Impact of Cross-Border Tourism on the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas in the Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh Borderlands

Abstract

Rural areas and peripheral borderland territories are experiencing socio-economic marginalization featuring depopulation, population aging, and an increasing inequality gap in the quality of life compared to cities. Integrated rural tourism is argued to be ideal for supporting the well-being of rural communities, providing an additional income, decreasing unemployment, offering new and appealing jobs out of traditional rural activities, while preserving the conventional lifestyle. In this study, we discovered the tourism capacity of rural borderland territories affected by cross-border tourism using the data on the geography of cross-border movements, the distribution of tourist sights, and the density of tourist accommodation facilities. The geographical scope of the study covered two cross-border coastal regions—the Russian–Polish region on the Baltic Sea and the Russian–Kazakh region on the Caspian Sea. The statistical and geoinformation analysis were used to allocate areas of prospecting rural tourism integrated with cross-border movement. The research results on the development and distribution of tourist infrastructure suggest that: the rural territories of these regions feature tourist attractions and accommodation facilities at a different level of density and remoteness from the border crossing; each cross-border region is featuring different types of travel restrictions for tourists; and both border-land territories show asymmetry by the more active Russian tourists traveling abroad. Each of the regions under consideration is attractive for cross-border tourism while having different degrees of penetration of tourist flows into the interior territories and coverage of rural areas. The study resulted in a tourist flow model that allows integrating rural areas.

1. Introduction

Rural territories are in need of sustainable development throughout the globe. Scholarly reports continuously express concerns on the negative demographic trends in rural areas, including depopulation and population aging [1,2]. An increasing marginalization, the socio-economic inequality of the urban–rural divide, and a declining appeal of traditional rural activities for younger generations (e.g., dairy and beef cattle breeding, crop farming, horticulture, fishing and fish farming, beekeeping, etc.) cause an outflow of young people to cities [3]. Furthermore, a limited economic diversification places local communities under a strong dependence on such external factors of influence as weather (drought, cold, rain), the demand by large processing plants, and market volatility without the possibility for a quick response or counteract.

There is a whole set of factors that determine the sustainable development of rural settlements; these are natural-geographical, environmental, economic, social, cultural, political, and administrative [4]. Sustainable rural development is seen through achieving a balance of natural and environmental, economic and social sustainability, measured through indicators of environmental protection, economic productivity, the level and quality of life of the population, and the development of transport and cultural opportunities [5,6,7]. The size of settlements, as well as their spatial location (density and distance from each other), is also considered a significant sustainability factor [5]. The concept of sustainability, based on the idea of careful rational implementation of the ecological, economic, cultural, and social potential of rural areas, takes into account their diversity (composed of a set of advantages, strengths, and weaknesses) and provides opportunities for applying specific adapted approaches to rural development [7].

One way of developing the countryside is to bring it closer to cities by relocating industrial facilities out of cities (e.g., greenfield industrial parks) and developing transport infrastructure and public transportation. This type of initiative has proven its efficiency in rising the number of dwellers, improving the quality of life, and decreasing the gap in socio-economic parameters [8,9,10]. However, integration of remote settlements into an urban agglomeration is not always possible considering their remote location or harsh terrain, furthermore, these “metamorphoses” completely change the landscape of villages and transform the habitual lifestyle. Conceptually, this process creates a new low-density, heterogeneous, and noncontiguous form of urbanization known as “urban sprawl”, drastically changing land-use dynamics, affecting the agrarian landscape, and threatening local eco-environmental quality [11,12].

Considering the controversial results of rural urbanization, the second line of thinking relates to supporting diversified economic activities while sustaining the rural landscape and lifestyle. The tourism industry is found to be a particularly convenient opportunity to expand the occupation of rural communities and capitalize on the existing assets, at the same time, retaining the sustainability principles. Scholars advocate for tourism being the driving force for resilient economies of peripheral territories, including the countryside [13,14,15]. Some even suggest it to be “a last resort” for remote and sparsely populated areas [16].

Rural tourism combines the socio-economic and eco-environmental components of rural areas, featuring an integrated approach in linking people, landscape, and products [3,17,18]. Being located in rural areas, rural tourism combines a variation of tourist activities settled in a typical rural environment, ranging from ecotourism to educational or folk tourism [19]. The development of tourism in villages and participation of farmers in tourism activity can improve the rural livelihoods by securing income, creating jobs, and supporting new and improved public infrastructure [18,20]. A review by [19] showed numerous examples of increased rural household income from rural tourism. A study by Trukhachev [7] highlighted the main consequences of rural tourism for the sustainable development of rural areas, associated with the generation of new sources of employment and income, alternative to agriculture: curbing depopulation and negative migration trends; formation and maintenance of local labor and product markets, incl. agricultural and handicraft; and preservation of the natural and cultural and historical heritage of the village. However, it remains challenging to develop tourist destinations in the countryside. The sustainability of tourism as a way of developing a territory is related both to the richness of the region’s tourism resources (including places to attract and accommodate tourists) and its compatibility with the interests of local communities [7].

Typically, cities are the main attractions for tourists featuring touristic sights, hotels, restaurants, and other infrastructure facilities. In the case of cross-border tourism, especially when tourists travel by car, this might be a good opportunity for rural settlements to receive economic benefits from their location along the path of tourist movement and, in the future, become an independent tourist destination. Recent studies on cross-border tourism question the conventional principles of outlining tourism destinations limited to administrative boundaries, advocating for using a wider approach based on the actual tourists’ consumption patterns [21,22,23,24]. This implies incorporating tourist destinations on both sides of the border being part of a single tourist route.

Cross-border tourism implies short tourism-related trips from across the border within a certain cross-border catchment area [25,26,27,28]. Traditionally, this is due to the location of attractions on both sides of the border (e.g., Niagara Falls) or the easy opportunity to visit another country for shopping, entertainment, and sightseeing in a short period of time. The decision over travel to a neighboring country is often related to the desire of discovering new places with different historical, natural, and cultural characteristics [25]. In some cases, the border itself becomes a tourist attraction [29,30]. Crossing a political border is an exciting part of a trip, something “out of the ordinary” and exotic, while a short travel distance enables one to include more destinations in a single trip [31,32,33,34,35].

Examples of cross-border tourism initiatives are found all across the globe, featuring a particularly high intensity in Europe at almost every borderland: Greek–Turkish [36], Croatian–Hungarian [37], Hungarian–Romanian [38,39], Polish–Slovak [40], Romanian–Serbian [41], Finnish–Russian [42], Finnish–Swedish [43], etc. The desire for cross-border mobility and interaction was explained within the framework of the concept of (un)familiarity [44,45]. The idea is that cross-border mobility (including for the purpose of tourism) or its absence is the result of a combination of rational and emotional reasons. At the same time, the size of the differences between the border regions acts either as a driver of cross-border activity—if it is acceptable for those crossing the border—or as an inhibitor—in cases where the differences are too large (which discourages travel) or, on the contrary, there are none at all (which makes the trip unattractive).

Literature on cross-border cooperation outlines a number of factors influencing the development of tourism in cross-border areas:

-

Long-standing history of good neighborliness;

-

Positive political climate and the image of the border region;

-

Joint public initiatives and institutional coordination;

-

Tourism infrastructure development and availability of unique tourist attractions (e.g., ski resort, amusement park, aquapark, etc.);

-

Economic benefits for tourists due to price differences; and

-

Ease of travel resembled in the exiting level of development of the road infrastructure, the diversity of the modes of transport, and visa restrictions.

Although there is limited information on rural tourism development through cross-border cooperation [46], the aforementioned factors are considered to be universal affecting all types of cross-border cooperation in tourism.

This study aims to assess the impact of cross-border tourism on the sustainable development of rural areas in border regions falling in line with SDG 11—“Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning”. The focus of our research was territorial and structural differences in the development of cross-border tourist flows in the context of rural settlements. Our hypothesis suggested that the active development of cross-border tourism in border tourist regions taking place between central cities on both sides of the border, where most of the tourist infrastructure is concentrated, would also affect rural settlements located in the zone of the main cross-border tourist flows. Taking into account the results of the studies conducted so far, it seems important to supplement them with comparative studies of the impact of transport infrastructure and the degree of development of the settlement network on the development and future of tourism in Russia’s border regions, especially in light of the recent events in Kazakhstan and the directions of Russian policy toward Central and Eastern European countries, former Soviet sphere of influence.

Following the first part of the article, covering the literature review on the impact of tourism on the socio-economic development of rural areas and the cross-border tourism development, we proceed with the description of the research area. In the Methodology section, we explain in detail the chosen research model, including the collection, processing, and analysis of data that reflect the level of tourism development in the border regions and the degree of its transboundary nature. The Results part of the article presents the results of the analysis of the development of cross-border tourism infrastructure and population movement in the border area, as well as the tourist attractiveness of border regions, highlighting promising geographical directions for cross-border tourism, capturing the countryside. The Discussion section summarizes the similarities and differences in the development of cross-border tourism in the border regions of Russia–Poland and Russia–Kazakhstan, with an emphasis on rural areas. Conclusions are drawn about the impact of cross-border tourism on the sustainable development of rural areas in the selected border regions.

2. Research Area

Two coastal cross-border regions were selected as objects of research: the Russian–Polish region on the Baltic Sea and the Russian–Kazakh region on the Caspian Sea. The choice of these regions was determined by a number of factors.

Firstly, before the coronavirus pandemic period, tourism activities and tourism infrastructure were actively developing in these regions. On the Russian side, the Kaliningrad and Astrakhan regions have a strong stand in the national tourist system, which is confirmed by numerous subject rankings. For example, in 2017, the Astrakhan region entered the top five regions of the silver league by the “Territories of high potential” of the National ranking for the development of event tourism in Russia (SberIndex, URL: https://sberindex.ru/en; last accessed on 2 January 2022). In 2019, the Kaliningrad region occupied sixth place in the ranking published internationally by the Tourism & Leisure in Russia magazine, entering the golden league of locations by inbound tourism. Also in 2019, the Kaliningrad and Astrakhan regions were noted in the ranking of Russian regions according to the results of the VIII Russian Event Awards. In 2020, Kaliningrad, as the administrative center of the Kaliningrad region, received the Travelers’ Choice Awards, taking first place in the list of 25 promising world tourist destinations, thanks to the free and easy online procedure of obtaining an electronic visa for foreign tourists, and also entered the top five most popular tourist destinations in Russia.

The Polish regions (Voivodeships) of Warmia–Mazury and Pomerania are also the widely known tourist regions, in which various types of tourism are developing (active, agro-ecotourism, historical, water, family, educational, cultural, business tourism, etc.). In 2016, the Warmia and Mazury Voivodeship was included in the top 20 interesting tourist destinations in the world according to the American edition of the National Geographic Traveler magazine. In 2017, the Polish city of Gdansk located in the Pomerania region was ranked among the top three most desired travel destinations in Europe.

In Kazakhstan, the Atyrau border region is promoted by the government as a destination for ecological, historical, fishing, and business tourism. In the concept of regional tourism within the framework of the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC, URL: https://www.carecprogram.org; last accessed on 2 January 2022) 2030, the cities Atyrau and Kulsary are included in the promising tourist Northern route of the Silk Road and are part of the international tourism cluster initiative.

Secondly, there are public initiatives and programs in place aimed at the development of cross-border tourism. A significant role in the development of cross-border tourism between the Kaliningrad region of Russia and the Pomeranian and Warmia–Mazury Voivodeships of Poland is played by multilateral and bilateral cooperation programs between Russia and the EU [47], which have been implemented since 2004: first in the format of Neighborhood Programs (2004–2006), which was subsequently replaced for the European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument (2007–2013) and the European Neighborhood Instrument (2014–2020). In 2018, the joint committee of the Poland–Russia Program 2014–2020 approved two large infrastructure projects in the tourism sector—“Development of tourist-recreational potential and water tourism in Svetly and Malbork towns” and “CBCycle: Cross-border cycle routes for promotion and sustainable use of cultural heritage”—as well as 14 projects under the “Heritage” priority [48]. The next round of the Poland–Russia Program for years 2021–2027, where tourism is also highlighted among four priorities along with the environment, health and long-term care, and cooperation.

With Kazakhstan, Russia also has a legal and regulatory framework for the implementation of cross-border cooperation, incl. in tourism, set by the Agreements between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on cross-border cooperation (concluded in 1995, 1999, and 2010) and the Programs of cross-border cooperation between the regions of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan for the periods 1999–2007, 2008–2011, and 2012–2017. At the end of 2019, within the framework of the XVI Forum of Interregional Cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan, the Concept of the Russia–Kazakhstan Cross-Border Cooperation Program was signed, the main focus of which will be on the infrastructural development of the Russian–Kazakh border area and ensuring the effective functioning of transnational corridors formed within the framework of projects “One Belt, One Road” and “North-South”.

Thirdly, the studied border regions of Russia (Kaliningrad, Astrakhan regions), Poland (Pomorsk, Warmia–Mazury Voivodeships), and Kazakhstan (Atyrau region) have a rural population of a significant size, which makes it important for them to solve the problem of improving the level and quality of life in rural areas and economic development of these territories. In 2020, 226.2 thousand people (22.3%) [49] lived in the rural areas of the Kaliningrad region; Astrakhan region—334.2 thousand people (33.4%) [50]; Pomeranian Voivodeship—863.9 thousand people (36.8%) [51]; Warmia and Mazury Voivodeship—580.1 thousand people (40.95%) [52]; Atyrau region—299.3 thousand people (45.6%) [53]. These regions have similar problems in the development of rural areas, including a decrease in the size of the rural population and its share in the settlement structure (excluding the Pomeranian Voivodeship, where the share of the rural population in 2015–2020 increased slightly from 35.6 to 36.8%), an aging rural population, and a decrease in the share of the working-age population. A significant part of the working-age population, released from agriculture, is drawn by cities; therefore cross-border tourism might be an alternative employment in rural areas of border regions. In the Warmian–Mazurian Voivodeship, there is a noticeable presence of internal migrants from large cities, who treat the rural areas of this region as an alternative to intensive living in agglomerations. Often these are former corporate employees who have decided to live in the countryside and run agrotourism activities. Their advantage is the knowledge of foreign languages and the rules of running a business.

Lastly, different travel systems of the CIS and the EU.

The problem of cross-border regions is rich in literature, especially on transport connections at the external borders of the EU [54] and in the scope of various modes of transport [55] or the development of local passenger transport [56]. Nevertheless, the subject of transport and movement in the border regions of the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan has not received many studies [57,58]. The existing ones concern the development of trans-Asian transport corridors as part of “One Belt, One Road”. There is also little research on transport infrastructure as a factor of competitiveness in tourism [59]. For this reason, the analysis of transport from the point of view of barriers and facilities in the development of tourism has cognitive value. However, not only the transport infrastructure has an impact on the development of tourism. In cross-border regions, it is possible to demonstrate the influence of political factors on tourist activity [60], especially in the case of shopping tourism [61,62,63]. Despite the great interest in shopping by tourists from Russia, the majority of them are works devoted to the Polish–Russian border, with relatively little interest in shopping tourism on the border of Russia and Kazakhstan.

Comparison of the experience in developing cross-border tourism on the example of Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh regions, characterized by the difference in the institutional framework of border movement, is of interest from the standpoint of assessing the impact of this factor on the external tourist attractiveness of the border area. While there is a visa-free entry regime between Russia and Kazakhstan, travel between Russia and Poland (as an EU country) requires a visa. Earlier, in the period 2012–2016, there was small border traffic between the Warmia–Mazury and Pomeranian Voivodeships of Poland and the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation with a travel permit instead of a visa, which had a great positive impact on the development of cross-border tourism, but in July 2016, it was suspended and was not renewed.

Figure 1 presents the geography of the study of cross-border tourism in the Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh borderlands, indicating the main automobile checkpoints and highways connecting border settlements. Despite the fact that both studied cross-border regions are coastal, the main means of movement of tourists between them is land transport (primarily cars, international buses, trains).

The cross-border region on the border of Russia and Kazakhstan includes the Russian Astrakhan region and Kazakhstan’s Atyrau region. In addition to the Kaliningrad region (an exclave region of Russia) and the bordering region of Warmia and Mazury, the Pomorskie Voivodeship is additionally included in the Russian–Polish cross-border tourist region, which does not have a land border with Russia, but it locates the Tricity agglomeration of Gdansk–Sopot–Gdynia with developed tourist infrastructure, services, and retail trade. The expansion of the geography of the study by the inclusion of the Pomeranian Voivodeship is explained by its high tourist attractiveness for residents of the Kaliningrad region, with relative proximity to the Russian–Polish border. Kaliningraders have the opportunity to make a one-day tour to the Polish city of Gdansk with a departure in the morning and return in the evening of the same day, which makes this destination attractive for relaxing on weekends or holidays.

3. Materials and Methods

To study the tourist potential and the impact of cross-border tourism on socio-economic development of the selected cross-border regions, the following statistical indicators were used to characterize:

• The availability of tourist infrastructure in each of the border regions and its demand characteristics (the number and placement of tourist facilities for an overnight stay and the number of sleeping places; the number of tourists accommodated in collective accommodation facilities, including foreign tourists; the number of recreation sites (museums); the number of museum visitors and exhibitions; number of major tourist attractions and their geographic location);
• The depth of penetration of border traffic in the Russia–Poland and Russia–Kazakhstan directions from the border and its intensity (the presence and throughput of checkpoints, crossings of the border);
• Interest in tourism among participants of border traffic (distribution of Polish, Russian, and Kazakhstani citizens according to the purpose of border traffic and by the distance of places of residence and shopping facilities from the border).

A part of the study was devoted to identifying promising (after the end of restrictive measures imposed to prevent the spread of coronavirus) routes of movement of tourists in border regions, which could cover not only urban but also rural settlements. Using the methods of geoinformation analysis, areas of high tourist attractiveness in rural areas were identified, depending on the distance from the state borderline and directly from the checkpoint. For this, firstly, rural settlements were identified that are located on the established directions of cross-border movement (generally, by road from a checkpoint to a large city), around which there are places of accommodation and/or concentration of tourist attractions. Secondly, using the Voronoi polygon method, the territory was zoned outside the boundaries of municipalities with the definition of proximity zones for each settlement, in which all objects (tourist attractions, accommodation facilities) are closer to them than to other settlements.

Table 1. Distribution of administrative-territorial entities in the Russian–Polish cross-border region, 2020.

Territorial Zone		Administrative-Territorial Entities of the Borderland
		Polish (Warmia–Mazurian and Pomeranian Voivodeships)	Russian (Kaliningrad Region)
0–30 km from	border	1 city, 2 communes of Pomeranian and 14 cities, 32 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeships	6 cities and 404 villages in 5 municipalities
	A	5 cities, 9 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 1 commune of Pomeranian Voivodeships	2 cities and 29 villages in 4 municipalities
	B	3 cities, 5 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	2 cities and 47 villages in 4 municipalities
	C	4 cities, 7 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	2 cities and 118 villages in 4 municipalities
	D	1 city, 5 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	2 cities and 98 villages in 3 municipalities
31–50 km from	border	1 town 2 communes of Pomorskie and 10 towns, 23 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeships	8 cities, 1 urban-type settlement, 313 villages in 8 municipalities
	A	5 cities, 9 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 1 town, 1 commune of the Pomeranian Voivodeship	3 cities, 1 urban-type settlement, 100 villages in 6 municipalities
	B	7 cities, 14 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 1 commune of Pomeranian Voivodeships	5 cities, 126 villages in 8 municipalities
	C	6 cities, 12 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	6 cities, 208 villages in 9 municipalities
	D	3 cities, 9 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	2 cities, 133 villages in 6 municipalities
51–100 km from	border	24 cities, 63 communes of Pomeranian and 20 cities, 42 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeships	8 cities, 339 villages in 7 municipalities
	A	18 cities, 37 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 15 cities, 35 communes of the Pomeranian Voivodeship	9 cities, 429 villages in 12 municipalities
	B	20 cities, 40 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 11 cities, 29 communes of the Pomeranian Voivodeship	7 cities, 1 urban-type settlement, 443 villages in 9 municipalities
	C	24 cities, 56 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 1 town, 3 communes of the Pomeranian Voivodeship	8 cities, 1 urban-type settlement, 513 villages in 16 municipalities
	D	14 cities, 27 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	7 cities, 400 villages in 9 municipalities
over 100 km from	border	16 cities, 56 communes of Pomeranian and 6 cities, 19 communes of Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeships	-
	A	22 cities, 69 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 26 cities, 78 communes of the Pomeranian Voivodeship	8 cities, 498 villages in 12 municipalities
	B	19 cities, 47 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 31 cities 93 communes of the Pomeranian Voivodeship	8 cities, 440 villages in 11 municipalities
	C	16 cities, 41 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 41 cities, 120 communes of the Pomeranian Voivodeship	6 cities, 217 villages in 8 municipalities
	D	33 cities, 198 communes of Warmia–Mazurian and 42 cities, 123 communes of the Pomeranian Voivodeship	11 cities, 1 urban-type settlement, 425 villages in 15 municipalities

Note: checkpoints A—Mamonovo-I–Gronovo; B—Mamonovo-II–Grzechotki; C—Bagrationovsk–Bezledy; D—Gusev–Goldap.

and

Table 2. Distribution of administrative-territorial entities in the Russian–Kazakh cross-border region, 2020.

Territorial Zone		Administrative-Territorial Entities of the Borderland
		Kazakhstani (Atyrau Region)	Russian (Astrakhan Region)
0–30 km from	border	43 villages of Kurmangazinsky district	Volodarskiy urban-type settlement, 94 villages in 28 municipalities
	E	27 villages (including Kurmangazy) of Kurmangazy region	urban-type settlement Volodarskiy, 45 villages in 6 municipalities
31–50 km from	border	14 villages of Kurmangazinsky district	2 cities, 83 villages in 25 municipalities
	E	15 villages of Kurmangazinsky district	62 villages in 18 municipalities
51–100 km from	border	3 villages of Kurmangazinsky district	3 cities, 167 villages in 58 municipalities
	E	7 villages of Kurmangazinsky district	3 cities 139 villages in 49 municipalities
over 100 km from	border	129 villages in 7 municipalities, the cities of Kulsary and Atyrau	66 villages in 19 municipalities
	E	138 villages in 7 municipalities, the cities of Kulsary and Atyrau	3 cities, 1 urban-type settlement, 160 villages in 57 municipalities

Note: checkpoint E—Karaozek–Kurmangazy (Kotyaevka).

present data on the administrative units included in the study sample and their segregation into territorial zones 0–30, 30–50, 50–100, and over 100 km from the border and from a particular checkpoint. The choice of territorial zones was due to the available statistical data on cross-border traffic in the Russian–Polish cross-border region [64]. Territorial analysis was performed using built-in modules of the Qgis 3.14 program. The municipality belongs to the territorial zone in which most of its area lies.

Figure 2 shows the existing settlement system of the urban and rural population in the studied cross-border regions with the dynamics of the population in cities in the period 2015–2020. It should be noted that there is a trend in population decline in a significant part of small and medium-sized border towns, as well as generally lower values of the rural population density in municipalities located along the state border. In this context, our study was designed to assess the prospective territorial coverage of settlements on both sides of the border by cross-border tourism.

The Russian–Polish border territories are more densely populated than the Russian–Kazakh ones. According to our calculations, in 2020, over 3 million urban and 1.6 million rural people lived in the Russian–Polish cross-border region, while in the Russian–Kazakh cross-border region, there were several times fewer: 1 million urban and 0.6 million rural people. Figure 3 illustrates the structural differences between cross-border regions in the distribution of the urban and rural population by territorial zones, depending on the distance from the border. Note that in the case of the Russian–Polish cross-border region, its largest tourist attraction cities—Kaliningrad and Gdansk—are located at a distance of 166 km from each other, while between Astrakhan and Atyrau in the Russian–Kazakh cross-border, about 361 km; this sets different dynamics for cross-border traffic within border regions.

The analyzed period covered 2010–2020. The source of data for the Russian–Polish borderland was the statistical reports “Kaliningrad Oblast and the Warmia-Mazurian voivodeship in numbers” for 2016, 2018, and 2019, published by Kaliningradstat together with the Statistical Office in Olsztyn, as well as a database of statistical data on tourism on the portal the Statistical Office in Gdansk (URL: https://gdansk.stat.gov.pl/en; last accessed on 2 January 2022) and the Rosstat regional office of Kaliningrad region—Kaliningradstat (URL: https://kaliningrad.gks.ru/tourism_1; last accessed on 2 January 2022).

The source of data on the Russian–Kazakh borderland was the statistical database on tourism on the portal of the Bureau of National statistics of the Agency for strategic planning and reforms of the Republic of Kazakhstan (URL: https://taldau.stat.gov.kz; last accessed on 2 January 2022) and the Rosstat regional office of Astrakhan Region and the Republic of Kalmykia—Astrakhanstat (URL: https://astrastat.gks.ru; last accessed on 2 January 2022). The study also used the results of a sample survey of inbound visitors at airports, railway stations, bus stations, and automobile checkpoints in the Atyrau region of Kazakhstan at the time when visitors leave Kazakhstan, conducted in January 2019. (On a sample survey of visitors in the Atyrau region. Tourism statistics: 13 series. January 2019. Department of Statistics of the Atyrau region of the Committee on Statistics of the Ministry of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan, URL: https://stat.gov.kz/region/252311/statistical_information/industry/2322; last accessed on 2 January 2022) The OpenStreetMap database (URL: https://www.openstreetmap.org; last accessed on 2 January 2022) was used as a source of geoinformation data on the location of tourist attractions and settlements in the studied border regions.

There are certain limitations to the comparative studies of borderland territories: the indicators used in statistical reports; the years of data collection; the specification of reports; not all data are equally available and comparable for the two borderland areas.

4. Results

4.1. Development and Distribution of Cross-Border Tourism Infrastructure

Table 3. Number of tourist accommodation facilities in Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh cross-border regions, 2010–2020.

Regions	2010	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
	Hotels and Similar Establishments
Kaliningrad Oblast	37	175	189	192	216	218	221
Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	168	189	202	205	211	218	206
Pomorskie Voivodeship	268	319	332	n/a	350	366	361
Astrakhan region	72	112	153	163	169	158	n/a
Atyrau region	57	62	71	82	57	64	88
	including hotels
Kaliningrad Oblast	n/a	39	124	144	146	141	147
Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	95	105	113	113	115	117	112
Pomorskie Voivodeship	144	188	193	n/a	202	205	204
Astrakhan region	n/a	n/a	n/a	106	113	111	n/a
Atyrau region	17	23	24	25	-	3	15
	other establishments
Kaliningrad Oblast	20	26	20	29	32	31	32
Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	219	303	310	294	296	323	284
Pomorskie Voivodeship	534	1193	1270	n/a	1287	1292	1194
Astrakhan region	29	52	111	168	157	163	n/a
Atyrau region	6	3	4	3	8	13	13

Source: calculated by the authors based on data [68,69,70,71,72,73,74].

and

Table 4. Number of bed places in Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh cross-border regions, 2010–2020.

Regions	2010	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
	Hotels and Similar Establishments
Kaliningrad Oblast	4.9	8.4	10.4	10.4	11.8	12.4	13.5
Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	13.1	16.1	17.0	17.6	18.2	18.9	18.2
Pomorskie Voivodeship	19.9	26.2	27.5	n/a	30.4	32.7	34.0
Astrakhan region	3.4	5.3	6.8	6.5	7.1	7.2	n/a
Atyrau region	2.6	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
	including hotels
Kaliningrad Oblast	n/a	4.3	8.5	9.1	9.4	9.5	10.5
Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	10.1	12.5	13.2	13.3	13.6	14.2	13.7
Pomorskie Voivodeship	13.8	19.1	19.9	n/a	21.9	23.4	24.3
Astrakhan region	n/a	n/a	n/a	5.5	6.1	6.2	n/a
Atyrau region	1.5	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
	Other establishments
Kaliningrad Oblast	3.8	5.3	3.6	4.3	4.5	4.5	4.3
Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	24.7	23.9	24.1	23.2	22.6	24.1	21.9
Pomorskie Voivodeship	60.3	75.6	83.1	n/a	85.5	86.8	81.7
Astrakhan region	2.1	2.7	4.1	9.0	8.1	8.5	n/a
Atyrau region	0.5	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
For reference	total tourist accommodation facilities
Atyrau region	3.1	3.8	3.9	4.3	4.7	5.1	5.4

Source: calculated by the authors based on data [68,69,70,71,72,73,74].

and Figure 4 demonstrate the differences between the considered border regions of Russia, Poland, and Kazakhstan in the level of development of tourism infrastructure.

Firstly, it is noteworthy that the Russian–Polish cross-border region has significantly more collective accommodation facilities for tourists, as well as places in them, in comparison with the Russian–Kazakh cross-border region. Namely, in the Russian–Polish border area in 2020, 2298 collective accommodation facilities of various types were concentrated, of which 32.3% (or 743 units) were in the bordering Kaliningrad region and Warmia–Mazury Voivodeship. For comparison, in the Russian–Kazakh border area in 2020, according to our estimates, there were about 420 different types of collective accommodation facilities, which is 5.5 times less than in the Russian–Polish cross-border region taking into account the Pomeranian Voivodeship and 1.8 times excluding the Pomeranian Voivodeship. The situation is similar with the number of bed places (in the Russian–Polish border area—173.5 thousand, including 57.8 thousand without taking into account the Pomeranian Voivodeship; in the Russian–Kazakh border area—21 thousand) and museums (in the Russian–Polish border area—134, including 44 without the Pomeranian Voivodeship; in the Russian–Kazakh border area—36). Thus, the Russian–Polish cross-border region is a region with a higher concentration of tourist infrastructure than the Russian–Kazakh one, which indicates its higher tourism potential in the context of a prospective increase in the influx of tourists.

Secondly, there are differences in the dynamics of the development of tourism infrastructure in 2010–2020 between the regions that are part of the considered cross-border regions.

In the Russian–Polish cross-border region, stronger positive dynamics in the number of hotels and similar establishments were noted in the Kaliningrad region, which is primarily due to the hosting of the 2018 FIFA World Cup matches on its territory, as well as to the active growth in the popularity of this destination among tourists from other regions of Russia during the coronavirus crisis of 2020. For comparison, the increase in the number of hotels and similar establishments for the accommodation of tourists in the Kaliningrad region in 2015–2018 amounted to 23%, in the neighboring Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship—4.5%, and the Pomorskie Voivodeship—9.7% (Table 3). The same was observed for the number of bed places in 2015–2018: the growth in the Kaliningrad region was 40.5%, the Warmia–Mazury Voivodeship—13.1%, and the Pomorskie Voivodeship—16.1% (Table 4). A similar trend of higher growth rates in the Russian region than in neighboring regions of Poland in the number of collective accommodation facilities of different types and bed places in them continued in the coronavirus year 2020. Analysis of the data in Table 3 indicates that in 2020 compared to 2019 in the Kaliningrad region, there was an increase in the number of all types of collective accommodation facilities (including hotels by +4.3%) and places in them (in hotels by +11%), while in the Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship, there was a decrease in the number of collective accommodation facilities (including hotels by −4.3%) and bed places in them (including in hotels by −3.7%), and in the Pomeranian Voivodeship, an increase in bed places was noted only in hotels and similar establishments (+3.7%) against the background of their decrease in other establishments (−5.8%).

In the Russian–Kazakh cross-border region, the Astrakhan region significantly surpasses the Atyrau region in terms of the number of collective accommodation facilities and the number of places in them (Table 3 and Table 4). In both regions, after an abrupt growth in the number of collective accommodation facilities in 2010–2017 (in the Astrakhan region—3.3 times, in the Atyrau region—by 35%), the pace of development of tourism infrastructure slowed down significantly, and the share of high-level hotels (4 or 5 stars) remains low (about 5%).

Thirdly, there are significant differences between the regions that are part of the considered transboundary regions in the existing structure of the collective accommodation facilities (Table 3 and Table 4). Note that from the standpoint of tourism development in rural areas, the greatest interest is the presence of small hotels and similar establishments located outside the large cities of the region.

Considering the types of collective accommodation facilities for tourists in 2020 in the Russian–Polish cross-border region, hotels and similar establishments prevail in the Kaliningrad region with an average capacity of about 60 beds per 1 collective accommodation facility (including in hotels—about 70 beds), as well as a number of other large establishments: first of all, 14 sanatorium-resort organizations with a total number of 3220 places, 13 recreation organizations (866 places), and 5 tourist camps (179 places). On the Polish side, in addition to a significant number of hotels and similar establishments, the average capacity of which is slightly higher than in the Kaliningrad region (in the Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship—88 beds; in the Pomorskie Voivodeship—94 beds per 1 hotel or similar establishment), it is also widely (significantly more than the Kaliningrad region) represented by other small establishments with an average capacity of about 70 or more places.

In the Astrakhan region of the Russian–Kazakh cross-border region, the structure of collective accommodation facilities is more balanced than in the Kaliningrad region—both hotels and similar establishments (average capacity—46 places) and other establishments, incl. 3 large sanatorium-resort organizations with an average capacity of 237 beds each and more than 100 recreation organizations (recreation centers, campsites, etc.), each with a capacity of at least 50 tourists, as well as more than 50 campsites. In the structure of the collective accommodation facilities in the Atyrau region, small hotels and similar establishments of a low class prevail and, among other establishments, the sanatorium Atyrau and the sanatorium Geologist of Kazakhstan.

Figure 4 reflects the level of educational tourism development in the studied cross-border regions.

Leader in 2010–2020 by the number of visits to museums per 1000 inhabitants is the Pomeranian Voivodeship of Poland, in second place (except for 2019) is the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation, and the worst positions are in the Atyrau region. At the same time, it should be noted a significant reduction in the number of visits to museums in 2020 due to measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus, which were introduced in the regions under study. It can be assumed that in conditions of limited visits to public places (including theaters, museums, excursions, concerts, etc.), there will be an increase in interest in other types of tourism that do not involve a large number of people, incl. tourism to the countryside.

Figure 5 demonstrates the zones of the geographical location of accommodation and attractions for tourists, representing the backbone of the tourism potential in urban–rural areas of the studied cross-border regions.

The Russian–Polish cross-border region is characterized by a fairly high concentration of tourist accommodation and attractions in the countryside. In the Kaliningrad region—47% of attractions and 35.1% of tourist accommodation, in Pomorskie Voivodeship—47.9% of attractions and 63.5% of tourist accommodation, and in Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship—65% of attractions and 65.9% of tourist accommodation located in rural areas, which makes them attractive to visit.

The Russian–Kazakh region is characterized by large urbanization of the tourist potential since the bulk of tourist accommodation and attractions is located in cities, while the village accounts for 31.9% of tourist accommodation and 27% of tourist attractions; in the Astrakhan region—12.7% of tourist accommodation and 28.7% of attractions.

Figure 6 demonstrates the asymmetry in the location of landmarks (tourist attractions) relative to the state border and automobile checkpoints in the Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh borderlands.

The considered cross-border regions are characterized by strong differences in terms of the geography of attractions. In the Russian–Kazakh region, most of the attractions from both the Russian and Kazakh sides are concentrated on a significant separation from the state border and the only automobile checkpoint. Almost 55% of all attractions of the Astrakhan region are located in the zone 51–100 km from the Karaozek–Kurmangazy checkpoint and another 42.3% in the zone over 100 km from it, and in the Atyrau region—almost 95% of all attractions. This makes the territories of these border regions directly adjacent to each other not very attractive from the tourism point of view since it requires tourists to travel deep into the regions.

In the Russian–Polish region, the concentration of attractions in the immediate border zone, no further than 30 km from the border in both directions, is higher, which makes this cross-border region quite attractive for the development of cross-border tourism. On the Polish side, the largest number of attractions in the area 30 km from the checkpoint is located in the direction of Gronovo (71 units), in second place is Bezledy (67 units), and in third place are Grzechotki (48 units) and Goldap (42 units). On the Russian side, the leadership is at the checkpoint Gusev (96 units), followed by Bagrationovsk (61 units) and in third place Mamonovo-II (38 units) and Mamonovo-I (31 units). In general, most of the tourist attractions of the Russian and Polish regions are located no further than 100 km from the state border, which is a favorable factor from the standpoint of the attractiveness of cross-border movements of residents of border regions for tourism purposes.

4.2. People Movement

Table 5. The number of tourists accommodated in collective accommodation facilities in 2010–2020, thousand people.

Region	Indicator	2010	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Kaliningrad Oblast	total, thousand people	n/a	535.1	520.3	549.2	627.6	655.5	528.2
	incl. foreign tourists, %	n/a	11.7	11.4	12.5	13.5	15.1	2.4
Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	total, thousand people	898.8	1028.3	1157.2	1140.7	1308.6	1377.5	872.9
	incl. foreign tourists, %	16.1	15.3	13.8	14.7	12.4	12.0	5.2
Pomorskie Voivodeship	total, thousand people	1628.8	2439.2	2672.7	2863.1	3047.8	3238.7	1973.0
	incl. foreign tourists, %	16.0	18.5	18.9	19.6	18.8	19.0	9.0
Astrakhan region	total, thousand people	150.8	186.1	263.9	268.2	238.4	261.1	201.0
	incl. foreign tourists, %	n/a	9.1	6.4	6.3	6.3	5.0	2.5
Atyrau region	total, thousand people	298.9	211.8	200.0	184.4	209.1	249.8	84.5
	incl. foreign tourists, %	40.8	33.4	29.1	30.1	32.1	29.9	19.5

Source: calculated by the authors based on data [68,69,70,71,72,73,74,78,79,80,81].

reflects the dynamics of the number of tourists accommodated in collective accommodation facilities in the studied cross-border regions. The tourist flow in the Russian–Polish border area increased annually on both sides, except for 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic developed and the active movement of tourists stopped. Comparison of data on the share of foreign tourists staying overnight in collective accommodation facilities demonstrates multidirectional trends. While for the Kaliningrad region the share of foreign tourists in 2015–2019 increased from 11.7 to 15.1%, for the Pomeranian Voivodeship, it remained stable at 19%, and for the Warmia–Mazury Voivodeship, it decreased from 15.3 to 12%. In general, we assume the priority of domestic tourism for both border regions. In 2020, relative to 2019, the number of tourists accommodated in collective accommodation facilities in the Kaliningrad region decreased by 19.4%, more in Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship—by 36.6%, and Pomorskie Voivodeship—by 39.1%. At the same time, the share of foreign tourists staying in collective accommodation facilities decreased strongly in the Kaliningrad region (by 6.3 times) than in the Polish voivodeships (by an average of 2.2 times).

The size of the tourist flow in the Russian–Kazakh border area in 2015–2019 did not experience strong changes (Table 5). In the pre-coronavirus period, both regions annually attracted about 200–250 thousand tourists using the services of collective accommodation facilities. The average length of stay per one tourist with overnight stays in the Astrakhan region is almost two times higher than in the Atyrau region: four overnight stays versus two. The regions have significant differences in the structure of overnight stays. The Astrakhan region is focused on domestic tourism, and the share of foreign tourists from the CIS and Baltic countries, Germany, Finland, and China is about 6.5%, while in the Atyrau region, a third of all tourists using accommodation facilities are foreigners (primarily, Russians). In 2020, the flow of tourists using the services of accommodation facilities to the studied border regions decreased: by 23% to the Astrakhan region and by 66.2% to the Atyrau region. At the same time, in the Kazakhstani border region, the share of foreign tourists decreased by 1.5 times, and in the Russian one—by 2 times.

Movement of people, incl. tourists, through the Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh borders in the studied cross-border regions is carried out mainly by land transport.

On the border of the Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation and the Warmia–Mazury Voivodeship of Poland, there are four cargo–passenger automobile checkpoints serving the main movement of tourists within the studied cross-border region (

Table 6. Characteristics of road border crossings on the border of Russia and Poland.

Checkpoint	Design Capacity, Vehicles per Day	Number of Car Lanes			Distance of the Checkpoint from the City, km *
		Entry	Incl. for Passenger Cars	Departure	Kaliningrad	Elblag	Gdansk	Olsztyn
Mamonovo-I–Gronovo	500	4	2	4	55	51	110	97
Mamonovo-II–Grzechotki	2600	12	4	12	51	55.5	115	99
Bagrationovsk–Bezledy	900	5	2	5	45	115	173	88
Gusev–Goldap	750	5	2	5	151	238	294	167

* according to the Google Maps service, calculated for road transport.

). The most infrastructurally developed border crossing is “Mamonovo-II–Grzechotki”. It was opened in 2010 and surpassed the other three checkpoints in terms of its throughput. In a day, 2600 cars, 1250 trucks, and 150 buses can pass through Mamonovo-II–Grzechotki. This checkpoint is relatively close and convenient for residents of the largest cities in the Russian–Polish borderland: Kaliningrad and Gdansk. There is also a multilateral railway checkpoint Braniewo.

The distribution of cross-border movement in the Russian–Polish border by checkpoints in 2019 (before the coronavirus pandemic) is shown in Figure 7. The most used checkpoints are automobile checkpoints, primarily Mamonovo-II–Grzechotki, through which 1191 crossings were made in 2019, which is 34% of all movements across the Russian–Polish border. In second place in terms of cross-border movement is Mamonovo-I–Gronovo located not far from Mamonovo-II–Grzechotki. The demand for checkpoints by Kaliningradians is almost twice as high as by Poles: in a year, 1150 Russians entered Poland, while only 592 Poles entered the Kaliningrad region. In 2020, the crossing of the Russian–Polish border decreased by more than two times to 743.5 thousand times, while the share of the Mamonovo-II–Grzechotki checkpoint relative to other checkpoints increased to 40.9%; the second place was taken by the Bagrationovsk–Bezledy with 23.6%, and the third Mamonovo-I–Gronovo with 20.8%. For all checkpoints in 2020, the number of crossings by Polish and Russian citizens was comparable, except for Mamonovo-II–Grzechotki, where the number of Russian citizens crossing the border was almost six times higher than Polish.

There is an asymmetry in the movement of Polish and Russian citizens across the Polish–Russian border, which developed by 2019. The number of annual border crossings by Poles in 2014–2019 decreased by 62% to 1.2 million, and by Russians—by 30% to 2.3 million. On average, in 2019, there were 2.4 intersections per 1 inhabitant of the Kaliningrad region and only 0.8 per 1 inhabitant of the Warmia and Mazury region. In general, Kaliningraders are more willing to go to Poland, annually increasing the gap with Polish visitors in terms of money spent. Meanwhile, in 2014, the total expenses of Russians on the territory of the Warmia and Mazury Voivodeship amounted to 842 million PLN, which is 1.8 times higher than the similar expenses of the Poles in the territory of the Kaliningrad region; by 2019, despite their decrease to 565 million PLN, the gap increased to three-fold. On average, one Russian spends 1.5 times more than a Pole in their cross-border trip.

In 2020, in comparison with 2019, the crossings of the Russian–Polish border decreased on the Polish side by 6 times to 0.2 million, on the Russian side—by 4.6 times to 0.5 million. This is even two or more times lower than the 2010 values. The total costs on both sides also decreased in 2020 relative to 2019 by 4.5 times, and the gap between the total costs of Russians and Poles increased even more from 2.9 to 3.4 times. At the same time, the average expenses for both sides slightly increased to 502 PLN per 1 Russian crossing the border, and 344 PLN per 1 Pole.

The lack of detailed data on the crossing of the Russian–Kazakh border, similar to the data on the Russian–Polish cross-border region, does not allow a detailed analysis of the dynamics and structure of population movement between the Astrakhan and Atyrau regions. Therefore, we analyzed indirect indicators, such as the presence and throughput of checkpoints, the density of highways, the presence of private cars among the local population, interest in outbound tourism, which, in our opinion, allow us to draw a conclusion about the prospects for the development of cross-border tourism in the Russian–Kazakh region with the inclusion of rural settlements in the route.

On the border of the Astrakhan region of Russia and the Atyrau region of Kazakhstan, there is a cargo–passenger automobile checkpoint “Karaozek–Kurmangazy (Kotyaevka)”, which is the main movement of tourists within the investigated cross-border region (

Table 7. Characteristics of the automobile border crossing on the border of Russia and Kazakhstan.

Checkpoint	Design Capacity, Vehicles per Day	Number of Car Lanes			Distance of the Checkpoint from the City, km *
		Entry	Incl. for Passenger Cars	Departure	Astrakhan	Znamensk	Akhtubinsk	Kamyzyak	Narimanov	Kharabali	Atyrau	Kulsary
Karaozek–Kurmangazy (Kotyaevka)	400	1	1	1	67	373	322	107	103	178	281	508

* according to the Google Maps service, calculated for road transport.

), and two railway checkpoints (“Aksaraisky–Akkol” and “Kaysatskoe–Dzhanybek”). The checkpoint “Karaozek–Kurmangazy (Kotyaevka)” is the only one for residents of the largest cities in the Russian–Kazakh border area—Astrakhan and Atyrau—and its throughput is significantly less than the smallest checkpoints on the Russian–Polish border.

The issue of the need to modernize this automobile checkpoint, among others on the Russian–Kazakh border, was discussed in October 2021 at a meeting between the Vice Minister of Industry and Infrastructure Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the First Deputy Minister of Transport of the Russian Federation [82]. By 2024, it is planned to modernize the automobile checkpoint on both the Russian (“Karaozek”) and Kazakhstan (“Kurmangazy”) sides to increase the throughput. In addition, the reconstruction of the cross-border transport corridor Aktobe–Atyrau–Astrakhan (included in the international transport corridor E-40 “East-West”), initiated back in 2018, is underway. On the part of Kazakhstan, the road should be put into operation by 2023, and its total length is 897 km, including 586 km across the Atyrau region. As part of the modernization, it is planned to upgrade the technical category of individual long sections of the road, incl. to provide its arrangement with toilets, recreation areas, and technical inspection of vehicles.

It is noteworthy that as of 2020 [83] the Atyrau region had 3046.5 km of public highways, which was about 3% of the value in Kazakhstan, of which 36.8% were highways of international and republican importance. In terms of the share of paved roads in their total length, the Atyrau region had one of the worst indicators in the country—76.2% (second place to last place among Kazakhstani regions), which is significantly lower than the national average—87.1%. In addition, the Kazakhstani region had one of the lowest values of the density of paved roads of general use in the country per 1000 square km of territory—19.6 km, while the national average level is 30.6 km. Against the background of rather low indicators of the development of highways, the low indicators of the provision of the population with motor vehicles are noteworthy. Therefore, there were 15 cars per 100 people in the Atyrau region in 2020, which is significantly lower than the average for Kazakhstan—19.5. At the same time, there is a tendency for this indicator to decrease annually. In total, 129.4 thousand vehicles (or 2.9% of the country) were located in the region in 2020, which is 4% less than in 2019. In addition, in 2020, compared to 2019, the number of passengers transported by road decreased by 2.7 times to 72.3 million people (which is 0.9% of the national level).

Analysis of the data obtained during the sample survey for the first half of 2019 [84], on the distribution of foreign citizens entering and leaving the Atyrau region, according to the types of transport used, showed that the most popular is rail and air transport, followed by personal vehicles and international buses, and in last place—other types of transport. The citizens of Kazakhstan leaving the Atyrau region are also in the most demand for railway transport. It should be noted that the high demand for trains is explained by the fact that the Atyrau region has a higher density of railway tracks per 1000 square meters than the national average km of territory—6.26 km versus 5.89 km. A total of 4.5% of all public railways in Kazakhstan are concentrated in the region, which, against the background of the weak development of the road network and the need to overcome long distances across the steppe, makes rail transport an attractive mode of transport.

The Astrakhan region has slightly better indicators of the development of the transport complex than the neighboring Kazakhstan region [85]. Firstly, the Russian region has a higher rate of passenger car availability per 100 people population—28 units (2019), which in 2015–2019 increased by 10%. Secondly, the length of public roads is almost 2.4 times higher than the same indicator for the Atyrau region and amounts to 7293.7 km as of the end of 2019. Thirdly, in the Astrakhan region, the density of both public roads with a hard surface (88 km per 1000 km² of territory) and railways of general use (12.8 km per 1000 km² of territory) is significantly higher than in the neighboring region of Kazakhstan. Thus, by 2020, there was a strong asymmetry in the development of cross-border transport links between Atyrau and Astrakhan regions, which significantly complicates the movement of population between border regions and reduces the attractiveness of cross-border tourism, especially to rural areas.

4.3. Attractiveness of Border Regions for Tourism

In 2019, 6.6% of all foreign tourists in Poland using the services of Polish tourist establishments were Russians. The structure of those crossing the Russian–Polish border by the purpose of border movement demonstrates the fundamental differences between the residents of Russia and Poland. Poles (over 95%) are focused on buying scarce goods, primarily gasoline, for subsequent resale, and therefore, they cannot be considered as potential tourists (

Table 8. Distribution of travelers by the purpose of cross-border movement, %.

Citizenship	Year	Shopping	Transit	Recreation	Business	Visiting Relatives, Friends	Other
Russians	2015	68.7	14.0	7.3	4.2	3.2	2.7
	2017	66.3	12.2	11.2	5.2	2.7	2.4
	2018	64.3	10.8	12.2	6.0	4.1	2.6
	2019	59.1	10.6	15.1	7.3	4.1	3.8
	2020	49.1	11.3	14.7	14.5	5.3	5.1
Poles	2015	95.4	0	0.3	1.2	2.9	0.2
	2017	94.2	0	1.0	1.3	3.2	0.3
	2018	93.9	0	1.4	1.5	3.1	0.1
	2019	95.8	0	1.2	1.1	1.8	0.1
	2020	89.8	0	1.6	2.3	6.2	0.1

Source: calculated by the authors based on data [86].

). The share of those traveling with a tourist and recreational purpose is negligible—about 1%. Among Kaliningraders who carry out a cross-border movement, about 15% stated the tourist purpose of the trip and about 60% the purchase of goods (the so-called food tourism). In 2020, the share of people crossing the border for the purpose of shopping decreased (both from the Polish and Russian sides), while on the Russian side, the share of those leaving for work increased significantly, and on the Polish side—for personal reasons (to relatives and friends).

There is strong heterogeneity in the frequency of crossing the Russian–Polish border by residents of two countries. Before the coronavirus pandemic, more than half of the traveling Kaliningraders made trips several times a month (weekend tour) and another 16%—several times a week; most of the Poles traveled only a few times a quarter (Figure 8).

For the development of tourism, the depth of the territorial penetration of the tourist flow relative to the border zone is of great importance (

Table 9. Cross-border traffic in the Russian–Polish border region, %.

Cross-Border Movement	Year	Distance from the Border, km
		Place of Travel Destination				Place of Permanent Residence
		0–30	31–50	51–100	Over 100	0–30	31–50	51–100	Over 100
Russians	2014	21.7	19.2	22.6	36.4	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
	2015	33.5	19.8	24.5	22.2	20.5	59.4	15.3	4.7
	2017	26.5	19.9	22.5	31	20.8	45.8	25.9	7.5
	2018	20.5	22.8	24.6	32.1	19.6	44.8	28.8	6.8
	2019	19.7	23.3	26.5	30.5	19.0	46.0	28.1	6.8
	2020	19.5	23.1	23.3	34.1	16.8	49.8	26.8	6.6
Poles	2014	97.3	2.0	0	0.7	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
	2015	94.5	4.1	0.6	0.7	14.8	33.9	43.7	7.6
	2017	92.5	4.4	1.7	1.3	15.4	35.4	43.3	5.9
	2018	93.9	3.6	1.3	1.2	17.0	32.5	43.9	6.5
	2019	95.2	3.0	1.0	0.9	19.5	28.2	42.5	9.8
	2020	94.2	3.9	1.0	0.9	20.3	28.1	40.3	11.3

Source: calculated by the authors based on data [86].

). For the Kaliningrad region, this is mostly no more than 30 km. Over 95% of Poles do not move into the depths of the Russian exclave further than 30 km from the border, which means that they do not reach Kaliningrad (the administrative center and the most tourist-attractive city in the region), but move within border municipalities (mostly, for the purpose of purchasing fuel). For Poland, the zone of penetration by Russian tourists is much larger and is over 100 km. This zone includes the Tricity—the most significant tourist attraction for Kaliningraders.

An assessment of the distance of movement from the Russian–Polish border to the place of residence indicates that the majority of residents of the Kaliningrad region who travel to Poland live at a distance of up to 50 km from the border—the remoteness of Kaliningrad. Meanwhile, most of the inhabitants of Poland have to travel from 50 to 100 km from their place of residence to get to the border. Note that most Russians who travel for tourism and recreation move more than 100 km from the border to their destination (generally, the endpoint of the trip becomes Gdansk), which indicates a good tourist penetration into the country.

For the Russian–Kazakh cross-border region, travel purpose data are presented only for the Atyrau region. According to data for 2019, out of 74.7 thousand tourists to the Atyrau region who were not residents of Kazakhstan and used the services of overnight places, 96% had business and professional goals, and only 4% had personal goals, which includes tourism. The overwhelming majority stayed in Atyrau and, for private travel reasons, also in Kurmangazy. Data on the goals of outbound tourism of residents of the Atyrau region (obtained from the results of a sample survey [87]) show that the main goal is medical and recreational procedures, as indicated by over 70% of respondents (lived in Atyrau and Kurmangazy); in second place are visits to relatives and friends.

5. Discussion

Having evaluated three important aspects in the development of cross-border tourism (development and placement of cross-border tourism infrastructure; people movement; attractiveness of border regions for tourism) and the involvement of the rural community in it, we saw big differences between Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh cross-border regions.

The Russian–Polish cross-border region has more potential for the development of tourism in rural areas both toward the Warmia–Mazurian and Pomeranian Voivodeships and the Kaliningrad region, which is expressed in:

-

A relatively high density of highways in the border area, incl. in rural areas, and the presence of several modernized border crossings along the entire state borderline, which makes it possible to consider road transport as the main means of transportation for cross-border rural tourism;

-

Stability of cross-border flows of movement of people in the pre-pandemic period on both sides of the Russian–Polish border;

-

A sufficient density of places for tourist accommodation and attractions in the territorial zones, which are usually visited by residents of the neighboring border region;

-

A variety of tourist accommodation and their relatively high (especially for Polish regions) concentration in the countryside;

-

The presence of interest in the implementation of cross-border tourism, especially from the residents of the Kaliningrad region in relation to the Polish regions;

-

The presence of attractions in close proximity to the state border.

Assessment of the dynamics and structure of the movement of people in the Russian–Polish borderland also showed the existing problems for the development of rural tourism. Firstly, the main flow of Russian tourists travels mainly from Kaliningrad toward the large Polish cities of the Tricity, moving deeper into the Warmia–Mazury and Pomeranian Voivodeships but practically not staying in the territorial zones close to the border. To the least extent, cross-border movement covers the east of the Kaliningrad region and the Warmia–Mazury Voivodeship. Secondly, Polish citizens crossing the Russian–Polish border practically do not move deep into the region, staying no further than 30 km from the checkpoint, and the proportion of those who have a tourist purpose of travel is small. In addition, the visa problem for the movement of people in the Russian–Polish cross-border region has not been resolved.

In these conditions, for the development of rural tourism in the Russian–Polish cross-border region, we proposed tourist routes, on the one hand, including the traditional directions of movement of residents of the Russian and Polish border regions, and on the other, new destination points for tourism in rural areas along the route (Figure 9).

In total, the cross-border route included 576 objects in rural areas, of which 484 were in Poland and 92 in Russia (

Table 10. Types of tourist attractions in rural areas on the proposed tourist routes in the Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh cross-border regions.

Types of Tourist Attractions	Kaliningrad Region	Pomorskie Voivodeship	Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship	Atyrau Region	Astrakhan Region
Memorials, monuments, museums	32	19	34	25	29
Ruins, archeological	17	10	262	2	1
Castle	9	3	6	5	-
Attraction, natural heritage	20	22	41	12	53
Other	14	18	69	11	9

Source: OpenStreetMap data.

). The largest tourist attractions in the countryside along the proposed itinerary include:

In Poland, these are historical objects (for example, a system of bunkers on Lake Mamry in the village of Przystan near Węgorzewo; Hitler’s headquarters (Wolf’s Lair) not far from Kentshin, etc.); remaining examples of pre-war German architecture, incl. gateways and canals on the Masurian Lakes, churches (the Church of St. Katarzyna in Borety), natural objects (the Masurian Canal, Warmia Upland, Vistula Spit, etc.), and other objects.

In the Kaliningrad region, these are ruined or restored remains of historical buildings and structures (for example, the churches of Abschwangen, Uderwangen, Borchersdorf in the villages of Tishino, Chekhovo, and Zelenopole; castles Taplaken, Balga, former estates, etc.), natural objects (Vishtenets Upland, observation deck on Protochnoe Island, Dozor mountain, Krasny forest, etc.), and other objects.

The total number of the rural population of municipalities (Russia) and communes (Poland) located on the route in the Kaliningrad region is 148.352 people, Warmia–Mazurian Voivodeship—237,114 people, and Pomorskie Voivodeship—162,359 people.

Russian–Kazakh is a cross-border region that has a significant advantage—visa-free travel of residents of Russia and Kazakhstan—but has not yet been able to implement it in the active development of cross-border tourism, incl. with the inclusion of rural areas. This is due to a number of reasons:

-

Strong asymmetry in the development of transport infrastructure and the provision of the population with cars between the Astrakhan and Atyrau regions, which does not allow the formation of a steady flow of human movement for personal purposes (including tourism);

-

Low throughput of the automobile checkpoint, which does not allow servicing a large flow of tourists;

-

The distance between the large cities of the Astrakhan and Atyrau regions, which complicates the organization of weekend tours;

-

Low density of tourist attractions and accommodation in rural areas, incl. close to the state border, as well as their high concentration around Atyrau and Astrakhan;

-

The widespread use of railway transport over road transport in the movement of the population between border regions, which excludes the possibility of tourists entering rural settlements along the route.

In this regard, we proposed a tourist route that takes into account the specifics of transport links in the Russian–Kazakh cross-border region (including travel by rail along the Baskunchak–Kochkovatka–Kurmangazy–Akkistau–Atyrau route) and a fairly low density of tourist attractions in rural areas, as well as the prospects development of this cross-border region after the full commissioning of the international highway “Aktobe–Atyrau–Astrakhan” (Figure 10).

In total, the transboundary route included 147 objects in rural areas, of which on the territory of Russia—92 and Kazakhstan—55 (Table 10). The largest concentration zone of tourist attractions in the countryside is located in the Astrakhan region—the area of Lake Baskunchak, where objects related to the history of the salt industry are concentrated. Also worth noting is the Volga Delta Astrakhan reserve, vast lotus fields, Big Bogdo mountain, Big Brother dune, Selitrennoe settlement archaeological complex (the ancient city of Saray-Batu), Kurmangazy Sagyrbaev mausoleum-museum (Altynzhar village), Memorial Complex “Bukey-khan and Seid-baba” (Maly Aral village), and a zoo in Ivanchug village.

In the Atyrau region, these are, first of all, the ancient settlement of Saraishyk and the state museum-reserve “Khan Ordaly Saraichik”. At the same time, such significant sights for the region as the Akkegershin plateau, Besshoky Upland, Inder Mountains, Munaily-Mola field, and Lake Inder were not included in the proposed route due to their great distance from the Astrakhan–Atyrau road.

The total size of the rural population of the municipalities located on the route in the Astrakhan region is 327,470 people; in the Atyrau region—293,039 people.

6. Conclusions

Our study contributes to the problem of the development of cross-border rural tourism. Although the motives of cross-border movement are endemic for each borderland, cross-border tourism can positively influence the sustainable development of rural areas. We studied the experience of developing cross-border tourism in the post-Soviet space on the borders of Russia–Poland and Russia–Kazakhstan, focusing on the involvement of rural areas in this process. In both cases, the borderland territories have similar challenges of rural development, while featuring local specifics that affect the tourist flows in the rural borderland: the traditional way of life and the way of using rural space, including the prevailing settlement structure of the rural population, the geography of cross-border movement, and the location of agricultural objects.

Our research showed a significant asymmetry in the implementation of the tourist potential of border rural areas of the Russian–Polish and Russian–Kazakh cross-border regions. The resulting imbalance is due to both the socio-economic heterogeneity of the areas part of the cross-border regions and the difference in reasons that induce the local population to cross-border movement. From the standpoint of the concept of (un)familiarity, Russians have a wider “acquaintance band” on the Polish side than Poles have on the Russian side. This allows them to penetrate into the interior of the Polish border regions for the Kaliningrad region for 100 or more kilometers from the border, capturing vast rural areas. The Poles practically do not move across the territory of the Kaliningrad region, since the object of subjective interest for most of them is gas stations and shops along the border, which, in most cases, does not allow villages in the Russian region to be integrated into cross-border tourist routes. In the Russian–Kazakh direction, the vector of movement, first of all, is set by the migration strategies of the Kazakhs, who make up the largest ethnic minority of the Astrakhan region of the Russian Federation, and has reasons different from the Russian–Polish movement, primarily of historical and cultural nature (maintaining family ties, co-preservation of the national Kazakh culture and traditions, visiting iconic religious places).

Interestingly, for the studied cases, the factor of visa-free travel did not have the expected decisive influence on the development of cross-border rural tourism in comparison, for example, with the density of tourist attractions in rural areas and economic incentives. In the pre-pandemic period, the Russian–Polish cross-border region was characterized by stronger tourist flows than the Russian–Kazakh one, despite the visa regime. However, undoubtedly, the elimination of visa restrictions for the Russian–Polish region would become an additional stimulus for development, which is confirmed by the small border traffic regime practice.

The political value of the results of this study lies in confirming the hypothesis about the important role of cross-border tourism as a tool for the sustainable development of urban–rural systems. Large cities are found to be acting as important points of attracting tourists from the border regions of a neighboring country, while rural settlements at the intersection of cross-border tourist flows can receive positive externalities from their position. We proposed cross-border tourist routes, considering the specifics of tourist movement in the border area in the pre-COVID-19 times. At the same time, we identified problems that hinder the implementation of the cross-border tourism potential of the countryside. Firstly, it is poor transport accessibility—low density and quality of roads, underdeveloped road infrastructure, small number and throughput of checkpoints, low provision of the population with cars, and poorly developed transport links between settlements of border regions. Secondly, the low density of tourist attractions and accommodation facilities in the rural area in the immediate vicinity of the border. Thirdly, the insufficient interest of the population in this type of tourism, incl. associated with low economic attractiveness in comparison with other tourist destinations.

The limitations of the study are related to the lack of data on the direct dynamics of visiting rural settlements as part of cross-border mobility, the placement of places for collective accommodation of tourists in rural areas, and weak customs statistics on the border between Russia and Kazakhstan. Further research should be related to the study of the opinion of local communities on the prospects for the development of rural tourism in their areas and the attraction of tourists from neighboring border regions. Qualitative studies are also required to assess the interest of tourists in cross-border tourism to the countryside.