Employing Ecotourism Opportunities for Sustainability in the Aral Sea Region: Prospects and Challenges

2020
,
12
, 9249
10 of 19
Table 3.
The importance of specific attributes of ecotourism.
Motive
Strongly
Agree (5)
Agree
(4)
Neither,
Nor (3)
Disagree (2)
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Mean
SD
Percentage of Respondents (
n
=
86)
Safety
46.5
45.3
7
1.2
0
4.36
0.42
Relaxation
14
64
18.6
3.5
0
3.88
0.56
Fun
16.3
51.2
29.1
3.5
0
3.8
0.64
Environmental conservation
46.5
40.7
7
4.7
1.2
4.27
0.34
Comfort
29.1
38.4
24.4
7
1.2
3.87
0.52
Natural authenticity
41.9
31.4
22.1
1.2
3.5
4.07
0.66
Cultural authenticity
43
31.4
20.9
1.2
3.5
4.09
0.54
Education about Uzbek culture
33.7
45.3
15.1
4.7
1.2
4.06
0.48
Environmental education
43
41.9
12.8
1.2
1.2
4.24
0.34
Adventure
29.1
48.8
16.3
4.7
1.2
4
0.38
Benefits to local communities
34.9
41.9
16.3
4.7
2.3
4.02
0.56
Price
27.9
40.7
22.1
8.1
1.2
3.86
0.68
Novelty
22.1
44.2
27.9
3.5
2.3
3.8
0.62
Table 4.
The factors contributing to successful provision of ecotourism.
Motive
Strongly
Agree (5)
Agree
(4)
Neither,
Nor (3)
Disagree
(2)
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Mean
SD
Percentage of Respondents (
n
=
86)
Demand from international tourists
39.5
50
8.1
1.2
1.2
4.26
0.42
Demand from domestic tourists
27.9
48.8
17.4
2.3
3.5
3.95
0.56
Availability of low-interest loans
20.9
52.3
20.9
1.2
4.7
3.84
0.68
Governmental support
24.4
45.3
26.7
3.5
0
3.87
0.64
Support from local communities
30.2
43
24.4
1.2
1.2
4
0.58
Externally facilitated training
opportunities
29.1
45.3
20.9
2.3
2.3
3.97
0.62
External marketing
26.7
45.3
25.6
0
2.3
3.94
0.64
Transport infrastructure
34.9
46.5
16.3
1.2
1.2
4.13
0.46
Hotel infrastructure
38.4
44.2
15.1
1.2
1.2
4.17
0.46
Catering facilities
32.6
44.2
19.8
2.3
1.2
4.05
0.42
Availability of tour guides
36
40.7
17.4
4.7
1.2
4.06
0.4
Direct flights from European cities
31.4
41.9
25.7
1.2
0
4.03
0.52
Lastly, tourism businesses in Uzbekistan claimed that local communities in the Aral Sea region
could contribute substantially to promoting and developing ecotourism. Their main contribution
was seen in providing tour guide services, which is important because local tour guides are a crucial
attribute of ecotourism development in the Aral Sea Region. Local infrastructure was seen as a key
impediment to ecotourism, with the majority of tourism businesses ranking its quality as poor or very
poor. In particular, tourist accommodation was considered inadequate to meet the expectations of
tourists (93% of study participants ranked it as average or below). Catering and transport facilities were
also ranked as inadequate (83.7% and 79.1% of study participants marked these as average and below,
respectively). The main reasons behind the unwillingness to actively promote ecotourism in the Aral Sea
region of Uzbekistan are as follows: lack of experience (in the design and development of ecotourism
products and services), lack of competence (in promoting ecotourism products and services), and lack
of international networks (social capital) (to promote and market ecotourism products and services).
Cumulatively, these factors accounted for over 50% of responses. Lack of demand, closely linked to
limited marketing skills, was also frequently mentioned (about 20% of responses), thus indicating
another area for intervention. Lastly, the under-developed tourism infrastructure of the Aral Sea region
and the main demand for ecotourism coming from domestic tourists, who were far from wealthy, led to
shorter ecotourism tours and their limited profitability [
15
]. Of all study participants, 80.9% highlighted
that ecotourists spent less than USD 200 a day, while staying in the Aral Sea region, on average, no more
than two days.

---

Sustainability