Ecotourism Development in the Russian Areas under Nature Protection

Abstract

The subject of this study is the Russian areas where the use of natural resources is restricted, and economic activities must be developed with due regard for the need to protect natural ecosystems from harmful human impacts. Areas under nature protection, particularly national parks, also fall into this category and make an important contribution to nature conservation. They are also the basis for the development of ecotourism, as in other parts of the world. Russia, along with other countries, adheres to a variety of concepts and tools for the development of ecotourism in PAs. In this paper, we examine the essential characteristics and implementation domains of state policy for promoting ecotourism development, using the Zabaikalsky National Park (ZNP) and the Tunkinsky National Park (TNP) as illustrative examples. Both parks are situated in the Lake Baikal basin. In this study, we rely on theoretical and practical approaches, and legislative and regulatory documents on the development of PAs and ecotourism. The analytical framework employed in this study encompasses eight fundamental areas of operation for national parks, specifically regarding the establishment of favorable conditions for ecotourism. Our information sources comprise official state reports, documents, and materials pertaining to the studied parks, as well as data obtained from expedition research, GPS tracks, and photo-sharing websites (social networks). Our findings show that efforts are being made in the parks to create favorable conditions for ecotourism development. These efforts include improving management practices, implementing functional zoning strategies, developing conceptual and design solutions, developing infrastructure, securing funding, engaging local communities, and promoting ecotourism services. Furthermore, our analysis has identified both strengths and weaknesses in the parks’ approaches to ecotourism development (attracting private investment, infrastructure and staffing, monitoring of recreational impact). The TNP, being larger in size and better developed economically, has a more significant social and economic impact on people than the ZNP. The two studied parks demonstrate the implementation of the federal agenda for the development of ecotourism in national parks. It is important to remember that the positive effects of ecotourism initiatives in national parks can take time to materialize and require ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Documenting the parks’ progress toward sustainable ecotourism as an acceptable type of economic activity in PAs can help identify successful strategies and areas for improvement, which contributes to biodiversity conservation and the well-being of local communities.

1. Introduction

The development of ecotourism in Russia is on the state’s strategic agenda [1]. The ecotourism policy of Russia is associated with the development of ecotourism in protected areas (PAs), which are undergoing transformation under the influence of the global concept of PAs “benefits beyond borders” [2]. Initially created to protect unique landscapes and wildlife, Russian PAs are increasingly functioning as tourist destinations that offer ecotourism services. This is reflected in changes in legislation and the implementation of national projects.

Although ecotourism policy has been actively implemented, the extent of Russian PAs’ participation in ecotourism development remains poorly studied. In this regard, we have attempted to examine the implementation of the federal agenda for the integrated ecotourism development in PAs by analyzing the cases of two Russian national parks—the Zabaikalsky National Park (ZNP) and the Tunkinsky National Park (TNP). While both parks are located in the basin of Lake Baikal (UNESCO World Natural Heritage site), they differ in their territorial, natural, historical, cultural, infrastructural, socio-economic and environmental conditions.

This paper is structured as four sections. Section 1 gives an outline of previous research on ecotourism in PAs. Section 2 defines the research object, materials, and methods, analyzes the Russian approach to ecotourism development in PAs, and provides a description of the Russian system of PAs. Moreover, this section also includes a detailed overview of the two studied national parks—the ZNP and the TNP. Section 3 presents the current organizational and functional changes taking place in the two national parks. Additionally, it highlights the challenges and opportunities for their future development. Finally, Section 4 outlines the study’s conclusions and recommendations, while proposing potential pathways for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Ecotourism and PAs

The modern definition of ecotourism is “…responsible travel to natural areas that preserves the environment, supports the well-being of local people, and includes interpretation and education” [3].

A review of the literature on ecotourism provides different approaches to the practice of ecotourism globally, as well as priorities for future research [4,5,6]. Studies assign various missions to ecotourism: the contribution of ecotourism to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment, (accessed on 1 February 2023)), the conservation and development of ecosystems [7], the support of local people and their cultures ([8], p. 9), and the fight against poverty and hunger in low-income countries [9]. Ecotourism is cited as a “living shield” to deter negative external practices such as mining, logging, and poaching [10].

Ecotourism is increasingly being perceived as a lifestyle option that allows contemporary individuals to acquire knowledge, broaden their perspectives, and challenge themselves and push their limits while experiencing a sense of freedom [11]. Nevertheless, the meaning of ecotourism tends to vary according to people’s different perspectives. Some individuals may experience nature from the comfort of their hotel, while others may choose to forego conventional resort amenities and explore the culture and nature of the local communities. Studies conducted in various countries have revealed that ecotourism practices that have been successful can uphold the sustainability standards of the whole tourism industry [12,13].

Ecotourism is currently experiencing rapid growth and is expected to grow seven times faster than the rest of the tourism industry [6]. Researchers estimate that world’s terrestrial PAs already receive more than eight billion recreational visitors per year [14]. The global ecotourism market is expected to grow from 157.76 billion USD in 2021 to 185.43 billion USD in 2022 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.5% and reach 299.03 billion USD in 2026 at a compound annual growth rate of 12.7% [15].

Despite the widespread support for ecotourism, the debate continues on the feasibility of achieving a more sustainable form of tourism in line with the principles of the global concept of sustainable development [16]. Some authors argue that it is a fallacy to consider ecotourism as a pathway to sustainable development, claiming that ecotourism is promoted primarily for marketing purposes, allowing companies to gain a “green advantage” in a competitive market [17]. In late 1999, Richard W. Butler warned that ecotourism development in sensitive and fragile areas without the necessary infrastructure may not be able to sustain even moderate levels of use [18]. As ecotourism continues to grow in popularity, it is critical to identify any negative impacts of tourism activities on the environment [10].

Weaver D. and Lawton L. believe that today’s PA systems are in deep crisis due to four interrelated factors: (1) the increased consumption of natural resources associated with population growth; (2) reduced public funding affecting the ability of PAs to perform critical ecological functions; (3) chronic underfunding resulting in increased reliance on visitor income; (4) increasing demand for outdoor recreation [19]. These factors influence the growth of visitor pressure, especially in PAs located near major population centers, transportation corridors and hubs, and/or areas of tourist activity.

Meanwhile, many governments are adopting diverse concepts, models, and tools for ecotourism development in PAs based on international recommendations for sustainable ecotourism, their own traditions, public policies, accumulated experience, and the characteristics of their PAs [20,21,22].

According to Rajashree Samal and Madhusmita Dash, ecotourism is more prevalent in developing countries than in developed ones, and the geographic region plays a critical role in determining the impact of ecotourism [6]. While developing countries have focused primarily on ecotourism and local community participation, and have conducted studies on attitudes, perceptions, and cost–benefit analysis of ecotourism businesses, studies conducted in developed countries have focused on ecotourist motivation, perception and willingness to pay, ecotourism certification, and stakeholder participation [6]. Researchers have noted that while some countries have achieved desirable outcomes from ecotourism, others have faced numerous problems due to its negative impacts [20].

This literature review highlights the importance of the ecotourism topic and the need for a better understanding of how public declarations are being implemented in specific PA. However, Forje, G.W. and Tchamba, M.N., indicate that there are few studies on ecotourism management in PAs [23]. Studies that examine ecotourism development in PAs as an illustration of national ecotourism policy implementation are mainly case studies [23,24,25]. In Russia, as in other countries, there is an urgent need to constantly study the various practices of implementing ecotourism activities in protected areas.

2.2. The Russian Approach to Ecotourism Development in PAs

Since the adoption of the Durban Agreement, the country’s priorities and approaches to the development of PAs have changed [26]. The isolationist approach to managing PAs, which has been in place for many decades and involves the complete isolation of these areas, is being replaced by the integration approach [27].

In October 2010, during a government meeting on the development of PAs, it was decided to set a course for the development of ecotourism. It was agreed to begin by creating legal conditions that would support recreational and tourist activities in national parks and nature reserves. Russia then adopted the Concept of Development of Federal Protected Areas for the period up to 2020. This concept not only defines the development of educational tourism as a special type of ecotourism, but also recognizes the role of PA as an equal participant in the tourism industry [28]. During the years of implementation of the concept, significant budgetary investments have been made in the creation of infrastructure facilities for ecological education and tourism.

Ecotourism has become an important area of development for Russian PAs, which have begun to offer a variety of ecotourism services [13]. For example, in 2021, the total number of visitors to eco-trails in PAs was 13,774,281 people, which is 40% more than in 2019 [29], p. 149. At the same time, it should be noted that Russia’s share in the global market of ecotourism services is still insignificant.

As ecotourism continues to grow in popularity, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of studies on issues related to ecotourism, including the assessment of ecotourism resources, development planning, support measures, the involvement of the local community, and the analysis of international cooperation [30,31,32,33].

Russian researchers have a shared understanding of the fundamental elements of ecotourism, such as nature education, respecting local residents’ interests, and ecosystem preservation. However, there is still no universally recognized and standardized definition of ecotourism [34]. Many definitions of ecotourism are reliant on those provided by international environmental and tourism organizations [35]. According to National regulatory documents (GOST), ecotourism is defined as nature-based tours that aim to explore natural and cultural attractions while promoting respect for nature and supporting conservation efforts [36].

Given that Russian ecotourism policy is linked to PAs, the significant aspects of ecotourism include (i) natural orientation of tourism; (ii) increasing the responsibility of producers and consumers of ecotourism services; (iii) the conservation, restoration, and rational use of natural resources; (iv) education, volunteerism, environmental culture and awareness; (v) the involvement of local residents of natural areas in economic and social activities to promote ecotourism and environmental protection; and (vi) the development and support of ecotourism infrastructure.

Ecotourism is now a significant factor influencing the functioning of PAs, and as such, is reflected in the goals and mechanisms of their management. The Russian approach to the development of ecotourism in PAs is determined by the state policy, which includes legislative, regulatory, investment, organizational, economic and informational measures (Figure 1). It presents the results of the analysis of the institutional conditions for streamlining the solution of specific tasks of the integrated ecotourism development in protected areas, which are contained in Russian legislative documents, concepts, programs, norms and rules. This study analyzed two groups of key documents: current and planned.

Various measures are taken to organize ecotourism in PAs, and these measures depend on the PA status, whether it is federal, regional or local. Revisions in the fundamental law governing protected areas are essential to enable the effective functioning of all lower categories of PAs. The quality infrastructure and accessibility of eco-tourism services depend on the willingness of those managing the protected areas to foster the development of ecotourism. The majority of protected areas have initiated this task by modifying their functioning processes [37]. Several initiatives, including new ecotourism concepts and programs for certain protected areas (PAs) [11], the enhanced functional zoning of national parks [38,39], the development of eco-trails [40], and the building of infrastructure inside PAs [41], p. 176, have been introduced.

The market for ecotourism has been growing in nearly all regions of Russia. The 231 PAs across 68 regions have developed measures aimed at integrating the environmental, recreational, and educational activities of the PAs into the socio-economic development of their respective regions [37]. Several PAs, especially nature reserves and national parks, still receive state funding to support nature conservation, ecotourism infrastructure, education, and other related purposes [29], p. 176. During the period of 2020–2021, 146 museums, 296 visitor centers, 1799 eco-trails and routes were created in federal PAs [29,41], p. 152, p. 176.

The goal is to create ecotourism infrastructure in 32 national parks by 2024, while also providing a safe, accessible, and comfortable environment for all visitors, including people with disabilities, the elderly, and children. This is aimed at promoting tourism products [28]. According to the authors, there are few studies on ecotourism development in Russian PAs in the modern scientific literature, particularly outside Russia. As a result, this study presents specific data on the current changes, problems, and prospects for further development in two national parks in Russia.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. PAs as Centers of Ecotourism Development

Russia encompasses diverse climatic zones with rich natural and biological resources, supported by a well-established network of protected areas (PAs) [11]. There are the following categories of PAs in Russia: (a) state nature reserves, which encompass biosphere reserves; (b) national parks; (c) nature parks; (d) state nature sanctuaries; (e) natural monuments; (f) dendrological parks and botanical gardens. Russian nature reserves, national parks, nature parks, nature sanctuaries and nature monuments mostly or completely adhere to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) criteria for PAs—including the objective of creation and management, as well as the existing protection regime, etc. [42], p. 148.

The first PA in Russia (the Barguzin Nature Reserve) was established on 29 December 1916, with the aim of conserving and rehabilitating the sable population. In 2021, there were 11.9 thousand PAs in Russia, consisting of 298 of federal importance (accounting for 2.5% of the total number), 10,568 of regional significance (88.9%) and 1016 of local significance (8.6%) [29], p. 145. At present, PAs cover 14.14% of Russia’s territory [29], pp. 145, 243.

All categories of PAs are managed by federal, regional, and local authorities according to regulations established at different levels. Of all types of protected areas, national parks have the potential to support a wide range of recreational activities, including therapeutic, rehabilitation, sports, and educational activities, as well as ecotourism. Different countries have unique models for developing protected areas; for example, national parks in the US and many Chinese PAs have focused more on tourism than on natural resource conservation [20], while the opposite situation has been observed in Russia [26].

According to Russian legislation, national parks are known as “multifunctional management objects with a complex territorial structure” [43], and they are categorized as classical (parks with untouched nature), European models or have an intermediate character [44,45]. The Russian Federation’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment oversees national parks, which are managed by public-sector entities that include departments of environmental education, recreation, and tourism.

3.2. Studied National Parks

Our study focuses on two national parks, Zabaikalsky and Tunkinsky, which are located in Buryatia (Figure 2).

These two parks, established over 30 years ago, differ in terms of territorial, natural, historical, cultural, infrastructural, socio-economic, and ecological conditions, as shown in

Table 1. General characteristics of the ZNP and the TNP.

Basic Information	Zabaikalsky National Park	Tunkinsky National Park
Year of creation	1986	1991
Purpose of creation	Preserving the unique natural complex of Lake Baikal basin and creating conditions for the development of organized recreation	Preservation of unique ecosystems of the Eastern Sayan and Khamar-Daban spurs
Park model	Wildlife Park	Park of intermediate character
Area, thous. ha	269.1	1183.7
Land Fund	100%—PA lands	90.6%—PA lands, 9.4%—lands of other owners
Recreational area, % of the total area	55.1	63.3
Number of routes	12	50
Mineral Springs	3	12
Natural Monuments	5	12
Historical and Architectural Monuments	-	24
Archaeological monuments	13	16
Sites of scientific tourism	-	2 (solar observatories)
Settlements/number of residents	3/112 people	35/20,106 people

Source: [46,47].

. Both parks play a crucial role in the “Baikal” investment project that focuses on organized ecotourism.

3.2.1. Zabaikalsky National Park

The ZNP is located on the eastern shore of Lake Baikal, the deepest lake in the world, where the proportion of endemic species reaches 60% for animals (848 species) and 15% for plants (133 species). The park area covers the western slope of the Barguzinsky mountain range, the mountain massif of the Svyatoi Nos peninsula, the Ushkanyi islands, the waters of the Barguzinsky and Chivyrkuisky bays with small islands. The ZNP protects the rookery of the Baikal seal or ‘nerpa’ (endemic species Phoca sibirica). The ZNP is also famous for its thermal spring Zmeiny, whose water temperature varies from +40 °C to +60 °C throughout the year. The park is located in a sparsely populated and economically undeveloped area: it was established and continues to function as a wildlife park [48]. Since 2012, the ZNP has been managed by “Zapovednoe Podlemorye” (United Directorate of the Barguzinsky State Nature Biosphere Reserve and the Zabaikalsky National Park), a public-sector entity.

3.2.2. Tunkinsky National Park

The TNP is located in the south-west of Buryatia, 40 km west of the southern tip of Lake Baikal. Stretching 190 km from west to east, the park comprises six lowlands, bounded in the north by the alpine-like Tunka Goltsy (3000 m a.s.l.) and in the south by the Khamar-Daban Ridge (1500–2396 m a.s.l.). The unique fauna and flora of the steppes and alpine meadows are represented by a large number of rare and endangered plant species listed in the Red Lists of Russia and Buryatia. A key protected animal in the park is the snow leopard, which is listed as endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List. The TNP is part of a global snow leopard conservation project involving 10 PAs supported by WWF [49].

The TNP is one of the largest and most popular national parks in Russia. As the park covers the entire territory of the Tunkinsky district, with more than 20,000 people living within its boundaries, social, environmental and economic conflicts between them and the park are inevitable [50].

3.3. Methodology

This study is based on the concept of developing PAs “benefits beyond borders”—recognizing ecotourism as a critical and contemporary approach for conserving biological, landscape, and biosphere diversity, as well as promoting the socio-economic development of regions [51]. The Russian policy of developing PAs is also based on this concept [26]. Nevertheless, a literature review revealed the absence of theoretical and methodological research on the impact of recreational use of natural resources on PAs in Russia.

We have selected a case study format to examine how the national agenda for integrated ecotourism development in Russia’s PAs has been implemented. This choice of methodological approach is commonly used to assess the effectiveness of PA management [52]. The case study format is well-suited for a comprehensive analysis of a specific PA (including analysis of management actions, documents, and data collected). Additionally, it allows for the comparison and description of development progress against objectives that have been defined. Frequently, the case study format can be integrated with other methodological approaches. Due to the various political, socio-economic, cultural, and institutional contexts in which different PAs operate, the development plans, and the progress of ecotourism in PAs have an unavoidable country-specific nature. The authors of a case study of Taijiang National Park in Taiwan developed a 22-indicator analytical framework to assess the “benefits beyond boundaries” concept. This study showed, that “the national park has brought a marked increase in the number of tourists, but there has been no positive reflection in either direct or indirect public benefits, and there were clearly existing conflicts of interest and mutual constraints between different industries and interest groups” [24]. Aydin, I.Z. and Öztürk, A., conducted a study to evaluate ecotourism activities in the Camili Biosphere Reserve (Turkey) and developed sustainable ecotourism management criteria and indicators, specific to the social, economic, and environmental conditions of Turkey [25].

In this study, we developed an analytical framework for this study based on a list of essential measures for ecotourism development in Russian PAs that encompasses the activities of national parks for ecotourism development, which are summarized in Figure 1. The analytical framework outlines 8 key activities: management improvement, functional zoning, concept and design development, infrastructure development, financing, local community involvement, ecotourism product promotion and recreational impact monitoring (Figure 3). The proposed directions facilitate the detection of changes in national park activities. They further support the integration of conservation and recreational functions, promote collaboration with local communities, and address socio-economic issues within the park territories. It should be noted that the presented list of eight elements is not definitive. Protected areas undergo substantial transformations during their development due to both external and internal influences.

In this study, we used institutional, comparative geographical, comparative historical, statistical, and cartographic methods. The institutional analysis helped to create the conditions necessary to address specific challenges in the comprehensive development of ecotourism in PAs, following Russian legislative documents, concepts, programs, norms, and regulations. The comparative-historical method enabled a retrospective examination of the development of the studied national parks. This helped identify stages of evolution while distinguishing commonalities and unique features. Furthermore, by using the comparative-geographical method and key features of national parks, spatial peculiarities of their development were identified.

Our information sources for this study included state reports on the development of Russian PAs, documents and materials pertaining to the studied national parks, and data obtained from field studies. To analyze the tourist activity in the parks, we used a mixed approach based on statistical and spatial data analysis. We used data from the photo sharing service (the social network VKontakte). The choice of this social network is due to its accessibility and the absence of resource fees, (although some park visitors can use other social networks to post photos).

4. Results and Discussion

In the analyzed period (2012–2021), the number of visitors to the park varied considerably [53]. There is a constant positive dynamic in visiting the ZNP. Over 10 years the number of visitors has increased by more than double and exceeded 57 thousand visitors (Figure 4).

In order to estimate the tourist traffic in the TNP, we analyzed different types of statistical data, including the number of park visitors, and the availability of accommodation in tourist houses and facilities (totaling over 200 in the TNP). Figure 4 indicates that the visitor trends in TNP have been unstable, with a significant decrease in visitation during 2020–2021 due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism industry. In 2020, the village of Shuluty, situated at the entrance to the park, was quarantined, leading to a decrease in tourist traffic to TNP [55]. In 2021, the tourist flow to TNP appears to be approaching the pre-pandemic levels.

By analyzing the tourist activity in the parks through geotagged photos of tourists (and tourist tracks), we developed a profile of visitors, identified arrival patterns, seasonal preferences, and the most popular tourist routes and points of interest:

(1)

In ZNP, 58% of visitors come from regions of Russia and some foreign countries. The majority of foreign visitors are organized groups from neighboring countries such as Mongolia and China. However, the total share of foreign tourists is insignificant. Nearly 47% of visitors to the park are aged between 18 and 35 years old, with 31.3% being in the 36–50 age range. Approximately 63.4% of tourists choose to visit the park during the warm season, which is from July to September. Figure 5 shows that the Lake Baikal coast has the highest photoactivity in ZNP.

(2)

Around 90% of the visitors to the TNP arrive from outside Buryatia, mainly from neighboring regions, and the share of foreign tourists is insignificant. The TNP attracts visitors of all ages. A total of 32% of visitors fall in the age group of 18–30 years, 26% are between 31 and 40, 17% are 41–50, and 13.2% are above 50 years old. From May to October, which marks the warm season, almost 59% of visitors prefer to relax in the TNP. The majority of photos in the TNP are taken around settlements, where guest houses, popular excursion objects, eco-trails, and mineral springs are located (refer to Figure 6).

The analysis of the eight key activities of the two parks shows that the parks are increasingly focused on creating conditions for ecotourism.

• D1. Management

The management of Russian national parks is based on the National Park Regulations that have been approved by the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources. The Regulations define the specific goals, objectives, regime, territorial and administrative structure of the national parks. In 2017, the study parks included tourism development activities, rules for organizing ecotourism, and new functional zoning of the parks in their regulations. The parks have dedicated tourism and recreation departments responsible for organizing and developing ecotourism. To ensure safe and responsible visitation, the national parks have also developed and published rules for visiting the areas on their websites.

In 2021, a public council on tourism was established, which brings together various stakeholders such as local government officials, representatives from the tourism industry, scientific and educational institutions, and public organizations. While this does not indicate joint management, it is a crucial step towards collaboratively addressing the development of ecotourism in the parks. It is necessary to involve in the partnership associations of tour operators, guides, etc., who could share their knowledge, expertise and resources to help establish rules of ecotourism activities and form corporate environmental responsibility. The Society “Friends of Zapovednoe Podlemorye” is functioning in the ZNP.

• D2. Functional Zoning

Functional zoning is a park management tool that establishes spatial and regime restrictions. It provides an optimal balance between the conservation and development of PAs.

The ZNP. Over the 37-year history of the ZNP, its zoning has been slightly modified only a few times, largely due to the fact that much of the park is inaccessible and located in sparsely populated and economically undeveloped areas. Currently, the park is divided into six functional zones, of which only one is fully protected, where all recreational activities are prohibited [56]. The recreational zone occupies 51.55% of the park area.

The TNP. Over 30 years of development of the TNP, adjustments have been made to the functional zoning to adapt it to legislative conditions, conservation policy, natural and historical values, socio-economic development goals, local community interests, and the need to balance the environmental, recreational, and educational functions of the PA [39]. The recreational zone has increased by 6.2% (to 63.3% of the total area of the park) due to the addition of parts of the protected areas, visitor service and other zones.

• D3. Concept (or project) for developing ecotourism in national parks.

The studied parks adopt a comprehensive approach to the organization of ecotourism in their areas, which encompasses managing the rising number of visitors, promoting environmentally responsible entrepreneurship, and addressing infrastructure, social, and economic issues. The parks’ activities align with the national trend of ecotourism development in protected areas (PAs). However, specific factors such as the park location, size, functional zoning, recreational area development, transportation accessibility, the local population, and socio-economic development in surrounding areas impact ecotourism development.

The ZNP has a project to develop regulated tourism and recreation in eight areas: Lake Bormashevoye, Myagkaya Karga, Monakhovo, Bolshoi Chivyrkui, Katun, Kurbulik, Zmeyovaya and Krokhalinaya bays, selected based on favorable natural and climatic conditions and tourist popularity, despite a lack of existing tourist infrastructure. These areas are relatively small, and the project aims to create separate tourist-recreational and engineering infrastructure, accounting for permitted activities and maximum recreational load. Most of these sites are located on the shore of Lake Baikal, and their rugged terrain makes road and power line construction difficult or impossible. As a result, the project proposes the utilization of alternative energy sources and local water, heat, and purification systems.

The project emphasizes environmental education and awareness through the arrangement of educational tours and scientific expeditions. The proposed changes to the ZNP functioning will enable it to accommodate up to 150,000 visitors annually.

The ecotourism development concept in the TNP (a larger and better developed PA) includes both the national park itself and the settlements within its boundaries. The TNP was one of the 17 winners of the All-Russian competition for ecotourism cluster creation in 2020 [37]. Quite tellingly, when preparing for participation in this competition, the regional authorities, the park’s directorate, the local community and entrepreneurs combined their efforts for the first time to make the TNP a model of successful development and the main attraction of the Baikal region. By 2030, the plan is to serve about 1.3 million visitors annually who will spend an average of up to five nights at the TNP.

This ecotourism cluster will comprise seven centers near the settlements, where tourist infrastructure already exists or can be created. Its creation is planned to be funded with 9.3 billion rubles (or 135 million USD), 49% of which are budgetary funds, and 51% private investment. The state is becoming the primary investor, providing budgetary funds for the construction and repair of roads, power lines, bridges, and parking lots. The concept highlights the partnership between the park, government, business, and local residents in developing ecotourism infrastructure.

• D4. Infrastructure

In order to meet the expectations of tourists, the national parks should have not only valuable and picturesque natural objects, but also quality ecotourism infrastructure.

As the ZNP is a wilderness park, infrastructure development should be carried out in a way that is safe for the natural resources of the park. It is planned to build new accommodation facilities, visitor information centers, eco-trails and routes of various lengths, camping sites, observation platforms, stores with local products, etc. The land plots for the construction of these infrastructure facilities are located in the recreational zone of the ZNP, and the legislation does not prohibit the relevant activities (planned in these projects) on the shores of Lake Baikal [57]. In 2020, a Sustainable Waste Management Concept was developed to reduce the impact of waste on the natural area of the park [58].

In the TNP the situation with the development of infrastructure is quite different. Within its boundaries, there are 200 tourist accommodation facilities, including 26 hotels, 23 guesthouses and rest houses, 2 sanatoriums, and 149 guest houses (all located in settlements). The growth of the recreational flow will naturally lead to the growth of the tourist infrastructure. The plans for the development of the TNP’s infrastructure include (i) the further development of a reception, accommodation and other services in the settlements; (ii) the construction of roads, power lines, water and heat supply, and sewage disposal in the seven key centers adjacent to the settlements; and (iii) the development of tourist routes, including a network of eco-trails of 380 km in length, as the best solution for implementing the recreational and environmental functions of the TNP.

In this research, we examined 55 infrastructure development projects, with 28 initiated by businesses and 27 by the park administration. It was revealed that businesses focus on accommodations, catering, recreation, leisure, and sports (using the lands of settlements). The park administration plans to create visitor centers, museums, eco-trails, observation sites, parking lots, rafting camps, and modular toilets on all tourist routes to support both visitors and conservation goals. Given the need for transport accessibility to the key centers of tourist activity, the construction/reconstruction of the road network is planned. All of the seven tourist centers of the Tunka Ecotourism Cluster will have a separate solid waste-collection system [59].

• D5. Involving local people in tourism services

As economic activities are prohibited in the parks, ecotourism plays a vital role in providing employment and income security for local communities living within the boundaries of the two parks. Many PAs cooperate with tourism companies and local governments, and involve the local population in the creation of a tourism product [60].

There are 112 people living within the boundaries of the ZNP, and their economic activities are strictly limited. They are only allowed to use natural resources for personal consumption with permission from the park. In the settlements adjacent to Lake Baikal within the boundaries of the ZNP, there are bad roads, no electricity, a ban on fishing, logging, and keeping domestic animals (cows, pigs, goats, chickens, etc.), and other environmental prohibitions. Local authorities support plans to develop ecotourism, create quality infrastructure and create jobs to overcome unemployment.

There are 140 employees working in “Zapovednoe Podlemorye”; meanwhile, a significant part of tourist services is provided in cooperation with representatives of tourist business and individuals. Around 700 local residents work in guest houses, hotels, shops, catering facilities, transport, and souvenir production within a 75 km radius of the park. These jobs are essential due to legal restrictions on economic activities on Lake Baikal’s shores, making them important for both local authorities and residents [61].

More than 20,000 people reside in the TNP: Russian law allows people to live within the boundaries of a national park. However, protection policies in other parks, such as Celaque National Park in Honduras [62] or Wudalianchi National Nature Reserve in China [20], prohibit people from living within park boundaries. However, TNP residents face significant challenges due to the legal restrictions in this area [50].

The local population in the TNP is engaged in farming, cattle breeding, recreation, gathering, crafts, etc. [63]. However, tourism is considered an important economy sector by both the local authorities and the population. More than 1000 people work in the park’s tourism sector, including hotels, restaurants, shops, transportation and excursion services. The TNP itself employs 148 people. Expanding cooperation between the park and the local population, as well as building effective partnerships with private business, is necessary to create new tourist sites, routes, brands, products, and expand the list of services offered [64]. The TNP organizes annual training seminars to enhance the expertise of tour guides and national park inspectors. These seminars aim to encourage the local population to take greater responsibility in nature conservation and promote the development of ecotourism. The TNP actively involves volunteers in the development of new excursion routes, construction of eco-trails, garbage collection, training and accounting of visitors. We found that the ecotourism development strategy of the TNP administration is based on the involvement of the local community in the development plans.

• D6. Funding

National parks in Russia, including “Zapovednoe Podlemorye”, are primarily financed by the federal government. However, the legislation also allows for other sources of funding, such as sponsorships, grants, and income generated from their own activities.

In 2021, “Zapovednoe Podlemorye” received approximately 3.5 million USD in funding [65], which is a 2.6 times increase compared to the time of its establishment in 2012. Of the total funding, 88% comes from the federal government (a 2.4-fold increase from 2012), 11.6% comes from the park’s own revenues, and 0.4% comes from sponsors. The increase in federal funding can be attributed to investments made to improve visitor accommodations, construct visitor information centers, and develop eco-trails.

In 2021, revenues generated by the park’s own activities will increase by 7.2 times compared to 2012, with ecotourism playing a significant role in this growth due to the development of new routes and infrastructure facilities.

For instance, fees for visiting the ZNP and excursion services have increased 6.6 times since 2012, while fees for accommodation services have increased 21 times. The share of sponsorship in the park’s funding is negligible. However, each year, various volunteer initiatives appear in the field of garbage collection, the construction of eco-trails, and education. These initiatives are expected to support the park’s natural resource conservation and ecotourism efforts.

The creation of ecotourism infrastructure within the ZNP’s territory is currently financed solely by budgetary funds, with no involvement from private capital. However, there is a severe shortage of professional staff to serve tourists. We firmly believe that businesses that are capable of sharing knowledge, experience, and resources should take the lead in providing services within the park. It is worth noting that the involvement of business in the development of infrastructure in national parks is still in its early stages in Russia, despite its widespread use in other countries [66].

The total funding for the TNP increased 1.6-fold from 2012 to 2021, reaching 1.6 million USD [65]. Of this amount, 87.5% comes from federal funding, while the remaining 12.5% is from the TNP’s own revenues. The increase in federal funding is attributed to investments made in infrastructure improvements, particularly visitor accommodation, visitor information center construction, and eco-trails.

As for the TNP’s own revenues, only 2.6% comes from fees for park visits and excursions. The majority of TNP’s revenue is generated from other activities, such as selling timber to the local population.

The difference in the generation of their own revenues between the two parks can be attributed to their unique features, including access to the park, the availability of accommodation services, food, transport, rental services, and excursions. It is worth noting that the TNP is a large and well-developed park where economic and recreational activities have been actively developing even prior to its creation. Therefore, both entrepreneurs and residents are involved in providing services to tourists in the park. Our research shows that the TNP generates less revenue on its own than the ZNP. However, private businesses operating within the TNP receive significant income from the services they provide. Official statistics indicate that in 2021, these businesses generated approximately 5 million USD [54,65], which is more than three times the total financing of the TNP activities. Therefore, the TNP plays a crucial role in increasing the number of tourists and contributes significantly to the socio-economic development of the region.

In the long run, the mechanism of public-private partnership could serve as a strong incentive for attracting private investment in the development of ecotourism infrastructure in the TNP.

Implementation of this mechanism in PAs requires changes in Russian legislation, in particular: (i) identify the privileged role of national parks in public–private partnerships; and (ii) provide for the possibility of transferring the infrastructure managed by the parks to a private partner or concessionaire [64].

• D7. Promoting ecotourism

Promoting ecotourism services has been a priority for the state since 2019, and both parks are actively marketing their services in a variety of ways. The use of exhibitions, branding, presentations, telemarketing, and the publication of booklets are all effective ways to reach potential tourists [53]. Additionally, engaging in garbage collection actions and projects to protect the snow leopard and the seal are great ways to show the public that the parks are committed to environmental conservation. Moreover, calling for volunteers to participate in planting seedlings, building trails, and separate garbage collection are great ways to increase public awareness and involvement in the parks’ activities. These volunteer projects are often popular and can help build support for the parks’ policies.

Although the both national parks have received support from the state to create conditions for ecotourism, researchers have noted that there is a lack of promotion of their services [63]. In our opinion, the effective promotion of national park services lies in developing a positive image of the park that is trustworthy and appealing to visitors. It can be achieved through the development of ecotourism that preserves natural resources and improves the well-being of residents.

• D8. Monitoring

The studied parks have an ongoing monitoring of rare and endangered species, populations, communities, and ecosystems of the PA [53]. Although the protection of natural complexes in the parks is satisfactory, the situations with violations of environmental legislation in the parks are different (Figure 7). In the ZNP, the total number of violations decreased by 28 times (from 450 cases in 2013 to 16 in 2021). Illegal fishing violations have been almost eliminated. In the ZNP, the number of violations of illegal presence decreased by almost 17 times since 2013, but cases of illegal passage of vehicles and citizens, particularly by waterway, are still registered.

In the ZNP, visitors can enter the park by car through a checkpoint that also serves as a visitor information center at the park entrance. The center is equipped with a modern video surveillance system that uses machine vision technology to automatically register visitors to the national park, allowing for the control of the recreational load on the unique natural complexes. The facility is also accessible to people with disabilities. Visitors arriving to the park by water transportation can register only at the visitor information centers located at the places of sightseeing (Monakhovo, Zmeyovaya, Nerpa Center).

In contrast, the total number of violations in the TNP (during the period of 2012–2021) continued to increase mainly due to violations of fire safety rules in the forests and illegal presence in areas of the park where passage by citizens and cars is prohibited (Figure 7). In the TNP, visitors arrive by car via the only road or by plane. The park has a checkpoint at the entrance, but it does not have the necessary facilities for round-the-clock surveillance by state inspectors and tour guides. There is no automated accounting of vehicles and visitors. Visitors to the park are charged an entry fee at the checkpoint, although local residents, visitors traveling on vouchers to resorts, and privileged categories of visitors are exempt from this fee. Analysis of popular photo spots reveals that TNP does not track the movement of some visitors, and their preferences are not considered in the spatial layout of infrastructure [39].

5. Conclusions

The study shows that the two national parks under study are implementing the federal agenda for ecotourism development in national parks.

Despite their close proximity within the same constituent entity of the Russian Federation, they differ significantly in terms of their natural values, sustainability, natural and cultural resources available for ecotourism development, areas, population sizes, levels of infrastructure development, and numbers of visitors.

The analytical framework proposed in this study helps identify the positive initial steps needed to transform the activities of these diverse national parks into conditions conducive for ecotourism development. The prevailing top-down management principle is supplemented by the establishment of a public tourism council and the involvement of organizations with diverse expertise, experience, and resources in partnerships. Functional zoning optimizes the combination of nature conservation and recreational development objectives. The ZNP, which comprises the Lake Baikal coastline and part of its water area, has expanded its recreational zone to cover 51.55% of the entire park area. The TNP is economically developed and more populated. Its recreational zone encompasses 63.3% of the entire national park. To implement the developed conceptual and design solutions, park directorates are taking active steps towards infrastructure development while taking into account the natural features of their territories. They are also striving to increase their own income and attract other funding sources. Both national parks involve the local communities and contribute to the promotion of ecotourism products by participating in exhibitions, eco-tourism events, publishing booklets, planting seedlings, building ecological paths, and implementing separate waste collection. Furthermore, our research findings indicate that the TNP, as a larger and more developed area, has a greater social and economic impact on the surrounding communities than the ZNP.

In addition to the strengths identified, our study has also highlighted weaknesses in the two national parks related to private investment attraction, staffing, and the monitoring of recreational impact. Furthermore, we observed that the development of tourist infrastructure facilities in the parks is largely dependent on budgetary funds, with minimal involvement of the private sector in providing tourist and recreational services within the PA.

The national parks prioritize ecotourism as an environmentally permissible economic activity. However, the long-term success of this approach also depends on the involvement of businesses in the development of national parks. The implementation of public–private partnership in PAs requires the improvements to the legislation, which should define the privileged role of national parks in such partnership and permit the transfer of infrastructure managed by the parks to private partners or concessionaires.

The continued development of national parks and the anticipated increase in recreational pressures require ongoing environmental, social, and economic monitoring in the national parks. In-depth research and long-term monitoring results will assess the impacts of increasing tourism pressures on the natural and cultural landscapes of national parks.

The positive effects of ecotourism initiatives in national parks take time to materialize and require ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Documenting the parks’ progress towards sustainable ecotourism as an acceptable type of economic activity in protected areas can help identify successful strategies and areas for improvement, contributing to biodiversity conservation and the well-being of local communities. In our view, the study results can be useful for future research conducted by researchers from Russia and other countries.