Tourism Competitiveness and Regional Development in Kazakhstan: A KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework Proposal

Abstract

This study analyzes Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness through a descriptive and comparative design, drawing on the WEF Travel and Tourism Development Index (TTDI), the World Bank Logistics Performance Index (LPI), and national and international strategic documents. Kazakhstan possesses relative advantages in transport infrastructure and natural resources compared to Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. However, it exhibits significant weaknesses in tourism service infrastructure, human resource development, and promotion. To address these weaknesses, the study proposes the “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework,” which recombines selected dimensions of Porter’s Diamond Model (1990), Dwyer and Kim’s Integrated Model (2003), and Ritchie and Crouch’s Destination Competitiveness Model (2003) through an explicit mapping procedure that links Kazakhstan’s empirically identified weaknesses to theoretical constructs. The framework comprises four components: transport infrastructure; human resources and educational development; tourism product diversification and infrastructure; and promotion and marketing. Demand conditions, destination management, sustainability, safety, and local welfare are treated as cross-cutting dimensions. Within the TTCI series, Kazakhstan moved from 93rd (2011) to 79th (2019); the 2021 TTDI rank of 66th belongs to a methodologically revised index and cannot be read as a continuation of this trajectory. Tourism’s GDP contribution stood at only 0.8% in 2019, and the average length of stay was 2.6 nights—the lowest in the region. Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan moved more decisively on visa liberalization, as reflected in their TTDI 2021 International Openness scores (78.4 and 82.1 vs. Kazakhstan’s 42.5). Uzbekistan also outperformed Kazakhstan on Prioritization and Promotion (52.1 vs. 48.2).

1. Introduction

Global tourism has grown steadily over the past three decades, but the relationship between tourism competitiveness and regional development remains underexplored in post-Soviet Central Asian economies. Kazakhstan, independent since 1991, has attached strategic importance to tourism. With a surface area of 2,724,900 km², it is the ninth largest country in the world and holds a geostrategic position at the center of Eurasia (Myrzabekova, 2019). It possesses vast steppes, the Tien Shan and Altai mountains, the Kyzyklum Desert, lakes including Balkhash and Alakol, and rich historical and cultural assets inherited from the Silk Road (Gürsoy & Yemberdiyeva, 2021; Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016).

Despite this potential, Kazakhstan’s tourism sector remains underdeveloped relative to its economic size and regional competitors. Tourism’s contribution to GDP stood at only 0.8% in 2019, and average length of stay was 2.6 nights—the lowest among regional countries (Russia: 8.5; China: 9.2; Kyrgyzstan: 5.2; Uzbekistan: 3.9). Within the TTCI series, Kazakhstan rose from 93rd (2011) to 79th (2019). The 2021 TTDI, which replaced the TTCI after a methodological revision, placed Kazakhstan 66th. Because the two indices use different pillars, indicators, and country coverage, this rank cannot be read as a continuation of the TTCI trajectory. The apparent 27-position gain across 2011–2021 is therefore not treated in this study as evidence of improved competitiveness. As shown in Section 4.2, this ranking movement has not translated into proportional economic gains.

The paradox at the heart of this study is therefore: why does Kazakhstan’s relative strength in physical transport infrastructure and natural resources coexist with persistent weakness in tourism-specific service infrastructure, human resources, and promotion, and how can this imbalance be addressed systemically?

In this study, the term “regional competitiveness” denotes Kazakhstan’s national tourism competitiveness relative to its neighboring countries in the Eurasian region (Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan). The term does not refer to the competitiveness of Kazakhstan’s internal regions (oblastas); rather, it is consistent with the destination competitiveness literature (Dwyer & Kim, 2003; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003), which treats the nation as the unit of analysis when comparing international tourism performance. This national-level competitiveness has direct implications for regional development within Kazakhstan, because tourism activity is spatially concentrated and can reduce interregional disparities; these implications are discussed in Section 5 and Section 6.

Existing literature addresses Kazakhstan’s tourism sector in a fragmented manner. Ramazanova and Kunurkulzhayeva (2024) examine the competitiveness of the Aktobe region; Abishov and Ünlüönen (2016) assess infrastructure and service quality deficiencies; Akimov and Yüzbaşıoğlu (2019) explore rural and ethnic tourism potential; Öztürk and Kenzhebayeva (2013) compare thermal hotel service quality; Öğüt et al. (2018) model health tourism potential; and Gunay et al. (2026) document barriers facing young tourism entrepreneurs. Each study addresses a distinct dimension of the sector, but none integrates these dimensions into a systemic framework.

A systematic assessment of the existing literature reveals three fundamental gaps. First, studies examining Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness (Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016; Ramazanova & Kunurkulzhayeva, 2024; Gunay et al., 2026) document individual weaknesses separately, but do not analyze how these weaknesses interact with and reinforce one another. Second, existing international indices (TTDI, LPI) provide descriptive rankings, but do not contain a methodology for translating these rankings into policy priorities. Third, foundational competitiveness models such as Porter, Dwyer & Kim, and Ritchie & Crouch were developed for advanced economies and do not adequately address the specific conditions of transition economies—particularly those with strong physical infrastructure but weak soft infrastructure. These three gaps constitute the starting point for KAZTUR-4: rather than rejecting existing models, it offers a transparent procedure that recombines their selected dimensions according to Kazakhstan’s empirically identified weakness profile.

The present study offers three contributions. First, it provides a comparative analysis of Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness against four regional countries by drawing on international indices (TTDI, LPI) and national statistics. Second, it recombines selected dimensions of three major theoretical models through an explicit mapping procedure in order to propose the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework—a systemic competitiveness framework. Third, it translates this framework into concrete, actionable policy recommendations, while clearly distinguishing analytically derived conclusions from illustrative policy targets.

In line with the overall objective, the following sub-objectives have been identified:

• To reveal the current state and historical development of Kazakhstan’s tourism sector;
• To assess the impact of transport infrastructure on tourism competitiveness;
• To conduct a comparative analysis with regional countries (the Russian Federation, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan);
• To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the sector based on secondary data;
• To propose a strategic competitiveness framework applicable under current economic conditions.

For comparative analysis, Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan—countries that compete directly with Kazakhstan in the Eurasian region—are considered.

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

This section systematically addresses the concepts that form the theoretical foundation of the research alongside the existing literature. The literature review is organized thematically around the four components of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework: transport infrastructure, human resources and service quality, tourism diversification and sustainability, and promotion/branding.

2.1. Competitiveness in Tourism: Three Conceptual Models

Competitiveness is a relative and multidimensional concept (Dwyer & Kim, 2003, p. 371). For tourism destinations, three models provide the theoretical foundation of this research.

Porter’s Diamond Model (1990) explains how a nation achieves international competitive advantage in an industry through four interacting factors: factor conditions (human, physical, knowledge, capital resources, infrastructure); demand conditions (size and sophistication of domestic demand); related and supporting industries; and firm strategy, structure, and rivalry. Two additional variables—chance and government—influence the model (Bahar & Kozak, 2012). For tourism, physical resources (natural beauty, climate, location) and infrastructure (transport, telecommunications) are the most relevant factor conditions. Porter’s model is supply-side and industry-focused; it does not explicitly address demand-side perceptions, sustainability, or destination management.

Dwyer and Kim’s Integrated Competitiveness Model (2003) builds on Porter’s Diamond and incorporates demand-side and management dimensions. Its components are: core resources and attractions (natural, cultural, created); supporting factors and resources (general and tourism infrastructure, accessibility, human resources, entrepreneurship); destination management (marketing, policy/planning, human resource development, environmental management); situational conditions (economic, socio-cultural, political, legal, technological, competitive trends); and demand conditions (tourist awareness, perception, preferences). Dwyer and Kim’s model’s distinctive contribution is its emphasis on demand-side factors and management elements, and its treatment of environmental management as a separate component.

Ritchie and Crouch’s Destination Competitiveness Model (2003) addresses destination competitiveness in a hierarchical structure of five main components and 36 subcomponents: core resources and attractors; supporting factors and resources; destination management; qualifying and amplifying determinants (quality of life, safety, cost/price competitiveness, carrying capacity, image); and global macro-environment. Its most significant contribution is placing sustainability at the center of competitiveness and emphasizing “qualifying determinants” such as carrying capacity and local population well-being. According to Ritchie and Crouch (2003, p. 2), a destination is fully competitive when it can “increasingly attract visitors and provide them with satisfying and memorable experiences, while doing so in a way that enhances the well-being of the local population and preserves the destination’s natural capital for future generations.”

The three models differ in emphasis: Porter is supply-side and industry-focused; Dwyer and Kim add demand and management; Ritchie and Crouch add sustainability and qualitative determinants. None alone captures the full complexity of a post-Soviet transition economy with strong physical infrastructure but weak soft infrastructure. This is the theoretical gap that the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework addresses—not by replacing these models, but by explicitly selecting and recombining their dimensions to fit Kazakhstan’s empirically identified weaknesses. The full mapping is presented in Section 5.1, and the rationale for treating certain dimensions as cross-cutting is explained in Section 3.4.

2.2. International Competitiveness Indices

The Travel and Tourism Development Index (TTDI), published by the World Economic Forum, is the most comprehensive index measuring tourism competitiveness. It was renamed from the TTCI in 2021. The 2021 TTDI is structured around five main dimensions (Enabling Environment; Policy and Enabling Conditions; Infrastructure; Natural and Cultural Resources; and Travel and Tourism Sustainability). Under these dimensions are 17 pillars and 112 individual indicators (WEF, 2022, p. 8). The TTDI was methodologically revised in 2021; therefore, rankings from TTCI (2011–2019) and TTDI (2021) are not strictly comparable, and comparisons are presented as indicative rather than precise.

The Logistics Performance Index (LPI), published by the World Bank, measures the quality of a country’s supply chain and logistics infrastructure—not tourism competitiveness directly. In this study, the LPI is used only as an indirect indicator of the physical transport and logistics environment that enables tourism movement. LPI 2018 data show Kazakhstan ranks 71st globally, second among the five comparator countries after China, with a “Timely Delivery” score of 3.53—second only to China in the comparison group.

The Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) was discontinued after the pandemic-era special edition. It is mentioned here only as historical background and does not inform the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework.

2.3. Literature Synthesis: What Is Known, Where Studies Agree and Disagree

This section synthesizes the literature thematically around the four components that constitute the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework, identifying agreements, disagreements, and gaps.

Transport infrastructure is widely recognized as a necessary but insufficient condition for tourism competitiveness (Myrzabekova, 2019; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003; Porter, 1990). Studies agree that Kazakhstan’s geostrategic position and transit corridors (Western China–Western Europe) provide a relative advantage in physical connectivity (Myrzabekova, 2019; World Bank, 2018). However, they disagree on the extent to which this advantage translates into tourism competitiveness. Abishov and Ünlüönen (2016) argue that service quality along routes remains inadequate, while Myrzabekova (2019) emphasizes bureaucratic barriers at border crossings. This disagreement stems from different methodological focuses—supply-side infrastructure vs. governance barriers. No existing framework links transport infrastructure explicitly to tourism product diversification and promotion within a single analytical structure.

The literature reveals a consensus that human resource deficiencies constitute a critical “soft infrastructure” barrier (Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016; Öztürk & Kenzhebayeva, 2013; Gunay et al., 2026). Studies agree that, despite the dynamic development of tourism education, the skilled workforce needed by the sector has not been trained. Gunay et al. (2026) provide recent qualitative evidence of a critical shortage of Chinese-speaking guides and of digital infrastructure deficiencies outside major cities. The disagreement lies in attribution. Some studies attribute this to education curriculum gaps (Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016), while others point to structural barriers such as high taxation and regional inequalities (Gunay et al., 2026). This disagreement reflects different theoretical lenses—education policy vs. political economy. Neither lens, however, has been systematically integrated with the emerging literature on digital transformation and quality-oriented tourism supply. This gap remains unaddressed: no study combines human resource development, digital infrastructure, and quality-oriented tourism supply into a single analytical framework (see Marinac & Pisker, 2026).

Product diversification remains a central concern, as studies agree that Kazakhstan’s product portfolio is insufficiently diversified, as evidenced by the lowest average length of stay in the region (2.6 nights) (Ramazanova & Kunurkulzhayeva, 2024). Gürsoy and Yemberdiyeva (2021) emphasize natural resource potential; Akimov and Yüzbaşıoğlu (2019) highlight ethnic tourism; Öğüt et al. (2018) and Öztürk and Kenzhebayeva (2013) document health tourism potential. Sezer (2021) demonstrates that sustainability and carrying capacity are constitutive elements of long-term competitiveness. The disagreement concerns priority among nature, culture, and health tourism—a disagreement rooted in regional idiosyncrasies and different resource endowments. No existing study couples diversification with sustainability principles in a single strategic component for Kazakhstan.

Promotion and branding emerge as critical weaknesses, with studies agreeing that promotion is inadequate (Küçüktopuzlu & Çakır, 2012; Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016; Öğüt et al., 2018). The TTDI 2021 data confirm this: Kazakhstan’s “Prioritization and Promotion” score of 48.2 and “International Openness (Visa)” score of 42.5 lag behind Uzbekistan (52.1 and 78.4) and Kyrgyzstan (46.3 and 82.1). The disagreement concerns the relative importance of visa policy vs. image—a disagreement stemming from different data sources and methodological approaches. No study links promotional effectiveness explicitly to visa policies and governance.

Two recent international empirical studies suggest directions for broadening this evidence base. Konstantakopoulou (2026) demonstrates that financial institution development has statistically significant positive effects on international tourist arrivals, whereas financial market development does not. This finding is relevant to Kazakhstan, where access to finance for tourism SMEs outside Almaty and Astana remains constrained. Marinac and Pisker (2026), as noted above, show that digital transformation and quality-oriented tourism supply are significant determinants of destination competitiveness in developing economies. Together, these studies indicate that the KAZTUR-4 framework should be tested against a broader evidence base.

The sources reviewed here are context-specific and should be understood as a starting point rather than a comprehensive review; this limitation is discussed further in Section 3.5.

3. Methodology

This section provides a detailed explanation of the research design, data collection process, data sources employed, sample selection, and the analytical methods applied.

3.1. Research Design

This research is designed as a descriptive and comparative study that integrates qualitative document analysis with descriptive quantitative secondary data. A case study design has been adopted to examine Kazakhstan’s tourism sector holistically within its real-life context. The primary reason for choosing this design is that it allows for the examination of a complex and multidimensional phenomenon—tourism competitiveness—in a way that respects the specific historical, geographical, and institutional conditions of Kazakhstan, rather than imposing a universalistic framework that would obscure context-specific dynamics.

Although numerical data (TTDI scores, LPI scores, tourist numbers, GDP figures) are used throughout the analysis, the study does not employ inferential statistical methods. The data are interpreted solely through descriptive statistics—means, percentages, rates of change, and comparative tables. This approach is consistent with established practice in destination competitiveness research, where the aim is often to compare performance across countries and over time rather than to establish causal relationships (Dwyer & Kim, 2003; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003; Bahar & Kozak, 2012; Kozak & Rimmington, 1999). The research adopts a pragmatic epistemological stance, combining quantitative secondary data with qualitative document analysis, on the assumption that a more comprehensive understanding of Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness can be achieved through the integration of both types of evidence than through either approach alone.

3.2. Data Sources

The data collection process was carried out between September 2022 and March 2023. The collection comprised the screening of open-access databases of international organizations and the compilation of relevant academic and institutional publications. The primary data sources used in the research are the World Economic Forum’s Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index and Travel and Tourism Development Index; the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index and World Development Indicators; international tourism reports of the United Nations World Tourism Organization; and data obtained from the national statistical offices of Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan.

As secondary data sources, academic articles and theses indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were used, as were strategic documents of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan, reports of DEIK, UNDP, OECD, and IMF, and key books and book chapters on tourism economics, marketing, and regional development. The use of multiple data sources serves a triangulation function. Findings that are consistent across different sources—for example, the weakness in tourist service infrastructure, which appears both in TTDI scores and in the qualitative findings of Abishov and Ünlüönen (2016) and Gunay et al. (2026)—are treated as more robust than findings that appear in only one source.

3.3. Sample Selection and Geographical Scope

The sample of the research was determined using purposive sampling, a method that aims to select units providing the richest and most appropriate data for the research question. Within the scope of the country sample, five countries with which Kazakhstan is in direct tourism competition and shares geographical, historical, economic, and cultural ties have been included in the analysis. These are Kazakhstan as the focal country; the Russian Federation, the northern neighbor and largest source of tourists; China, the eastern neighbor and strategic partner; Kyrgyzstan, the southern neighbor sharing a similar culture; and Uzbekistan, the southern neighbor, a direct competitor, and a country demonstrating rapid tourism development.

These four countries were selected on the basis of four explicit criteria: first, they share a border with Kazakhstan; second, they are the largest sources of inbound tourists to Kazakhstan; third, they compete for the same regional tourism markets; and fourth, they are covered by the same international indices (TTDI, LPI), which makes systematic comparison possible. It is acknowledged that other destinations are popular with Kazakh citizens—notably Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Georgia—but these were excluded because they do not compete for the same inbound tourism market. This exclusion is treated as a limitation rather than a design flaw, and its implications are discussed in Section 3.5.

The 2011–2021 period was selected as the time frame because it covers the years from the twentieth to the thirtieth anniversary of Kazakhstan’s independence and includes both the pre- and post-EXPO 2017 period. The analysis covers five countries, five periods (2011, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021—the years in which the TTCI or TTDI was published), and 112 indicators. However, the panel is not completely balanced: Kyrgyzstan was not included in the 2011 index, and several indicators were revised in the 2021 edition. The total number of data points is therefore approximately 2800 (due to missing Kyrgyzstan data in 2011 and revised indicators in 2021), but this figure should be understood as an upper bound rather than a precise count. These data points have been tabulated descriptively and interpreted comparatively, consistent with the methodological approach outlined in Section 3.1.

3.4. Data Analysis Methods: From Evidence to Strategic Framework

The data analysis consists of five stages. The central concern of this section is to explain, in a transparent and replicable manner, how the empirical findings led to the selection of the four components of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework.

Stage 1: Data Collection and Tabulation. The raw data obtained from the WEF TTDI/TTCI, World Bank LPI, and UNWTO databases were organized chronologically and by country using Microsoft Excel. Separate worksheets were created for each country, and TTDI sub-index scores, LPI component scores, and key economic indicators were tabulated. The accuracy of the data was verified by cross-referencing with the original sources.

Stage 2: Descriptive and Comparative Analysis. The TTDI, LPI, and GCI scores of the five countries were converted into comparative tables by year, and percentage changes were calculated. Changes in rankings were reported descriptively to illustrate Kazakhstan’s performance over time. The findings were visualized using line charts and bar charts; however, no trend lines or confidence intervals were added, since these would imply inferential claims that the data cannot support. This stage identified Kazakhstan’s strongest and weakest pillars relative to regional peers. The strongest pillars were Safety and Security (68.5), Human Resources and Labor Market (72.4), and Price Competitiveness (68.2). The weakest pillars were Tourist Service Infrastructure (44.5), International Openness/Visa (42.5), and Prioritization and Promotion (48.2). The LPI data identified Customs (2.66) and Infrastructure (2.55) as relative weaknesses despite a strong Timely Delivery score (3.53). These findings provided the empirical starting point for the model construction.

Stage 3: Thematic Document and Content Analysis (Qualitative). The national tourism strategy documents of Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan were examined using content analysis. Priority tourism types, target markets, and policy instruments were identified from the strategy documents and tabulated comparatively. Academic articles were analyzed through thematic literature synthesis. It should be noted that this was not a systematic review in the technical sense: no formal search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or screening process were applied. Instead, the literature was read thematically, and the key findings of each study were extracted and synthesized around the four components that emerged from the empirical analysis.

Stage 4: Mapping Evidence to Strategic Framework Components. This is the critical stage that connects the empirical findings to the proposed strategic framework. The procedure consisted of four steps. First, the empirical weaknesses identified in Stage 2 were ranked by severity. Second, these weaknesses were matched to the theoretical dimensions of the three foundational models. Porter’s Diamond Model contributed the dimensions of “factor conditions” (particularly infrastructure and human resources) and “related and supporting industries.” Dwyer and Kim’s Integrated Model contributed “destination management” (specifically human resource development and marketing) and “demand conditions” (tourist awareness and perception). Ritchie and Crouch’s Destination Competitiveness Model contributed “supporting factors” (accessibility and hospitality) and “sustainability” (carrying capacity and local well-being). Third, weaknesses that shared a common theoretical foundation and a common policy domain were grouped into a single component. This grouping produced four components:

• Component 1: Strengthening Transport Infrastructure. The weakness in tourist service infrastructure, combined with the relative strength in physical transit infrastructure, was grouped here because both concern the physical accessibility of destinations.
• Component 2: Human Resources and Educational Development. The gap between the relatively high Human Resources and Labor Market score and the low Tourist Service Infrastructure score, together with the qualitative evidence of guide shortages and digital skill deficiencies, was grouped here because both concern the people who deliver tourism services.
• Component 3: Tourism Product Diversification and Infrastructure Development. The short average length of stay and the insufficient product diversification were grouped here because both concern what tourists can do and where they can stay once they arrive.
• Component 4: Promotion and Marketing Strategies. The low scores in Prioritization and Promotion and International Openness, together with the evidence of a negative image and weak branding, were grouped here because both concern how Kazakhstan communicates with and attracts potential visitors.

Fourth, the four components were cross-checked against the literature synthesis to ensure that each component addresses a gap identified in the existing literature. The full mapping of empirical weaknesses to theoretical dimensions and KAZTUR-4 components is presented in Section 5.1.2, where the strategic framework is formally specified. The decision to present this mapping in Section 5 rather than here reflects the logical structure of the paper: the mapping is not merely a methodological step but the analytical core of the model itself.

To illustrate the operation of this procedure, an example may be provided. TTDI 2021 data show that Kazakhstan’s “Tourist Service Infrastructure” score (44.5) is among the lowest in the region, while its “Human Resources and Labor Market” score (72.4) is relatively high. The 27.9-point gap between these two data points theoretically indicates a “disconnect between education and practical service quality.” In Porter’s model, this corresponds to the “factor conditions” dimension; in Dwyer & Kim, to the “destination management” dimension; and in Ritchie & Crouch, to the “supporting factors” dimension. The common denominator of these three theoretical dimensions is “human resources and education.” Therefore, this empirical weakness is grouped under the second component of KAZTUR-4, “Human Resources and Educational Development.” Similarly, the “Average Length of Stay” being 2.6 nights—the lowest in the region—indicates insufficient product diversification, which constitutes the third component.

The dimensions that receive substantial attention in the theoretical models—demand conditions, destination management, sustainability, safety, and local welfare—do not appear as separate components of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework because they are cross-cutting rather than discrete. Demand conditions are addressed primarily in the fourth component, since promotion and marketing are the mechanisms through which tourist awareness and perception are shaped. Destination management is embedded across all four components: the coordination mechanisms described in Section 5.3 are the operational expression of destination management, and the implementation phases in Section 5.4 specify the management actions required. Sustainability is treated as a cross-cutting principle rather than a separate component: it informs the third component through the requirement that product diversification respect carrying capacity, and it informs the first component through the requirement that transport corridors be environmentally sensitive. Safety and local welfare are treated as qualifying determinants in the sense of Ritchie and Crouch (2003): they condition the effectiveness of all four components rather than constituting a component in their own right. Kazakhstan’s relatively high safety score (68.5) is therefore treated as a contextual strength that supports the model rather than as an area requiring a separate strategic component. This selection is justified by the empirical finding that Kazakhstan’s weaknesses are concentrated in the four areas identified, not in safety or local welfare, where performance is comparatively strong.

Stage 5: SWOT Analysis and Scenario Planning (Qualitative). All findings obtained from the preceding stages were compiled to construct a SWOT analysis matrix. The SWOT matrix is presented in Section 4.9. On the basis of this matrix, three possible scenarios—optimistic, pessimistic, and realistic—were developed qualitatively. These scenarios are presented in Section 4.11. The scenarios are not arbitrary constructions. They are built by varying the two variables that the empirical analysis identified as most consequential for Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness: the speed of visa liberalization and the effectiveness of human resource development. These two variables were selected because they correspond to the two weakest pillars in the TTDI (International Openness at 42.5 and Tourist Service Infrastructure at 44.5, the latter being closely linked to human resource quality). By holding other factors constant and varying these two, the scenarios illustrate the range of plausible outcomes. No quantitative projections have been made; only qualitative inferences have been drawn in the form of conditional statements. These scenarios are intended as heuristic devices for policymakers, not as predictions.

3.5. Limitations of the Research

This research has several constraints that should be borne in mind when interpreting its findings.

The first limitation concerns data sources. The study relies entirely on secondary data sources—official statistics, international indices, and published articles and theses. It does not include any primary field research, such as surveys, interviews, or focus group studies, measuring the direct perceptions and experiences of tourists, tourism enterprises, or local residents. This means that the research findings are based entirely on the interpretation of existing data, and the perspectives of the actors most directly involved in tourism are absent.

The second limitation concerns statistical method. The research does not employ inferential statistical methods. Consequently, no causal relationships have been established between variables. Where changes over time are reported—for example, the increase in tourist arrivals in 2017—these are characterized as descriptive trends, not as evidence of covariation or causation, unless an explicit relationship has been analyzed. The attribution of the 2017 increase to EXPO 2017 is therefore presented as a plausible interpretation supported by contextual evidence, not as a demonstrated causal claim.

The third limitation concerns geographical scope. The comparative analysis is limited to Kazakhstan and four regional countries. Other rapidly rising destinations in terms of tourism competitiveness, such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, have been excluded. The findings are therefore valid only for these five countries and cannot be generalized to other contexts.

Fourth limitation: temporal scope and index updates. The research covers the 2011–2021 period, and data collection ended in March 2023. Although the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are partially reflected through the 2021 TTDI data, post-pandemic recovery trends (2023–2024) fall outside the scope. Later editions of the indices used (TTDI 2024, LPI 2023) were not available at the time of data collection and are therefore not included. Furthermore, the rapid tourism policy changes implemented in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan during 2022–2024—such as the expansion of visa liberalization and new promotional initiatives—could not be incorporated into the analysis. This is a substantive limitation because the manuscript’s policy orientation targets the 2026–2035 period, and post-2021 developments may have altered the relative competitive positions documented here. Future research should replicate the full comparative analysis with the updated indices, particularly to assess whether the four empirical weaknesses identified in Section 4 (Tourist Service Infrastructure, International Openness, Prioritization and Promotion, and short average length of stay) remain the most salient gaps.

The fifth limitation concerns framework implementation. Although the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework is theoretically comprehensive and based on regional comparisons, a pilot application testing the model’s applicability, effectiveness, and potential challenges in the field has not been conducted within the scope of this research. The proposed strategic framework has therefore not been empirically validated. It should be understood as a theoretically grounded and empirically informed strategic framework, not as a validated predictive model.

3.6. Ethical Statement

As this research is based entirely on secondary data sources, it does not involve any intervention on human or animal subjects. Therefore, it is not a study requiring ethics committee approval. All data sources (WEF, World Bank, UNWTO, national statistical offices) and the cited academic works have been appropriately referenced. No false or misleading information has been used against any institution, organization, or individual. The study has been conducted in accordance with the principles of academic integrity and transparency.

4. Findings

This section presents the findings obtained from secondary data analysis based on international indices (WEF TTDI/TTCI, World Bank LPI), UNWTO data, and national statistics. The findings reveal Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness in comparison with regional countries (Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan). The section is organized to move from descriptive evidence to the analytical synthesis that informs the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework.

4.1. Historical Development and Tourist Arrivals in Kazakhstan

The historical development of tourism in Kazakhstan dates back to the Silk Road period. Organized tourism activities began in 1900 with the establishment of the Mountaineers’ Union, which organized the first mountain treks (Myrzabekova, 2019, p. 69). The Ministry of Tourism and Sports was established in 2006, and within the “Industrial Renewal and Development Program” (2003–2015), tourism ranked first among seven priority sectors. The “Kazakhstan 2030” and “Kazakhstan 2050” Strategies identify tourism as one of seven sectors requiring priority development (DEİK, 2018a, p. 63).

Despite three decades of strategic prioritization, tourism’s contribution to GDP remains at 0.8%, indicating an implementation gap between strategy and outcomes. This gap is one of the empirical justifications for the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework’s emphasis on coordination and governance (Section 5.3). The implementation gap demonstrates that physical infrastructure investments alone are insufficient without effective destination management, which is treated as a cross-cutting dimension in the KAZTUR-4 framework (Section 5.1.2).

4.2. Key Macroeconomic and Tourism Indicators

International tourist arrivals in Kazakhstan increased steadily between 2014 and 2018, from 6.1 million to 8.5 million.

Table 1. International Tourist Arrivals in Kazakhstan (2014–2018).

Year	Number of Tourist Arrivals (Millions)	Rate of Change (%)	Contextual Factor
2014	6.1	+7.0	Baseline steady growth
2015	6.5	+6.6	Tenge depreciation; increased price competitiveness.
2016	7.0	+7.7	Regional demand recovery
2017	7.7	+10.0	EXPO 2017 Astana; enhanced international visibility
2018	8.5	+10.4	Post-EXPO momentum; World Nomad Games

Source: Compiled from data of the Statistical Committee of the Ministry of National Economy of Kazakhstan.

presents this trajectory together with the contextual factors commonly associated with each year’s change (The Statistical Committee of the Ministry of National Economy of Kazakhstan, 2019).

The “Contextual Factor” column presents plausible interpretations, not demonstrated causal claims. The empirical data show a temporal association between EXPO 2017 and increased arrivals, but no causal analysis has been performed. The 2015 growth (6.6%) coincided with tenge depreciation, which made Kazakhstan relatively more affordable for foreign visitors. The 2016 increase (7.7%) reflects the beginning of recovery in regional travel demand following the economic slowdown of 2014–2015 (The Statistical Committee of the Ministry of National Economy of Kazakhstan, 2019). The exceptional growth in 2017 (10.0%) is commonly attributed to EXPO 2017, which attracted over 4 million visitors and generated substantial international media exposure (UNWTO, 2019). This momentum continued into 2018 (10.4%), when Kazakhstan hosted the first edition of the World Nomad Games and benefited from continued post-EXPO visibility (The Statistical Committee of the Ministry of National Economy of Kazakhstan, 2019).

Table 2. Key Economic and Tourism Indicators, 2019.

Indicator	Kazakhstan	Russia	China	Uzbekistan	Kyrgyzstan
Surface Area (km2)	2,724,900	17,098,246	9,596,961	447,400	199,951
Population (Millions)	19.0	144.1	1412.6	34.9	6.7
GDP (Billion USD)	193.0	1775.0	17,963.0	69.2	9.0
GDP per Capita (USD)	10,158	12,319	12,720	1983	1343
International Tourist Arrivals (Millions, 2019)	7.7	24.4	65.7	6.7	0.85
Average Length of Stay	2.6	8.5	9.2	3.9	5.2
Tourism Revenue (Billion USD)	1.6	20.1	147.7	1.2	0.3
Tourism Revenue as % of GDP	0.8	1.1	0.8	1.7	3.3

Source: UNWTO (2019); World Bank (2022). Note: All figures are for 2019 to ensure comparability across countries. 2022 data were not used because the COVID-19 pandemic distorted tourism flows and made cross-country comparisons unreliable. Length-of-stay figures are drawn from UNWTO (2019) and national statistical sources.

compares the key economic and tourism indicators of Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan.

The analytical significance of these findings for KAZTUR-4 is twofold. First, the short average length of stay (2.6 nights) directly justifies the third component, Tourism Product Diversification and Infrastructure Development, because it indicates that Kazakhstan lacks sufficient attractions and activities to retain tourists. Second, the low tourism revenue as a share of GDP (0.8%) compared to Kyrgyzstan (3.3%) and Uzbekistan (1.7%) demonstrates that Kazakhstan has not yet converted its natural and cultural assets into economic value, reinforcing the need for the fourth component, Promotion and Marketing Strategies.

4.3. Findings from the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index (TTCI/TTDI)

Because the TTDI was methodologically revised in 2021,

Table 3. TTCI/TTDI Rankings of Regional Countries (2011–2021).

Country	2011	2015	2017	2019	2021	Change (2011–2021)
Kazakhstan	93	85	81	79	66	+27
Russian Federation	59	45	43	39	35	+24
China	39	44	44	47	26	+13
Uzbekistan	105	107	107	109	83	+22
Kyrgyzstan	–	115	115	111	90	–

Source: World Economic Forum. Note: The TTDI was methodologically revised in 2021; rankings from the TTCI and TTDI are not strictly comparable, and the changes shown are indicative rather than precise.

should be read as two separate series rather than one continuous trajectory. Within the TTCI series (2011–2019), Kazakhstan moved from 93rd to 79th, Russia from 59th to 39th, Uzbekistan from 105th to 109th, and China from 39th to 47th; Kyrgyzstan entered the index in 2015 at 115th and stood at 111th in 2019. In the first TTDI edition (2021), Kazakhstan ranked 66th, Russia 35th, China 26th, Uzbekistan 83rd, and Kyrgyzstan 90th. The apparent 27-position gain for Kazakhstan across 2011–2021 is therefore an artifact of combining two non-comparable methodologies, not a measured improvement. It is also worth noting that the TTCI series itself does not show a monotonic rise for Kazakhstan’s neighbours: Uzbekistan’s TTCI rank declined from 105th to 109th between 2011 and 2019, and China’s from 39th to 47th, before both improved in the 2021 TTDI. This pattern reinforces the point that rank movements across the 2021 methodological break should not be interpreted as evidence of changing competitiveness.

Table 4. TTDI 2021 Sub-Index Scores (0–100 scale).

Sub-Index/Pillar	Kazakhstan	Russia	China	Uzbekistan	Kyrgyzstan
Business Environment	58.2	62.1	71.5	48.3	44.1
Safety and Security	68.5	54.3	72.1	52.4	44.2
Human Resources and Labor Market	72.4	75.1	80.2	61.3	62.5
ICT Infrastructure	65.3	70.5	85.6	57.2	49.8
Prioritization and Promotion	48.2	55.2	68.4	52.1	46.3
International Openness (Visa)	42.5	38.1	45.2	78.4	82.1
Price Competitiveness	68.2	62.4	58.1	72.5	75.3
Air Transport Infrastructure	58.6	68.2	74.3	52.1	45.2
Ground and Port Infrastructure	62.1	64.5	72.4	58.3	49.5
Tourist Service Infrastructure	44.5	65.2	71.2	48.2	42.1
Natural Resources	64.2	62.1	68.4	56.3	55.4
Cultural Resources	52.1	58.4	62.5	58.3	54.2

Source: World Economic Forum, The Travel & Tourism Development Index (TTDI) 2021.

presents the sub-index and pillar scores of regional countries within the scope of the 2021 TTDI. China achieves the highest scores in numerous areas, including Business Environment (71.5), Human Resources and Labor Market (80.2), ICT Infrastructure (85.6), Prioritization and Promotion (68.4), and Air Transport Infrastructure (74.3). Kazakhstan is relatively well-positioned in Safety and Security (68.5) and Price Competitiveness (68.2). Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan rank considerably ahead of the other countries in International Openness (Visa), with scores of 78.4 and 82.1, respectively. The areas in which Kazakhstan receives its lowest scores are Tourist Service Infrastructure (44.5), International Openness (42.5), and Prioritization and Promotion (48.2).

These findings reveal a clear pattern. Kazakhstan’s strongest pillars are Safety and Security (68.5), Human Resources and Labor Market (72.4), and Price Competitiveness (68.2), whereas its weakest pillars are Tourist Service Infrastructure (44.5), International Openness/Visa (42.5), and Prioritization and Promotion (48.2). It is important to interpret the Human Resources and Labor Market score (72.4) with care. This score is relatively high in absolute terms and reflects Kazakhstan’s strong general education system, high literacy rate, and available labor force. However, it does not capture tourism-specific service quality, practical vocational training, or foreign-language proficiency in customer-facing roles. The 27.9-point gap between this score (72.4) and the Tourist Service Infrastructure score (44.5) is analytically significant: it indicates that general human capital is not being converted into tourism-specific service quality. The weakness, therefore, lies not in the overall level of human resources but in the articulation between education and the practical demands of the tourism sector. This finding is consistent with the qualitative evidence of Abishov and Ünlüönen (2016) and Gunay et al. (2026).

Kazakhstan’s weaknesses are equally striking. Tourist service infrastructure, with a score of 44.5, is the area of lowest performance, where the country fares better only than Kyrgyzstan in the region. International openness, particularly visa policies, constitutes its second weakest area with a score of 42.5. Lagging far behind Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan is among the most restrictive countries in the region with regard to visa liberalization. The average length of stay is only 2.6 nights, the lowest in the region, compared with 8.5 nights in Russia, 9.2 nights in China, and 5.2 nights in Kyrgyzstan. The ratio of tourism revenue to GDP is quite low at 0.8%; this ratio is 3.3% in Kyrgyzstan, 1.7% in Uzbekistan, and 1.1% in Russia. Moreover, international chain hotels are found only in Almaty and Astana. Scoring 48.2 in tourism prioritization and promotion, Kazakhstan demonstrates weak performance, lagging behind China and Russia.

In summary, while Kazakhstan’s strongest aspects are security, price advantage, and human resources, its weakest aspects are the inadequacy of tourism service infrastructure, restrictive visa policies, and the short duration of tourist stays. Despite the improvement in ranking, the fact that tourism’s economic contribution accounts for only 0.8% of GDP and that the average length of stay remains at 2.6 nights indicates that the country falls considerably below the regional average. These findings confirm that each of the four components of KAZTUR-4 is grounded in an empirical basis: the weakness in Tourist Service Infrastructure (44.5) points to the first component (Transport Infrastructure); the gap between Human Resources (72.4) and Tourist Service Infrastructure (44.5) points to the second component (Human Resources and Education); the short average length of stay points to the third component (Product Diversification); and the low scores in Prioritization and Promotion and International Openness point to the fourth component (Promotion and Marketing).

4.4. The Impact of Transport Infrastructure on Tourism Competitiveness

Kazakhstan’s transport system is significant in terms of expanding the domestic market and developing international trade as a component of the economy. Kazakhstan occupies a very special place in regional transport due to its location at the center of Eurasia and its surface area of 2,724,900 square kilometers (Myrzabekova, 2019, p. 89).

Upon examining

Table 5. Tourism Competitiveness Criteria and Scores of Regional Countries (WEF, 2017).

Country	Air Transport Infrastructure	Ground and Port Infrastructure	Tourist Service Infrastructure	Overall Ranking
Russian Federation	4.5	3.0	4.5	43
China	4.7	4.5	6.0	44
Kazakhstan	2.6	2.8	3.1	81
Kyrgyzstan	1.9	2.1	2.2	115
Uzbekistan	2.4	3.7	3.3	107

Source: World Economic Forum, Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017. Note: All scores in this table are on the WEF 1–7 scale, where 1 = worst and 7 = best. This scale differs from the 0–100 scale used in Table 4. The two tables are therefore not directly comparable and are presented separately to illustrate different methodological editions. The “regional average” mentioned in the text (2.5 for air transport infrastructure) is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the five countries shown in this table; it is not an official WEF statistic.

, Kazakhstan’s air transport infrastructure (2.6) is slightly above the regional average (2.5; calculated as the mean of the five countries in Table 5) but remains considerably behind China (4.7) and the Russian Federation (4.5). Tourist service infrastructure, with a score of 3.1, stands out as the area where Kazakhstan is weakest. On the other hand, through its highway network, Kazakhstan serves three main routes: the Baltic Countries–Russia–Europe, Southeast Asia–China–Japan, and Central Asia–Caucasus–Iran–Turkey (Myrzabekova, 2019, p. 91). Thanks to these routes, transit trade between the aforementioned states is made possible. In other words, although Kazakhstan is weak in air and tourism infrastructure, it possesses a strategic position in overland transit transportation.

The analytical significance of these findings for KAZTUR-4 is that they confirm the dual nature of Kazakhstan’s transport infrastructure: while the country possesses a strategic advantage in overland transit routes, its air transport and tourism-specific infrastructure remain weak. This duality directly justifies the first component, Strengthening Transport Infrastructure, which aims to transform transit potential into tourism competitiveness through touristic corridors, air accessibility improvements, and intermodal integration (Section 5.2.1).

4.5. Findings from the Logistics Performance Index (LPI)

According to the LPI data presented in

Table 6. LPI Scores of Regional Countries (2018).

Country	LPI Rank	LPI Score (1–5)	Customs	Infrastructure	Timely Delivery
Kazakhstan	71	2.81	2.66	2.55	3.53
China	26	3.61	3.29	3.75	3.84
Russia	75	2.76	2.42	2.78	3.31
Uzbekistan	99	2.57	2.10	2.57	3.09
Kyrgyzstan	108	2.52	2.75	2.38	2.94

Source: World Bank, Logistics Performance Index (LPI) 2018. Note: The LPI measures logistics performance, not tourism competitiveness directly. In this study, it is used as an indirect indicator of the physical transport and logistics environment that enables tourism movement.

, Kazakhstan ranks 71st, positioning it as second in the group of countries compared after China (26th). When the rankings of countries bordering Kazakhstan are examined, the following order emerges: China 26th, Russia 75th, Uzbekistan 99th, Kyrgyzstan 108th, and Turkmenistan 126th (Myrzabekova, 2019, pp. 90–91). Kazakhstan’s score of 3.53 in the “Timely Delivery” component is the second-highest among regional countries. This reveals that Kazakhstan is a reliable route, particularly for transit trade and touristic travel. In contrast, the scores obtained in the “Customs” (2.66) and “Infrastructure” (2.55) components lag behind both China and Russia. As noted in Section 2.2, the LPI measures logistics performance and does not directly measure tourism competitiveness. Its inclusion here is justified solely as an indirect indicator of the physical transport and logistics environment that enables tourism movement; it cannot be interpreted as a direct measure of tourism service quality or destination attractiveness. The LPI data are used only to demonstrate Kazakhstan’s relative strength in transit and logistics infrastructure—a strength that is treated as potential to be converted into tourism competitiveness.

4.6. The Impact of Air Transport on Competitiveness

This section examines air transport as a distinct sub-dimension of transport infrastructure. While Section 4.4 addressed the broader transport infrastructure picture, this section focuses specifically on air connectivity, which is critical for attracting long-haul international tourists.

There are more than fifty registered companies operating in the field of air transport in Kazakhstan. The vast majority of airports across the country have national status, of which only fourteen are authorized to operate international flights. Six airports serve domestic flights only. In 2019, six international air carriers operated scheduled flights to Kazakhstan: KLM, Lufthansa, British Airways, Air Arabia, China Southern Airlines, and Turkish Airlines. The country’s national airline, Air Astana, operates scheduled flights to Turkey, Germany, China, South Korea, Thailand, the United Kingdom, India, the United Arab Emirates, and the Netherlands (Myrzabekova, 2019, p. 78).

Air transport in Kazakhstan ranks first among all transport sectors in terms of growth rates. As of the end of 2018, the number of passengers traveling by air increased by 6.9%, whereas this increase was 1.7% for rail and 1.3% for road transport. Transit air routes through Kazakhstan constitute a strategic advantage for foreign airline companies operating flights between Southeast Asia and Europe. Indeed, these routes allow for the substantial minimization of flight distances (Myrzabekova, 2019, p. 104).

4.7. The Relationship Between Economic Indicators and Tourism

This section provides macroeconomic context for tourism development. It does not attempt to establish causal relationships between economic indicators and tourism performance; rather, it identifies the fiscal and macroeconomic constraints that shape the environment in which tourism policy is implemented.

The economy of Kazakhstan is largely based on the export of energy resources. In addition, an industry- and technology-based development model is targeted for the diversification of the economy. Kazakhstan’s oil production was reported as 70 million tons in 2017 and 86.2 million tons in 2018 (DEİK, 2018b, p. 22).

Table 7. Key Economic Indicators of Kazakhstan (2014–2018).

Year	GDP (Billion USD)	Real Growth (%)	GNI Per Capita (USD)	Inflation (%)	Exports (Billion USD)	Imports (Billion USD)
2014	229.5	4.3	13,100	7.4	78.4	40.5
2015	190.0	1.2	13,600	13.6	47.5	30.5
2016	124.0	1.1	7200	8.5	37.7	25.1
2017	126.0	1.0	7500	7.1	48.3	29.3
2018	137.3	4.1	8940	5.3	52.7	31.2

Source: Compiled from data of the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Central Bank of Kazakhstan.

presents key economic indicators that provide context for tourism development. The 2015 tenge depreciation, reflected in the GDP decline from $229.5 billion in 2014 to $190.0 billion in 2015, coincided with increased price competitiveness for foreign visitors (Section 4.2). However, the table also shows that the economy remains heavily dependent on energy exports, which limits the fiscal space for tourism investment. The inflation rate of 13.6% in 2015 and the subsequent decline in GNI per capita from $13,600 to $7200 between 2015 and 2016 indicate macroeconomic volatility that constrains long-term tourism planning.

In Kazakhstan’s international trade, the top two countries in terms of exports have been Italy and China. Regarding imports, the top three countries are Russia, China, and Germany. The main products imported by Kazakhstan include machinery, transport equipment, and food industry products. These trade patterns are noted here only as macroeconomic context; they do not directly inform the KAZTUR-4 framework (Central Bank of Kazakhstan, 2019; Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019).

4.8. Kazakhstan in the Global Competitiveness Index

Kazakhstan ranked 42nd in the WEF’s Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) in 2014, a significant improvement of 30 positions from the previous year (2013 rank: 72nd), declined to 57th by 2017, and stabilized at 57th in 2018.

Table 8. Kazakhstan’s Global Competitiveness Index Ranking (2014–2018).

Year	Ranking	Change	Explanation
2014	42	+30	Highest ranking
2015	50	−8	Period of decline
2016	53	−3	Continuing decline
2017	57	−4	Unstable period
2018	57	0	Stabilization

Source: World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Reports (2014–2018). Note: The ‘+30’ change for 2014 represents the improvement from Kazakhstan’s 2013 rank of 72nd. The 2013 baseline is included to make the change transparent. The GCI was discontinued after the 2019 edition and is presented here only as historical background.

presents Kazakhstan’s GCI rankings and year-on-year changes over this period. As noted in Section 2.2, the GCI was discontinued after the pandemic-era special edition and is presented here only as historical background; it does not inform the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework.

4.9. Findings from the SWOT Analysis

As a result of the literature review and secondary data analysis, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of Kazakhstan’s tourism sector have been identified.

Kazakhstan possesses a strategic geographical position at the center of Eurasia, particularly along the Western China–Western Europe Corridor. The country has rich natural resources, including mountains, lakes, canyons, and steppes. Road, rail, and air transport infrastructure are developing. The literacy rate is 99.7%, and the young population is trainable. Owing to its location on the Silk Road route, the country possesses a rich historical and cultural heritage.

The inadequacy of tourist service infrastructure stands out, reinforced by poor accommodation quality and weak guiding services. The quality of human resources is misaligned with tourism-specific needs, with foreign language deficiencies and inadequate vocational training as the primary causes, despite the relatively high general Human Resources and Labor Market score (72.4). There is no effective national tourism brand or promotion strategy, and visa liberalization remains limited. The average length of stay being only 2.6 nights and low expenditure per tourist constitute other significant weaknesses.

The revitalization of the “Great Silk Road” project offers considerable potential. Growing global demand for ecotourism, adventure tourism, and health tourism represents further opportunities. The accommodation and congress infrastructure gained through EXPO 2017 holds potential for MICE tourism. There is also an opportunity to develop joint touristic routes with neighboring countries such as Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Regional competition is intensifying because Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have implemented more ambitious visa liberalization and promotional reforms, as reflected in their TTDI 2021 International Openness scores (78.4 and 82.1 vs. Kazakhstan’s 42.5) and, in Uzbekistan’s case, its Prioritization and Promotion score (52.1 vs. 48.2). However, their rank gains within the same index editions were not proportionally larger than Kazakhstan’s. This policy divergence, rather than a superior ranking trajectory, is what intensifies regional competition. Global economic fluctuations and the economy’s dependence on oil prices pose a significant risk. The high cost of infrastructure investments and sustainability concerns are among other threats. The difficulty of overcoming the negative image perception regarding issues such as security and accessibility presents a further threat.

The SWOT analysis reveals that Kazakhstan’s tourism potential is high; however, structural and managerial problems exist in the utilization of this potential. The weaknesses and threats are particularly concentrated around the themes of infrastructure, service quality, and education. These findings indicate that the main obstacles to Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness are concentrated in the areas of “soft infrastructure” (human resources, service quality, and promotion) and “governance” (visa policies) rather than physical infrastructure. This constitutes the empirical foundation on which the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework is built.

4.10. Comparative Analysis of National Tourism Strategy Documents

This section presents the comparative content analysis of the national tourism strategy documents of Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, as announced in Section 3.4. The analysis identifies priority tourism types, target markets, and policy instruments in each document.

Table 9. Comparative Analysis of National Tourism Strategy Documents.

Dimension	Kazakhstan	Russia	China	Uzbekistan	Kyrgyzstan
Strategy document	“Kazakhstan 2050” + Tourism Development Concept 2023–2029	Federal Target Program for Tourism Development	“14th Five-Year Plan” for Tourism	“Uzbekistan 2030” + Tourism Development Strategy	“Kyrgyzstan 2040” + Tourism Development Program
Priority tourism types	Cultural, ecotourism, MICE	Domestic, inbound cultural	Cultural, ecotourism, MICE	Cultural, Silk Road	Ecotourism, adventure
Target markets	Russia, China, Europe, CIS	Domestic, CIS, China	Global	Global	Europe, CIS
Key policy instruments	Visa liberalization, infrastructure investment	Domestic tourism subsidies	State-led promotion, infrastructure investment	Visa liberalization, Silk Road branding	Visa-free regime, community-based tourism
Visa openness score (TTDI 2021)	42.5	45.1	52.3	78.4	82.1
Promotion score (TTDI 2021)	48.2	55.2	68.4	52.1	46.3
Explicit KPI targets	Yes (2027, 2030)	Yes (2025)	Yes (2025)	Yes (2030)	Yes (2030)
Coordination mechanism	Fragmented across ministries	Federal agency	Centralized	Centralized	Centralized

Source: Compiled by the authors from national tourism strategy documents, WEF (2021), and national statistical offices. Note: The visa openness and promotion scores reported in the original Table 9 have been removed because they duplicate the TTDI 2021 data already presented in Table 4.

presents a comparative analysis of the national tourism strategy documents of Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan. The analysis reveals that Kazakhstan’s strategy documents prioritize cultural tourism and MICE, while Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan place greater emphasis on visa liberalization and ecotourism. This finding supports the KAZTUR-4 framework’s emphasis on promotion, visa policy, and product diversification. It also highlights a coordination gap: Kazakhstan’s tourism governance is fragmented across multiple ministries, whereas China and Uzbekistan have centralized coordination mechanisms. This contrast reinforces the governance dimension of the KAZTUR-4 framework (Section 5.3).

4.11. Scenario Analysis

The scenarios presented here are not based on arbitrary assumptions but on the two variables that the empirical analysis identified as most consequential. TTDI 2021 data show that Kazakhstan’s two weakest pillars are International Openness/Visa (42.5) and Tourist Service Infrastructure (44.5). The first variable (visa liberalization) corresponds directly to the first weakness; the second variable (human resource development) corresponds to the second weakness. The fast/slow and effective/ineffective combinations of these two variables produce four possible scenarios. Therefore, the scenarios are based on the two most critical leverage points identified empirically and are not arbitrary.

The scenarios illustrate the range of plausible outcomes and are intended as heuristic devices for policymakers, not as predictions. No quantitative projections have been made.

Table 10. Scenario Analysis.

Scenario	Visa Liberalization	Human Resource Development	Expected Outcome
Optimistic	Accelerated	Prioritized	Significant increase in arrivals and average length of stay
Realistic	Moderate	Partial improvement	Moderate growth; structural weaknesses persist
Pessimistic	Limited	Neglected	Stagnation; regional competitors gain advantage

Source: Compiled by the authors.

presents the four scenarios derived from these two variables.

5. The KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework for Kazakhstan’s Tourism Competitiveness

On the basis of the theoretical examination (Porter, 1990; Dwyer & Kim, 2003; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003), the literature synthesis (Ramazanova & Kunurkulzhayeva, 2024; Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016; Sezer, 2021; Öztürk & Kenzhebayeva, 2013; Akimov & Yüzbaşıoğlu, 2019; Öğüt et al., 2018; Gunay et al., 2026), and the regional comparative analysis findings presented in the preceding sections, this section proposes a holistic strategic framework aimed at enhancing Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness. The framework has been designated the “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework” (Kazakhstan Tourism Competitiveness Model).

5.1. Rationale for Strategic Framework Development and Fundamental Assumptions

5.1.1. Rationale for Strategic Framework Development

The regional comparison has demonstrated that Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness possesses a fragmented and unbalanced structure. While the country has a relative advantage in certain areas such as transport infrastructure and natural resources, it exhibits serious weaknesses in critical areas including tourist service infrastructure, human resource quality, promotion, and visa policies. Existing national strategies address these problems in a fragmented manner but do not provide a framework that integrates all these components through a systemic approach (Myrzabekova, 2019; DEİK, 2018a). No existing study provides a transparent analytical procedure for (a) selecting which weaknesses to prioritize, (b) mapping them to theoretical dimensions, and (c) grouping them into a coherent strategic framework. The KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework aims to fill this gap by making the derivation procedure explicit. The framework is not an independent theoretical contribution in the sense of proposing a new theory of competitiveness; it is a context-specific synthesis that recombines existing theoretical dimensions in accordance with Kazakhstan’s empirically identified weakness profile.

The framework does not include a separate financial component; however, the financing of tourism investment is addressed as a cross-cutting condition within Component 1 (infrastructure investment) and Component 3 (SME financing for eco-lodges and health tourism facilities). This limitation is acknowledged, and future research should explore the integration of financial development indicators, as suggested by Konstantakopoulou (2026).

5.1.2. Fundamental Assumptions and Theoretical Foundations of the Strategic Framework

The framework is built upon the following fundamental assumptions:

Assumption of Holism: Tourism competitiveness cannot be reduced to a single factor (e.g., transport infrastructure alone). It requires the simultaneous and harmonious development of multiple interacting factors, including physical infrastructure, human resources, service quality, promotion, and governance (Dwyer & Kim, 2003; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003).

Assumption of Sustainability: Long-term competitiveness depends on the sustainable use of natural and cultural resources, the minimization of environmental impacts (carrying capacity), and the active participation of the local population in the tourism process (Sezer, 2021; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). Sustainability is treated as a cross-cutting principle rather than a separate component.

Assumption of Integration: In the absence of strong integration between transport infrastructure (physical factor), human resources (soft factor), and promotion (marketing factor), physical infrastructure investments alone will not translate into a competitive advantage (Porter, 1990; Myrzabekova, 2019).

The framework draws theoretically from three main sources:

Porter’s Diamond Model (1990): Particularly the dimensions of “factor conditions” (natural resources, infrastructure) and “related and supporting industries” (transport, accommodation).

Dwyer and Kim’s Integrated Competitiveness Model (2003): The dimensions of “destination management” (policy, planning, human resource development), “situational conditions” (economic stability, political environment), and “demand conditions” (promotion, image).

Ritchie and Crouch’s Destination Competitiveness Model (2003): The dimensions of “sustainability,” “qualifying determinants” (carrying capacity, local population’s well-being), and “supporting factors” (accessibility, hospitality).

The rationale for treating demand conditions, destination management, sustainability, safety, and local welfare as cross-cutting dimensions rather than separate components is explained in Section 3.4.

Table 11. Mapping of Empirical Weaknesses to Theoretical Dimensions and KAZTUR-4 Components.

Empirical Weakness (TTDI/LPI/Literature)	Theoretical Dimension	KAZTUR-4 Component	KPI (Section 5.4)
Low “Tourist Service Infrastructure” (44.5); LPI Infrastructure (2.55); Customs (2.66)	Porter: factor conditions (infrastructure); Ritchie & Crouch: supporting factors (accessibility)	1. Transport infrastructure	Improvement in LPI Infrastructure score; 10% annual increase in arrivals (Phase 1)
Gap between “Human Resources” (72.4) and “Tourist Service Infrastructure” (44.5); shortage of qualified staff and guides (Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016; Gunay et al., 2026)	Dwyer & Kim: destination management (human resource development); Porter: factor conditions (human resources)	2. Human resources and education	Number of certified personnel; 4-star satisfaction rating (Phase 1)
Average length of stay 2.6 nights (lowest in region); insufficient product diversification (Ramazanova & Kunurkulzhayeva, 2024)	Dwyer & Kim: core resources and attractions; Ritchie & Crouch: sustainability and qualifying determinants	3. Tourism product diversification and infrastructure	Increase in average length of stay to 4 nights (Phase 1); 2% GDP share (Phase 2)
“Prioritization and Promotion” (48.2); “International Openness/Visa” (42.5); negative image (Küçüktopuzlu & Çakır, 2012)	Dwyer & Kim: demand conditions (awareness, perception); destination management (marketing)	4. Promotion and marketing	Top 50 TTDI ranking (Phase 2); 50% increase in ecotourism participation (Phase 2)

Source: Compiled by the authors. Note: This mapping table operationalizes the derivation procedure described in Section 3.4. Each KAZTUR-4 component is linked to (a) a specific empirical weakness identified in Section 4, (b) a theoretical construct from one or more of the three foundational models, and (c) an indicative KPI. The table makes explicit the analytical chain from evidence to model to policy target.

presents the alignment matrix underlying the KAZTUR-4 framework, linking each empirically identified weakness to a theoretical dimension, a corresponding intervention component, and measurable KPIs. As the table shows, demand conditions, destination management, sustainability, safety, and local welfare are not treated as separate components but as cross-cutting dimensions that operate across all four KAZTUR-4 components. The rationale for treating these as cross-cutting rather than standalone components is explained in Section 3.4.

5.2. Components of the “KAZTUR-4” Strategic Framework

The “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework” consists of four fundamental strategic components that must operate in interaction and coordination with one another. Each of these components focuses on a specific identified weakness or area requiring improvement. The policy actions listed under each component are author-proposed strategic directions derived from the empirical weaknesses identified in Section 4; they are not empirically tested policy targets.

5.2.1. First Component: Strengthening Transport Infrastructure

This component aims to transform Kazakhstan’s natural transit advantage arising from its geographical location into a competitive advantage in tourism. The regional comparison has identified that Kazakhstan possesses a relative superiority in this area, particularly through the Western China–Western Europe Corridor and its LPI “Timely Delivery” score (Myrzabekova, 2019, p. 91; World Bank, 2018).

Strategic Objectives and Actions:

A. Development of Touristic Corridors: The “Touristic Road” concept should be implemented along the Western China–Western Europe Corridor. In this context, historical and natural points (Silk Road remains, national parks, lakes) along the corridor should be identified and thematic routes created. Standard-compliant rest facilities (motels, restaurants, information offices, restrooms, parking lots) should be constructed or improved along the routes. Furthermore, these routes should be promoted on international tour operator platforms and travel guides (e.g., Lonely Planet, Rough Guides).

B. Increasing Air Accessibility: Regional airports (Semey, Oskemen, Aktobe, Atyrau) should be upgraded to international standards, and low-cost airlines should be incentivized to operate flights to these airports (Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016; Myrzabekova, 2019). In addition to the national carrier Air Astana, the domestic and regional (Russia, Central Asia, Caucasus) flight network of low-cost carriers such as FlyArystan should be expanded. Negotiations and incentives should be undertaken to increase the number of direct flights to Kazakhstan from major tourist source countries (China, India, South Korea, Germany).

C. Revitalizing Railway Tourism: The organization of themed railway tours such as the “Silk Road Express” is recommended. In particular, the possibility of opening freight trains traveling from China to Europe to passenger transport and adding tourist carriages should be evaluated (Myrzabekova, 2019).

D. Utilization of Combined Transport Systems for Tourism Purposes: Integration of road, rail, air, and maritime transport (intermodal transport) should be ensured.

5.2.2. Second Component: Human Resources and Educational Development

This component aims to address the shortage of qualified labor and the language barrier, which are among the most critical “soft” factors of the tourism sector. The empirical basis for this component is not a low overall Human Resources score—Kazakhstan’s Human Resources and Labor Market score (72.4) is relatively high—but rather the 27.9-point gap between this score and the Tourist Service Infrastructure score (44.5). This gap indicates that the education system produces general human capital that is not adequately translated into tourism-specific service quality, foreign-language proficiency, or practical vocational competence. This interpretation is confirmed by Abishov and Ünlüönen (2016), Öztürk and Kenzhebayeva (2013), and Gunay et al. (2026).

Strategic Objectives and Actions:

A. Making the National Qualifications System Mandatory: National professional standards should be determined for all personnel working in the tourism sector (guides, reception staff, food and beverage staff, housekeeping staff, travel agency employees), and compliance with these standards should be supervised through mandatory certification. Certification programs should include intensive practical training and foreign language proficiency (English mandatory; Chinese, German, or French optional) in addition to theoretical knowledge. The number and capacity of vocational training centers (universities, tourism vocational high schools, private courses) should be increased, and their curricula should be regularly updated according to sectoral needs (Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016; Gunay et al., 2026).

B. Enhancing the Quality of Tourism Guidance Undergraduate Programs: Accreditation of Tourism Guidance programs at universities should be made mandatory, and the programs should be aligned with international guiding standards (WFTGA). Guides should be ensured to be competent not only in history, culture, and geography but also in communication skills, crisis management, and first aid. In addition to regional languages (Kazakh, Russian), state scholarships and incentives should be provided to increase the number of guides in key languages such as English and Chinese (Akimov & Yüzbaşıoğlu, 2019; Gunay et al., 2026).

C. Making Sector-University Cooperation Mandatory and Structural: Organizing joint internship programs and career days by tourism enterprises (hotels, travel agencies, restaurants) should become a legal obligation. “Sectoral Advisory Boards” bringing together university tourism departments and industry representatives should be established, and these boards should be authorized to update curricula.

D. Developing Digital Skills and Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: As Gunay et al. (2026) demonstrate, digital infrastructure deficiencies outside major cities and limited access to public procurement constrain the innovative potential of young entrepreneurs. Therefore, mentoring programs for digital literacy and foreign language skills, VAT reductions for new businesses, and direct public procurement models should be implemented to facilitate scaling.

5.2.3. Third Component: Tourism Product Diversification and Infrastructure Development

This component aims to expand Kazakhstan’s current touristic product portfolio (predominantly business travel and short-term cultural tours) and to shift toward higher value-added, longer-stay, and more sustainable tourism types. The regional comparison has identified that Kazakhstan lags behind Uzbekistan (Silk Road culture) and Kyrgyzstan (ecotourism) in terms of product diversification and branding. The average length of stay (2.6 nights) being the lowest in the region confirms this weakness.

Strategic Objectives and Actions:

A. Development of Ethnic and Cultural Heritage Tourism: Nomadic culture (horses, yurts, steppe life), national sports (kokpar, eagle hunting, kyz kuu), traditional handicrafts (felt weaving, jewelry, wood carving), and national cuisine (besbarmak, kumys, kurt, shubat) should be packaged as touristic products (Akimov & Yüzbaşıoğlu, 2019). Specific routes themed as “Sounds of the Steppe” or “Nomad’s Way” (e.g., high mountain pastures around Almaty, Mangystau region) should be established, and yurt camps (eco-lodges) should be built for accommodation along these routes. Pilgrimage tours should be organized for Islamic heritage (the Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi and other historic mosques and mausoleums), and the potential for religious tourism should be evaluated.

B. Sustainable Development of Ecotourism and Adventure Tourism: Trekking, mountain biking, horse riding, bird watching, and winter sports (skiing, snowboarding) activities should be developed in unique natural areas such as Charyn Canyon, Kolsai Lakes, Lake Kaindy (underwater forest), Alakol, the Tien Shan mountains, and the Western Altai nature reserves, in accordance with the principle of carrying capacity (Sezer, 2021). The construction of environmentally sensitive eco-lodges, campsites, and boutique hotels rather than large hotels should be encouraged in these areas (Gürsoy & Yemberdiyeva, 2021). Adventure tours themed “Kazakhstan’s Wild Nature” or “Peaks of the Tien Shan” should be marketed to international adventure tourism operators.

C. Improvement of Health and Thermal Tourism Infrastructure: Modernization of existing spa facilities (Alarşa, Saryagash, Muyildy, Jana-Kurgan) to international standards (e.g., JCI accreditation) is necessary (Öztürk & Kenzhebayeva, 2013; Öğüt et al., 2018). A transition to a “health center” model integrating not only treatment but also wellness, rehabilitation (particularly for neurological and orthopedic conditions), and beauty/anti-aging services is recommended at thermal facilities. These facilities should be promoted with health tourism packages, particularly targeting Russian, Chinese, and Middle Eastern markets. As noted by Öğüt et al. (2018), cooperation with Turkey and the development of joint package tours (treatment + tourism) should also be considered.

D. Development of Alternative Tourism Types: Winter tourism (ski resorts), MICE tourism (utilizing EXPO infrastructure), and faith tourism should be addressed within this scope.

5.2.4. Fourth Component: Promotion and Marketing Strategies

This component focuses on the low brand awareness and ineffective promotion problems identified as one of the weakest areas in the regional comparison. Kazakhstan’s score of 48.2 in the “Prioritization and Promotion” sub-index of TTDI 2021 and its lagging behind Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan in International Openness (42.5 vs. 78.4 and 82.1) demonstrate the urgency of this component (Küçüktopuzlu & Çakır, 2012).

Strategic Objectives and Actions:

A. Implementation of an Integrated Brand Strategy: The brand “Kazakhstan. Inspire your journey” should become the single and consistent umbrella for all promotional activities (website, social media, fairs, advertising campaigns). The brand identity (logo, colors, fonts, tone) should be clearly defined and its use made mandatory by all stakeholders (ministry, agencies, hotels). The marketing strategy should be data-driven; separate sub-strategies (different messages, different channels) should be developed for target markets (Russia, China, Europe, India, the Middle East, South Korea).

B. Increasing Digital Marketing and Social Media Engagement: Kazakhstan’s tourism potential (nature, culture, adventure) should be promoted on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok through professional and compelling videos, images, and stories (digital storytelling). Travel influencers from around the world should be invited to Kazakhstan to introduce the country to their followers. An interactive website and mobile application should be developed to offer potential tourists personalized itineraries, activity recommendations, and accommodation and transport booking options.

C. Specific Campaigns and Collaborations for Target Markets: For the Chinese market, Chinese social media (WeChat, Weibo) should be actively used; themes appealing to Chinese tourists (Silk Road, exotic culture, undiscovered nature) should be emphasized; and collaboration with Chinese tour operators should be undertaken. For the Russian and CIS market, post-Soviet shared heritage (space tourism—Baikonur, industrial heritage), nature tourism (Altai, steppe), and health tourism (thermal springs) should be highlighted. For the European market, the themes of “Undiscovered Eurasian Pearl” and “New Adventure Destination” should be developed, with an emphasis on sustainable tourism, ecotourism, and cultural authenticity. The removal or simplification of visa restrictions (e-visa, visa on arrival) should be announced through an effective promotional campaign, removing one of the most significant barriers facing tourists.

5.3. Framework Functioning: Interaction and Coordination Among Components

The “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework” emphasizes that the four components must operate not independently but as a system that reinforces and triggers one another. For example:

First Component (Transport) influences the third component (Product Diversification): Access to ecotourism, ethnic tourism, or health tourism destinations cannot be achieved without the creation of touristic corridors.

Second Component (Human Resources) influences the first and fourth components: A well-planned transport network cannot function fully due to unqualified personnel and language barriers. Similarly, international promotion campaigns (Fourth Component) attract tourists; however, if incoming tourists encounter unqualified personnel (Second Component) and/or inadequate accommodation infrastructure (Third Component), the impact of the campaigns is nullified.

Fourth Component (Promotion) determines the success of the third component: If tourism product diversification (Third Component) has been carried out but these new products are not promoted to the world (Fourth Component), neither the investment will amortize nor will the country be able to attract new tourist profiles.

Therefore, for the successful implementation of the model, coordinated and harmonious work among the institutions responsible for all components (Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Education, local administrations, private sector representatives) is a prerequisite.

5.4. Implementation Phases and Performance Indicators

The targets specified below are indicative benchmarks proposed by the authors, not empirically derived policy targets. Their feasibility requires further assessment, stakeholder consultation, and cost–benefit analysis before implementation. Where possible, the targets are benchmarked against regional comparators: the 4-night average stay target is derived from the regional benchmark of Kyrgyzstan (5.2 nights) and Uzbekistan (3.9 nights); the 2% GDP share target is derived from Uzbekistan’s current 1.7% and Kyrgyzstan’s 3.3%. Other targets (e.g., entering the top 50 in the TTDI, 80% women and youth employment, three new UNESCO sites) are the authors’ strategic proposals, based not on empirical projections but on regional comparisons and policy preferences.

Phase 1: Immediate Intervention and Foundation Laying (2026–2027). This phase aims to improve existing infrastructure (roads, restrooms, and signage on touristic routes), initiate a mandatory personnel certification pilot application in Almaty and Astana, actively market the EXPO infrastructure for MICE tourism, establish a digital marketing office and launch social media campaigns, and implement visa liberalization or e-visa applications for key markets such as China and India. Performance indicators for this phase include a 10% annual increase in tourist arrivals, an increase in average length of stay to 4 nights, and achieving a rating above 4 stars in tourist satisfaction surveys.

Phase 2: Structural Transformation and Brand Building (2028–2030). This phase envisages the implementation of “Touristic Corridor” projects, intensive promotional campaigns targeting Turkey, Europe, and GCC countries, the incentivization of eco-lodge and yurt camp investments, enabling low-cost airlines to initiate flights to regional airports, and increasing global awareness of the “Kazakhstan. Inspire your journey” brand. Performance indicators include entering the top 50 in the TTCI/TTDI ranking, increasing tourism revenue’s share of GDP to 2%, and achieving a 50% increase in the number of tourists participating in ecotourism and ethnic tourism.

Phase 3: Sustainability and Leadership (2031–2035). The final phase targets making carrying capacity applications a legal requirement in all touristic areas, making green hotel and sustainable tourism certifications (Green Key, GSTC) mandatory, exporting the “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework” to other Central Asian countries under the joint “Silk Road” brand, and increasing the proportion of local population (particularly women and youth) in tourism employment to over 80%. Performance indicators for this phase include at least three new touristic areas gaining UNESCO World Heritage or similar status, reaching a 50% rate of carbon footprint-certified tourism enterprises, and establishing a joint tourism platform with countries such as Turkey, Malaysia, and the UAE. The 2035 deadline is an indicative benchmark proposed by the authors, not an empirically derived target; its feasibility requires further assessment.

5.5. Consistency of the Framework with the Literature and Findings

The KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework is consistent with the theoretical framework, literature findings, and regional comparison results presented in Section 2 and Section 3. Each component is grounded in a specific theoretical dimension and a specific empirical weakness:

• Transport component: Based on Porter (1990)’s “infrastructure” factor, the LPI data representing Kazakhstan’s area of relative advantage in the regional comparison, and the work of Myrzabekova (2019).
• Human Resources component: A direct response to Dwyer and Kim (2003)’s “human resource development” factor, the shortage of qualified personnel identified by Abishov and Ünlüönen (2016), the service quality assessment of Öztürk and Kenzhebayeva (2013), the low TTDI “Tourist Service Infrastructure” score, and the digital skills and entrepreneurship barriers documented by Gunay et al. (2026).
• Tourism Product Diversification component: Based on Dwyer and Kim (2003)’s “core resources” (natural, cultural) and the “supporting factors” and “sustainability” dimensions of Ritchie and Crouch (2003). Furthermore, the natural resource emphasis of Gürsoy and Yemberdiyeva (2021), the ethnic tourism potential identified by Akimov and Yüzbaşıoğlu (2019), the sustainability principles of Sezer (2021), and the health tourism findings of Öğüt et al. (2018) and Öztürk and Kenzhebayeva (2013) support this component.
• Promotion and Marketing component: Focuses on the “promotion inadequacy” problem frequently emphasized in the literature by Küçüktopuzlu and Çakır (2012), Abishov and Ünlüönen (2016), and Öğüt et al. (2018), as well as the “Prioritization and Promotion” score (48.2), one of the TTDI’s lowest sub-indices.

5.6. Potential Impacts and Sustainability of the Framework

The successful implementation of the “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework” is expected to create the following potential impacts for Kazakhstan:

Economic Impacts: Increased tourism revenues, a higher share of GDP, increased direct and indirect employment (women, youth, rural areas), and reduced interregional development disparities (particularly through rural development and ecotourism).

Social Impacts: Increased participation of the local population (especially youth) in the tourism sector, the creation of an economic incentive for the preservation and revitalization of cultural heritage and traditions (Akimov & Yüzbaşıoğlu, 2019), and increased cultural exchange and tolerance through interaction with international tourists.

Environmental Impacts: Protection of fragile ecosystems (Alakol, Kolsai Lakes, Charyn) through the adoption of carrying capacity principles and the encouragement of low-impact accommodation models such as eco-lodges. The dissemination of sustainable practices such as green energy and waste management through tourism (Sezer, 2021).

International Image and Brand Impacts: Positioning Kazakhstan in the global arena not merely as an energy producer but as a modern, hospitable, safe, and sustainable tourism destination. Beyond direct tourism, this will create a positive signal for foreign direct investment and international collaborations.

The institutional sustainability of the framework depends on the establishment of regular monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, periodic revisions in line with the principle of strategic flexibility, and ensuring the active participation of all stakeholders (public sector, private sector, civil society, academia) in the process.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1. Evaluation of the Research’s Main Findings

This research aimed to analyze the current state, historical development, and competitiveness of Kazakhstan’s tourism sector within the framework of regional development and destination competition literature, and to develop a holistic strategic model (“KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework”) based on this analysis. Secondary data analysis based on academic studies (Ramazanova & Kunurkulzhayeva, 2024; Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016; Sezer, 2021; Akimov & Yüzbaşıoğlu, 2019; Öztürk & Kenzhebayeva, 2013; Öğüt et al., 2018; Gunay et al., 2026), international indices (WEF TTCI/TTDI; World Bank LPI), and national/international strategic documents has revealed the following main conclusions:

1. Strengths and Competitive Advantages: As detailed in the SWOT analysis (Section 4.9), Kazakhstan’s main strengths are its geostrategic location at the center of Eurasia, its position on the Western China–Western Europe Corridor, its rich natural resources (TTDI Natural Resources score: 64.2), and its relatively high safety and price competitiveness. These correspond to the “factor conditions” dimension of Porter’s (1990) Diamond Model.

2. Weaknesses and Competitive Disadvantages: The analysis presented in Section 4.3, Section 4.9 and Section 5.2 shows that Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness is constrained primarily by soft infrastructure and governance rather than by physical infrastructure. Four weaknesses are particularly salient and correspond directly to the four components of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework:

• Tourist service infrastructure remains the lowest-scoring area, reflecting weaknesses in accommodation quality, guiding services, and tourist information points (Section 4.9).
• The gap between the TTDI’s Human Resources and Labor Market score (72.4) and Tourist Service Infrastructure score (44.5)—analysed in detail in Section 5.2.2—indicates that general human capital is not being converted into tourism-specific service quality.
• Promotion and international openness lag behind regional competitors, limiting Kazakhstan’s ability to attract and retain international visitors (Section 2.3 and Section 4.3).
• Short average length of stay indicates insufficient product diversification and a limited range of attractions and activities capable of retaining visitors (Section 4.2).

These four weaknesses constitute the empirical foundation of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework and are addressed, respectively, by its transport, human resources, product diversification, and promotion components.

3. Intensification of Regional Competition: The TTCI series shows Kazakhstan moving from 93rd (2011) to 79th (2019). What is more consequential is that Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have moved more decisively than Kazakhstan on two specific policy instruments—visa liberalization and promotional activity—as reflected in their TTDI 2021 International Openness scores (78.4 and 82.1, compared with Kazakhstan’s 42.5) and Uzbekistan’s higher Prioritization and Promotion score (52.1 vs. 48.2). This policy divergence, rather than a superior ranking trajectory, is what intensifies regional competition.

6.2. Evaluation and Significance of the “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework”

The “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework (Kazakhstan Tourism Competitiveness Model),” the most important output of this research, is based on a systematic synthesis of the strengths and weaknesses summarized above. The framework makes three fundamental contributions to the literature and policymakers:

1. Holistic and Systemic Approach: Unlike previous approaches that reduced tourism competitiveness to a single factor (e.g., transport infrastructure alone), the “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework” emphasizes that four components (Transport, Human Resources, Product Diversification, Promotion) must operate in interaction and coordination with one another. This approach is fully consistent with the core principles of Dwyer and Kim’s (2003) Integrated Model of Destination Competitiveness and Ritchie and Crouch’s (2003) Destination Competitiveness Model.

2. Emphasis on Sustainability and Sustainable Competition: Through its Third Component (Tourism Product Diversification), the framework emphasizes not only physical infrastructure investments but also ecological carrying capacity (Sezer, 2021) and the preservation of local cultural heritage (Akimov & Yüzbaşıoğlu, 2019). This is a prerequisite for Kazakhstan to achieve long-term competitive advantage by protecting its unique natural and cultural assets for future generations without consuming them.

3. Concrete and Applicable Outputs Based on Regional Comparisons: Each component and sub-action of the framework is directly based on regional comparison findings (TTCI, LPI, national statistics, literature synthesis). In these respects, the “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework” constitutes a strategic roadmap proposal that is grounded in regional comparative evidence and theoretical synthesis. Its operational effectiveness requires future pilot testing and empirical validation.

6.3. Policy Recommendations

Within the framework of the research findings and the proposed “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework,” the following policy recommendations have been developed. These recommendations are author-proposed strategic directions derived from the regional comparative evidence and literature synthesis presented in Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5; they are not empirically tested policy targets. Where specific deadlines or mandatory requirements are proposed, these should be understood as indicative benchmarks requiring further feasibility assessment, stakeholder consultation, and cost–benefit analysis before implementation.

6.3.1. Short-Term (2026–2027): Immediate Intervention and Foundation Laying

Recommendation 1: Establishing a Tourism Coordination Board. The regional comparison revealed that Kazakhstan’s tourism governance is fragmented across multiple ministries (Culture and Tourism, Transport, Education, Interior, Foreign Affairs), which impedes coordinated policy implementation (Section 4.9). This recommendation draws on the “destination management” dimension of Dwyer and Kim’s (2003) model and the governance weaknesses identified by Myrzabekova (2019). A high-level coordination board including representatives from relevant ministries, the private sector, and NGOs should be established. Indicative timeline: 2026–2027, subject to government approval.

Recommendation 2: Making the National Qualifications System Mandatory. The TTDI 2021 data show a significant gap between Kazakhstan’s “Human Resources and Labor Market” score (72.4) and its “Tourist Service Infrastructure” score (44.5), indicating a disconnect between theoretical education and practical service quality (Section 4.3). This recommendation is supported by Abishov and Ünlüönen (2016), Öztürk and Kenzhebayeva (2013), and Gunay et al. (2026). National professional standards for tourism personnel should be developed, and mandatory certification should be introduced. Indicative timeline: Pilot in Almaty and Astana in 2026–2027, with nationwide rollout thereafter, subject to stakeholder consultation.

Recommendation 3: Expanding and Promoting Visa Liberalization. Kazakhstan’s International Openness (Visa) score is the second-lowest among all TTDI sub-indices (Section 4.3). The literature consistently identifies visa restrictions as a barrier to tourism competitiveness (Küçüktopuzlu & Çakır, 2012; Abishov & Ünlüönen, 2016). An e-visa or visa-on-arrival system should be introduced for key source markets (China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, GCC countries). Indicative timeline: 2026–2027, subject to bilateral negotiations and security assessments.

Recommendation 4: Establishing a Digital Tourism Platform. Rationale: Gunay et al. (2026) document digital infrastructure deficiencies outside major cities and limited digital marketing capacity (Section 2.3). This recommendation draws on the “promotion and marketing” component of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework and the digital skills gap identified in the literature. A multilingual mobile application and website consolidating tourism information should be developed. Indicative timeline: 2026–2027, subject to budget allocation.

6.3.2. Medium-Term (2028–2030): Structural Transformation and Brand Building

Recommendation 5: Implementing the “Touristic Corridor” Project. Kazakhstan’s relative advantage in the LPI “Timely Delivery” component (3.53, second in the region) and its position on the Western China–Western Europe Corridor provide a foundation for transit tourism (Section 4.5). This recommendation draws on Myrzabekova (2019) and the First Component of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework. A joint “Great Silk Road Touristic Corridor” with Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and China should be established; visa, customs, and transport barriers should be removed. Indicative timeline: 2028–2030, subject to multilateral agreements.

Recommendation 6: Developing Ethnic and Ecotourism Infrastructure. Kazakhstan’s average length of stay (2.6 nights) is the lowest in the region, indicating insufficient product diversification (Section 4.2). This recommendation draws on Akimov and Yüzbaşıoğlu (2019), Sezer (2021), and the Third Component of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework. Eco-lodges, yurt camps, and trekking routes should be developed in Almaty, East Kazakhstan, and Mangystau regions, in compliance with carrying capacity principles. Indicative timeline: 2028–2030, subject to environmental impact assessments.

Recommendation 7: Preparing a Health Thermal Tourism Master Plan. Öztürk and Kenzhebayeva (2013) and Öğüt et al. (2018) identify significant potential in Kazakhstan’s thermal tourism resources, yet service quality remains below international standards. This recommendation draws on these studies and the Third Component of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework. A comprehensive master plan for thermal regions (Saryagash, Alarsa, Janakurgan, Muyildy) should be prepared; facilities should be restructured to international standards. Indicative timeline: 2028–2030, subject to feasibility studies.

Recommendation 8: Intensive Promotional Campaigns Targeting Target Markets. Kazakhstan’s “Prioritization and Promotion” score (48.2) lags behind China (68.4) and Russia (55.2) (Section 4.3). This recommendation draws on Küçüktopuzlu and Çakır (2012), Abishov and Ünlüönen (2016), and the Fourth Component of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework. Market-specific campaigns should be developed (e.g., “The Missing Link of the Silk Road” for China; “Undiscovered Eurasia” for Europe). Indicative timeline: 2028–2030, subject to budget allocation.

6.3.3. Long-Term (2031–2035): Sustainability and Leadership

Recommendation 9: Enacting a Sustainable Tourism Law. Fragile ecosystems such as Kolsai Lakes, Charyn Canyon, and Alakol are increasingly threatened by unregulated visitor flows (Section 2.3). This recommendation draws on Sezer (2021) and the sustainability assumption of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework. Carrying capacity assessments should be made a legal requirement for national parks and protected areas. Indicative timeline: 2031–2035, subject to legislative review and stakeholder consultation.

Recommendation 10: Encouraging and Making Mandatory Green Tourism Certifications. The literature emphasizes the importance of sustainability certifications for long-term competitiveness (Sezer, 2021; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). This recommendation draws on the Third Component of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework. Accommodation facilities should be encouraged to obtain Green Key and GSTC certifications; these could be made mandatory by 2035. Indicative timeline: 2031–2035, subject to periodic review and stakeholder consultation.

Recommendation 11: Establishing a Joint “Silk Road” Brand. Regional competition is intensifying, and a joint brand could enhance the region’s global visibility (Section 4.9). This recommendation draws on the Fourth Component of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework. A “Single Visa” system and a “Joint Tourism Brand” should be established with Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. Indicative timeline: 2031–2035, subject to multilateral negotiations.

6.4. Recommendations for Future Research

This research has certain limitations, and the following recommendations have been developed for future studies:

Primary Field Research: Future studies could quantitatively test the findings of this research through survey studies measuring the satisfaction levels, perceived service quality, and revisit intentions of international tourists visiting Kazakhstan (as in Ramazanova & Kunurkulzhayeva, 2024; Öztürk & Kenzhebayeva, 2013). Furthermore, interviews with sector employees and managers could provide in-depth qualitative data on the applicability of the “KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework.”

Pilot Implementation of the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework: The model’s recommendations should first be implemented in a pilot region (e.g., a touristic corridor in Almaty or Astana, or an ecotourism area in Alakol), its outputs monitored, and the model revised accordingly. This would provide empirical validation that the present study could not undertake.

Expanded Regional Comparison: Future studies could include Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and even some Eastern European countries (Poland, Hungary) in the comparative analysis to evaluate Kazakhstan’s competitiveness from a broader perspective.

Empirical Studies on Sustainability and Carrying Capacity: Similar to the model proposed by Sezer (2021) for the Northern Saros Gulf, scientific carrying capacity calculations should be made for fragile ecosystems in Kazakhstan (Kolsai Lakes, Charyn, Alakol), and visitor management plans based on these calculations should be developed.

Analysis of the Post-COVID-19 Period: Changes in tourism flows in the post-pandemic period (2022–2025), new tourist behaviors (digital nomads, remote work, “workation”), and the opportunities and threats these trends create for Kazakhstan should be analyzed.

Financial Development and Tourism Investment: Future studies should explore the integration of financial development indicators into the KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework, as suggested by Konstantakopoulou (2026), given the model’s current omission of the macro-financial dimension. As discussed in Section 5.1.1, Konstantakopoulou (2026) provides robust international evidence that financial institution development exerts a statistically significant positive effect on international tourist arrivals, whereas financial market development does not. Future research should therefore: (a) replicate this methodology using a Central Asian panel; (b) integrate domestic credit to the private sector, FDI inflows into tourism, and PPP frameworks as measurable indicators within the KAZTUR-4 framework; and (c) assess whether targeted financial institution reforms can accelerate the structural transformation envisaged in Phase 2 (2028–2030).

6.5. Concluding Remarks

This study has shown that Kazakhstan’s tourism competitiveness is constrained less by physical infrastructure than by soft infrastructure and governance. The KAZTUR-4 Strategic Framework offers a context-specific synthesis of existing theoretical dimensions, grounded in the empirically identified weakness profile of Kazakhstan’s tourism sector. Its contribution lies not in proposing a new theory of competitiveness but in making the derivation procedure explicit and linking each component to specific empirical weaknesses and indicative KPIs. The framework remains to be empirically validated; its practical value will depend on pilot implementation and stakeholder consultation. If implemented coherently, it could contribute to Kazakhstan’s broader goals of economic diversification and regional development as outlined in the “Kazakhstan 2050” strategy.

The present study has one substantive limitation. The analysis is based on data collected between September 2022 and March 2023 and therefore does not incorporate the TTDI 2024 or LPI 2023 (see Section 3.5).