Classification of South-Eastern Baltics cross-border recreational mesoregions

Abstract

Experience in assessing the COVID-19 pandemic impact on international tourism indicates insufficient attention to changes in geography and volume of international tourist flows. In particular, studies aimed at assessing the value of tourist exchange in cross-border tourist and recreational regions are becoming relevant. The purpose of the article is to classify cross-border tourist and recreational mesoregions in the south-eastern part of the Baltic region by the size of cross-border tourist exchange. As a result of the study, six cross-border tourist and recreational mesoregions were identified with the participation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The boundaries of these mesoregions were determined and the value of cross-border tourist exchange within them was estimated. According to the latter indicator, it is proposed to divide mesoregions into three categories: 1) with a high level of formation (tourist exchange of more than 500 thousand people per year); 2) with a level of formation «above average» (from 100 to 500 thousand people per year); 3) with an average level of formation (from 50 to 100 thousand people per year). Cross-border tourist and recreational regions with a low level of formation (with a tourist exchange of fewer than 50 thousand people per year) are classified as microregions. The first category included the Estonian-Finnish mesoregion, the second – three mesoregions (Russian- Estonian, Russian-Polish-Lithuanian, and Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian), the third – Russian-Estonian- Latvian and Estonian-Latvian.

Towards a Classification of Transboundary Tourist and Recreation Mesoregions in the Baltic Region

“…Kropinova [23] proposed a CBTRR hierarchy consisting of three main levels: macro-(the Baltic macroregion), meso-and micro-. Earlier, we proposed a classification of mesolevel CBTRRs according to their maturity measured as a function of the number of border crossings within a CBTRR [24]. The classification employed quantitative criteria: a mesolvel CBTRR with over 500,000 border crossings was considered fully mature, with 100,000-500,000 crossings of above-average maturity and 50,000-100,000 crossings of average maturity.…”

“…CBTRRs with below 50,000 crossings were assigned to the microlevel category. Overall, we identified six mesolevel CBTRRs [24]. Another six mesoregions identified at Sweden's borders with the other Baltic region states [25] were divided into three levels, or orders, depending on the amount of travel in 2019.…”

“…Earlier, we classified mesolevel CBTRRs according to the amount of travel. The classification was tested in the south-eastern Baltic region [24] and the CBTRRs involving Sweden [25]. When exploring the tourist flow geography in Sweden, we investigated the influence of the Covid-19 pandemic on tourism numbers in 2020.…”

Territorial structure of inbound and domestic tourism in the Baltic States

“…Information on the data of interest was taken from the official websites of the statistical offices of the Baltic States: Statistics Estonia, 6 Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia 7 and Statistics Lithuania. 8 Taking into account the above and drawing on earlier findings [29; 34], we used 11 relative indicators to develop the classification. These indicators can be grouped as follows.…”

“…Irina Dragileva, Elena Kropinova, Andrei Manakov and other authors investigate in their works transboundary region building in the Baltic area in terms of tourism and recreation. They have described the essence, features, factors and patterns of TTRR building at macro-, meso-and micro-levels identified the most effective tools of transboundary cooperation in tourism and proposed a typology of Baltic TTRRs [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Svetlana Kondratyeva (Stepanova) has evaluated the potential for crossborder interactions between neighbouring regions in the north of the Baltic macroregion [9; 10].…”