studzieniecki T., Wanagos M., & Urbanyi -Popiolek I. (2018). Kaliningrad Region as a Tourist Generating Area
for the Baltic Sea Region. In Paper Prepared for the 32nd International Scientific Conference on
Economic and Social Development – Odessa, 21 -22 June 2018, pp. 139 -147.
Studzińska , D., & Domaniewski S. (2016). The border as a resource for the development of borderland: a
comparative analysis of two polish urban centres at the external border of the Eur opean Union.
Quaestiones Geographicae , 35(4).
Van der Velde, B. (1997). So Many Regions, So Many Borders. A Behavioral Approach in the Analysis of Border
Effects. In Paper Prepared for the 37th European Congress of the European Regional Science
Association , Rome.
Voloshenko , E.V., & Voloshenko , K. Yu. (2018). Evaluating and Measuring the Security of Russia’s Border
Regions: Theory and Practice. Balti с Region , Vol. 10, no 3, pp. 96 —118.
Zaitseva, N.A., Korneevets , V.S., Kropinova, E.G., Kuznetsova, T.Y., & Semenova, L.V. (2016). Cross -border
movement of people between Russia and Poland and their influence on the economy of border regions.
International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues , Vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1690 -1695.
Zubarevich , N. (2010). Regional development and institutions: Russian spicifics. Regional Studies , Smolensk:
Smolensk Humanitarian University, no. 2, pp. 3 -14 (in Russ).
*** Departme nt of the Federal State Statistics Service for the Altai Territory and the Altai Republic. Key
performance indicators of tourist firms in the Altai Territory. Retrieved from: http://akstat.gks.ru/wps/
wcm/connect/rosstat_ts/akstat/resources/.htm [Accessed 11 July 2018].
*** Federal Customs Service. Retrieved from: http://www.customs.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view
=article&id =13858&Itemid=2095 [Accessed 11 July 2018].
*** Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Kaliningrad region, (2017). Annual report on the implementation
and evaluation of the effectiveness of the state program of the Kaliningrad region "Tourism" for 2016 .
Retrieved from: http://tourism.gov39.ru/ [Accessed 16 May 2018].
*** National Touristic Rating, 2016. Retrieved from: http://russia -rating.ru/info/10950.html [Accessed 20 June 2017].
*** Official Website Auto Dispatcher. Retrieved from: https://www.avtodisp etcher.ru/distance/ [Accessed 25
July 2018].
*** Regions of Russia. (2017). Main characteristics of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation .
Retrieved from: http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b17_14s/IssWWW.exe/Stg/.doc [Accessed 15 July 2018].
*** Ter ritorial organ of the Federal State Statistics Service for the Kaliningrad region. Key performance
indicators of travel companies. Retrieved from: http://kaliningrad.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/r osstat_
ts/kaliningrad/resources/ [Accessed 12 September 2017].
*** Tourism by numbers for the 12 months of 2016. Retrieved from: http://alttur22.ru/pages/turizm -v-cifrah -v-
altayskom -krae [Accessed 15 May 2018].

Submitted: Revised: Accepted and publishe d online
15.04.201 9 05.06.201 9 27.06.201 9