COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF MESOLEVEL TOURISM ATTRACTIVENESS ACROSS UZBEKISTAN’S ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS: EXPERT SURVEY EVIDENCE ACROSS SEVEN TOURISM-TYPE DIMENSIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20771700Abstract
This article reports the results of an original expert survey (N = 53 respondents) designed to assess meso-level (intranational,
regional) tourism competitiveness within Uzbekistan. The survey instrument asked respondents to (1) rate the relative
importance of four proposed components of a regional tourism competitiveness index, and (2) rate the comparative attractiveness
of Uzbekistan’s fourteen administrative regions across seven distinct tourism-type dimensions — ecological, historical-cultural,
pilgrimage, agritourism, ethnographic, mountain-extreme, and recreational tourism — together with separate ratings of each region’s
attractiveness as a destination for domestic and for inbound (international) tourists. All ratings were collected on a five-point Likert
scale. The derived weights for the four meso-level components cluster narrowly between 0.243 and 0.254, indicating that experts
regard tourism resource potential, regional attractiveness, demand stability, and infrastructure development as comparably important
rather than sharply differentiated. The composite ranking across the seven tourism-type dimensions places Samarkand region first
(composite mean 4.40 of 5), followed by Tashkent region (3.98) and Qashqadarya region (3.89), while the Republic of Karakalpakstan
and Syrdarya region occupy the lowest two positions (3.17 each). A comparative analysis of dimension-level scores further reveals a
structural distinction between ‘generalist’ regions that score consistently across all seven dimensions (notably Samarkand and Tashkent
region) and ‘specialist’ regions whose competitiveness is concentrated in a narrow set of dimensions — Bukhara and Khorezm regions
rank among the top three nationally in historical-cultural and pilgrimage tourism alone, despite ranking only sixth and seventh on the
seven-dimension composite. A further comparison of domestic versus inbound destination-attractiveness ratings shows that the regions
hosting Uzbekistan’s UNESCO World Heritage corridor (Samarkand, Bukhara, Khorezm) and the capital (Tashkent city) are rated
relatively more attractive to foreign visitors than to domestic tourists, whereas regions with stronger nature-, mountain-, and agritourism
profiles are rated relatively more attractive to the domestic market. These regional findings are also discussed in relation to a companion
macro-level (national) survey conducted by the author, in which Uzbekistan’s pilgrimage tourism attractiveness was found to rank third
of thirteen countries surveyed — the present study identifies Samarkand, Bukhara, and Khorezm as the specific regional sources of that
national-level strength.
Keywords
meso-level competitiveness, regional tourism, expert survey, Likert scale, indicator weighting, destination attractiveness, tourism specialization, UzbekistanReferences
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 1–55.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73–93.
Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.
Krugman, P. (1994). Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 28–44.
Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1999). Tourism, Competitiveness, and Societal Prosperity. Journal of Business
Research, 44(3), 137–152.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective. Wallingford:
CABI Publishing.
Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination Competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators. Current Issues in Tourism,
(5), 369–414.
Butler, R. W. (1980). The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources.
The Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5–12.
Gunn, C. A. (1988). Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A Community Approach. London: Routledge.
Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Pearce, D. G. (1989). Tourist Development (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourism Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Palmerston North: Massey University, Department
of Management Systems.
Hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes and Relationships (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Vavra, T. G. (1992). Aftermarketing: How to Keep Customers for Life Through Relationship Marketing. Homewood, IL:
Business One Irwin.
Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Predicting Satisfaction Among First-Time Visitors to a Destination by Using the
Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 12(2), 197–209.
World Economic Forum. (2024). Travel & Tourism Development Index 2024: Insight Report. Geneva: World Economic
Forum. https://www.weforum.org/publications/travel-tourism-development-index-2024/
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
