CC BY
9
UDC 332
MINING AND TOURISM: IS IT POSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN RESOURCE-DRIVEN REGION?
Liliya G. Kiriyanova,
kiriyanova@tpu.ru
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, 30, Lenin avenue, Tomsk, 634050, Russia.
Dependence of regional economy on resource-driven path is one of methodological and regional policy challenges. It is crucial to understand how to stimulate new paths creation in locked-in resource-driven regions. This paper highlights that new path can appear not only in diversified regional economy by intercrossing innovations or by branching process to related technological spheres. It is shown that technological and infrastructure connectivity is not the only possible way for old industries to create a new one. Mining and tourism are often debated as sectors with conflict interests which never can co-exist in one region. In this article we offer the model to explain stages, interplay between main agents of changes, mechanisms and regional assets in the emergence of the tourism industry in mining region in Western Siberia, Russia. The key findings reveal synergy of mining and tourism in region sustainability. It is demonstrated that financial resources, human resources, networks, access to external resources, lobbing resources of the «coal» path can serve critical inputs to create a «tourism» one. Economic interests and resources of private actors mainstreamed and supported by strategic interests of the public policy may create a new path. Model of unrelated diversification provides long-term sustainable development of the region and can be used in other Russian regions.
Key words:
Resource-dependent regions, regional economy diversification, mining, tourism, path dependence.
Introduction
The leading specialists in spatial economy provoked huge debates on how and why history matters for growth, decline and development of the regional economy [1-4]. Evolutionary economic geography supposes that the economic space is socially constructed and influenced by path and place-dependent processes. The economy is an irreversible historical process, in which future outcomes depend on past events and impacts: at any point in time, the state of the economy depends on the historical adjustment of thus taken path [5]. Evolutionary economic geography focuses on the examination of courses, forces and trajectories of spatial economy transformations over time [2, 6]. The current distribution of economic activity across space is understood as an outcome of largely contingent, path dependent, historical processes [1, 7].
The path dependence of different territories has its own specific historical courses and forces but prevailing sources can be found in rich natural resources, recreational attractions, regional technological lock-in, political elite balance, specific capital-intensive infrastructure and others.
Obviously, the path dependence does not imply that the regional economy does not have any chance for alternative development overtime. Indeed, the analyses of path dependence by itself do not give us the understanding about how and why new paths emerge, and this becomes the main theoretical gap.
«Question of how new regional growth paths emerge has repeatedly been raised ... as one of the most intriguing and challenging issues in our field» [3. P. 240]. The path dependence literature still lacks discussions on path creation: how new paths emerge, how new paths are selected, how old paths influence the new ones, what the main factors of path creation success are and others.
This article aims to analyze how absolutely new regional path can appear at the resource-based economy
region. We try to demonstrate that economic, social and geographical background not only determines the dominant path but also affects the development of particular alternatives. Model of path creation will be revealed and demonstrated as in the case of Sheregesh Ski resort, Kemerovo region, Russia.
Novelty
By presenting the case of a new path creation in the resource-based region of Western Siberia this article aims at generating more answers to still unsolved questions of path creation.
First. Why and how do the actors of an «old» path initiate and create a new one? It will be shown that technological and infrastructure connectivity is not the only possible way for old industries to create a new one. Unrelated diversification can provide long-term sustainable development of the region [7]. The case of Sheregesh area in Kemerovo region will demonstrate how a coal-based industry supports the transformation of the territory towards successful ski resort. It will be demonstrated that economic interests and resources of private actors main-streamed and supported by strategic interests of the public policy may create a new path. Financial resources, human resources (mainly management), networks, access to external resources, lobbing resources of the «old» path can serve critical inputs to create a new one, even if these two paths do not have any technological connectivity.
Second. Can emerging industries in peripheral regions be influenced by extraregional knowledge and experience [8]? It will be demonstrated how the knowledge on tourism development in central Russian regions is anchoring in peripheral Sheregesh. Anchoring is not simply about bringing external knowledge to the region, but about «re-contextualizing and diffusing it in place, supported by capable entrepreneurs, universities, new organizations, policy action and flexible institutional settings» [9].
208
DOI 10.18799/24131830/2020/11/2903
Third. Can different paths co-exist within one region, especially when they are not technologically interconnected or complimentary and even conflicted? The tourism and resource-based industries have a long obvious history of conflict, often forcing out and replacing each other in regions undergoing transition [10-13]. The Sheregesh case is demonstrating that these two industries can not only co-exist but also be two essential parts of the region's sustainable development.
Fourth. There is a need to study how tourism development is directly introduced to regions, which were previously reliant on different sectors, e. g., resource-based economies in peripheral regions [14]. The given case will demonstrate how tourism becomes a new «pole of growth» for a traditional resource-based region and not just a negligible sector.
Fifth. This article focuses on a peripheral region, which lacks market-led adaptive capacity and key assets to create a new path. Especially this problem is current for countries with limited experience in market self-organization, such as Russia. The peripheral regions still lack sufficient studies on «how regions diversify into new growth paths, and to what extent public policy may affect this process» [15]. The case will show the importance of the multiple roles of the state, regional and local policy agents in mediating the creation of new paths.
The study of mining regions is a vital task. It is also critical to define the role of the state and municipal authorities, as well as private businesses for the benefit of scientific and practical application. The study is mainly based on expert interviews of people who made a considerable contribution to the creation and development of the Sheregesh Ski Resort: heads of local authorities at the time of the resort development, heads and workers of key industrial actors, heads of core-business departments of the Kemerovo Region Administration, heads and management of modern hotels, ski slopes and ski lifts.
Materials and methods
We offer the model (Fig. 1) to explain stages, interplay between main agents of changes, mechanisms and regional assets in the emergence of the tourism industry in coal-based region in Western Siberia, Russia.
We use a qualitative method to gain in-depth insights into the role of old path actors in new path initiation and development and how new path can be supported after their initial emergence. Combination of different methods and sources gave opportunity to provide comprehensive view on ski tourism appearance in resource-based Kemerovo region. The research involved 15 in-depth interviews with key actors, past and present, representing Sheregesh local authorities, Kemerovo region authorities, destination management organization, coal companies, tourists companies to create map of actors motivation, resources and interplay at different stages. The fact analyses were supported by the examination of historical secondary data (e. g., strategy documents, local and national government reports, and media articles).
Regional preconditions.
Coal sources of regional path dependence
Following R. Martin and P. Sunley [5] model there are three sources of Kuzbass regional path - natural based
resources; sunk costs of local assets and infrastructures; corresponding region-specific institutions, social forms and cultural traditions (the last two are results of the first one).
Kemerovo region located in Western Siberia was founded in 1943 as an urgent need to create a new center of coal, chemical and metallurgical industry for the Soviet Union. Natural resources (iron, copper, manganese and polymetallic ores, phosphorites and aluminum raw materials, dolomite and quartzite) made the region critical for the development of a large-scale industry. The biggest coalfield on the planet is located here. Its reserves are estimated from 725 to 733 billion tons. The coked coal reserves account for more than 73 % of the total value of coal reserves in Russia, and for the entire group of particularly valuable rocks they make 100 %. In the Soviet era, it laid the basis for the urbanized economy where all cities (currently there are 22 city settlements in the region) and urban-type settlements were bound to mines, metallurgical, chemical and machine-building enterprises. As a result, the external and internal image of the region became so much industrialized that the term Kuzbass (The Kuznetsk Coal Basin) became the second official name of the region.
Coal and metallurgy sectors are dominating in the industrial production, with 72 % of the total share of consumable goods and 52 % of the total number of people employed in the industry of the region. The coal industry plays a crucial role in the economy of the region. A powerful energy complex of the region and energy-intensive production of non-ferrous metallurgy (aluminum, and in the past, zinc), provided a framework for many enterprises to be established in the chemical and other industries. The coal industry and ferrous metallurgy determined the focus of the Kuzbass engineering industry on the production of coal mining, mineral processing and metallurgical machines and mechanisms, as well as car building [161.
In the Soviet economy, all large enterprises used to assume significant social functions and actually provided their employees and their families with the entire social infrastructure including kindergartens, health resorts, cultural institutions, hospitals, etc. Given the dominant position of the coal industry in the region, the social and engineering infrastructure almost completely relied on the production sector. Mining was the main social and cultural dominant of the region, thereby determining its economic, social and even political status.
Key sectors of the economy and social life of the region greatly benefit from the coal industry, thus fostering its successful development and exploiting the raw materials and resources of the latter.
Kuzbass experienced all negative consequences of the Soviet crisis and disintegration of its industrial economy in the 1980-1990s of the XX century. Mines and plants of the region were massively closed, and the adjacent cities and settlements ceased an opportunity for steady social and economic development. After its recovery in 1988 - 159 million tons, in 1989-1990 coal mining in the Kuzbass Basin failed to exceed 150 million tons, and in 1997 it made 94 million tons. This situation was typical for the entire coal industry of the country. Today the
number of people employed in the coal industry is ten times less in comparison with the Soviet period. Neither industry of the former USSR has ever faced such a rapid
drop of the working population. This was the period when the region began to search for economic alternatives and opportunities.
Fig. 1. From «positive» to «negative» «lock-in» in Kemerovo regional path-dependent economic development. Based on Martin and Sunley [5]
Рис. 1. От «позитивной» к «негативной» привязке региональной экономики Кемеровской области [5]
New path initiation and preconditions for tourism choice
In search for alternatives to escape from this negative situation, a number of territories started spontaneously develop their new economic infrastructure thus forming the basis for post-industrial economy in the industrial region. Tourism was considered as one of potential «poles of growth». Kemerovo region was not an exception of this kind. It is noteworthy that it is the only region in Russia having three types of mountain systems (lowlands - Salair Ridge, middle mountains - Gornaya Shoria, highlands - Kuznetsk Alatau). Variety of mountains, long and sunny winter and seasonal snow cover make these mountains attractive for ski tourism. Despite a large number of tourism resources, the region had to develop tourism attractions almost from scratch.
However, it should be noted that at the beginning the society considered the idea of developing tourism in Kuzbass as utopia, and the population was never supporting it. In the industrial region, the problem was not only to overcome the external image of the region, but also to reduce the negative perception of tourism as a professional field among the Kuzbass population. Geographical factors also made a negative contribution to this situation. Kemerovo region is located in Western Siberia at the equidistance from western and eastern frontiers of the Russian Federation. Being in the middle between Moscow and Vladivostok the region is difficult to reach for external tourists. Large cities of the neighboring regions can easily form a sound base for internal tourism, but the geography also complicates the situation.
The Soviet history of Gornaya Shoria area similar to the history of the entire Kemerovo region, is closely linked to mining industry. The only difference of Gorna-
ya Shoria from the majority of regions and cities of Kemerovo region is its economic profile. Iron ore and gold extraction, wood production are those branches of industry which fostered the development of the region's economy. Main towns - Tashtagol and Sheregesh - were founded as industrial centres in the Soviet past.
Another distinctive feature of Gornaya Shoria is the community of Turkic-speaking ethnic minorities called the Shors in the Soviet ethnography. The resettlement of the Shors across the entire territory slightly limited the development of industrial economy since it complicated the resettlement of population necessary for its development. The attempts to attract the Shors to the industry were not successful.
The history of the Sheregesh Ski Resort formally dates back to the late 1970s when two ski tracks and two lines of T-bar lifts were made for the Spartakiad of the Peoples of the USSR in 1981. Since the whole insufficient infrastructure was considered the base exactly for sports competitions, Sheregesh failed to become the mass-tourism zone in the USSR.
Natural resources made Sheregesh the ideal place for the development of alpine skiing and tourism, but four main conditions to foster alternative path development in Sheregesh appeared only in the early 1990s. First, in 1990 the iron ore and gold extraction, wood production, so typical for Sheregesh, found themselves in crisis. Second, economic crisis fostered interactions between main actors of change. The local authorities were eager to improve the social and economic situation, the population tried to find new sources of income, and the developing private businesses were seeking efficient opportunities for development. Third, the long winter snow season in 1989-90
beginning in October-November and ending in April-May (6-7,5 months), brought up the issue of cost-effective development of any kind of winter tourism. The thickness of a snow cover reaches 2 meters and above. Natural soft snow, called «pukhlyak» with specific «cold» structure, which is particularly popular among alpine skiers, especially free riders, later gained its full recognition after being compared with similar resorts of Russia and the West. The mountains had comfortable slopes and tracks suitable for both the beginners and experienced alpine skiers. Fourth, the USSR perestroika shifted the attention to environmental issues and problems of ethnic minorities. In the forefront of politicization and actualization of these issues, at the end of 1989 the regional authorities decided to establish a national natural park in the territory of Gornaya Shoria mountains. As a result, since the end of the 1980s there was a need to coordinate the tourism policy with environmental and national policy of Gornaya Shoria. Thus, the involvement of state institutions into the development of tourist infrastructure in Gornaya Shoria became inevitable.
«Tourism» path creation - local authorities
and mining business initiatives and cooperation
The Shoria-Tur, a tourist and sports joint-stock open company, which main objective was to develop recreation tourism in Gornaya Shoria mountains, was founded in October 1990 upon the initiative of the local authorities. Additional funds of regional and city budgets, municipalities of certain regional cities, investments from banks and industrial giants of Kuzbass were raised to implement the program. The industrial giants being in the most difficult situation looked for every opportunity for further existence. One of the ways out was tourism investments (mainly as products and goods received through barter (TVs, video recorders, materials, etc.)).
The Sheregesh village was experiencing a huge problem related to its infrastructure. There was not even straight road to main cities of the region. Consequently, the railroads were the only real and sufficient means of transport. For this reason, the first project of the Shoria-Tur was the construction of the railway dead end station for trains, which arrived from the biggest nearest cities -Novokuznetsk, Novosibirsk and Kemerovo. The management of the Shoria-Tur came forward with an initiative to build the ski resort directly connected to railway transport.
In 1992, the former summer camp near the railway station was given by one of the ore plants to the Shoria-Tur. The Shoria-Tur built the first ski slope and installed the T-bar lifts. Being the railway dead end, the Tourist railway station consisting of three railway tracks and stations were built in cooperation with the Russian Railway.
In 1995 the tracks of the Mount Zelyonaya were exposed to homologation, which resulted in FIS certificate (International Ski Federation) making it possible to hold competitions of the international level and the European cup standard. This provoked the discussions with the Russian Alpine Ski and Snowboard Federation on the Russian alpine skiing championship in Sheregesh. «Eve-ryone that was among the originators of Sheregesh was
either a professional mountain skier or an enthusiast of this business. They studied all slopes on foot. The very first tracks, later used for Russian alpine skiing championships, are still the best. They have the best relief and the longest season» (from interview).
«Tourism» path development.
Local initiative becoming regional strategy
Despite all difficulties in tourism, the Shoria-Tur and local authorities initiated the construction of complex ski resort and initiated the tourism strategy. In 1996 the regional program was developed. The regional administration made it possible for some initiatives within this program to be included into the federal target program on the Development of Tourism in the Russian Federation. The total funding for 1996-1997 made 5,4 billion rubles of the total federal budget.
In 1996-1999, the Russian alpine skiing championships were held in Gornaya Shoria. It was another risky initiative of the Shoria-Tur, which could ensure serious information, image and administrative dividends. This decision of the Russian Alpine Ski and Snowboard Federation attracted the attention of alpine ski athletes and tourists to Sheregesh. The following three championships marked high level of Sheregesh alpine ski resort and increased the number of its potential tourists. The Shoria-Tur started intensively attracting tourists. From 1998 to 2001, the flow of tourists increased from 7000 people to 32000 during a season.
In 1997 new governor of Kemerovo region and his management team was actively involved into the construction of the ski resort. The new development program of the Sheregesh Ski Resort was implemented against the guarantees of the new governor. The new management team officially highlighted the need to diversify the region's economy. Tourism was recognized as a potential growing point of the regional economy. In spite of the success of one local authority, the development of tourism in the industrial region was considered a nonsense, but the team of the new regional governor supported the local initiative. The administrative shift towards the understanding of the region's growth points was obvious.
Active promotion of Sheregesh and increase in the number of tourists led to higher investments. «For example, Kuzbass Metallurgical Complex having no available funds to invest into the project, gave metal at the request of the Shoria-Tur. It was sold to Kazakhstan, and for the income gained a second-hand and therefore cheap lifts were bought» (from interview).
Lack of financial resources in the region resulted in the situation when new modern hotel owners were constantly changing throughout the construction.
At the same time, it should be noted that until 2003 the resort developed spontaneously although quite dynamically. Unfortunately, such spontaneity resulted in disordered construction of the mountain bottom facilities, which up to now, causes claims with regard to its consistency and comfort for tourists. Today the mountain has several dozens of owners not legally bound to each other, and hence at times it is rather difficult to solve the issues of resort development, its improvement and promotion.
In 2001 the new development concept of the Sheregesh resort was developed, which implied the attraction of leading Russian experts. During that period, the resort potential was estimated to accommodate 50000 tourists a year.
In the early 2000s, the Shoria-Tur was passing through many hardships. It was a standard situation -change of owners. Initially regional and municipal authorities were one of the main shareholders of the Shoria-Tur. As the legislation was amended, all governing bodies, both regional and municipal ones, were not allowed possessing any property. For a while, the EVRAZ Company (large metallurgical and mining company) became the owner of the business. However, due to economic changes it began to divest assets that did not belong to the main business, which at that time was tourism. The company could not afford such property. Tourism by itself did not bring huge profit to be able to reinvest in its development. The first strategic development agency of Sheregesh and main actor of change disappeared.
Throughout 15 years, Sheregesh turned into the alpine ski resort with well-developed infrastructure and a large number of owners. 120000 people visited Sheregesh in 2006. On average, every year the tourist flow was increasing by 20000 persons.
By 2006, over 50 companies invested approximately 1,2 billion rubles to the development of the Sheregesh resort. All these led to new opportunities for tourism and business. Several coal mining companies registered the Fund for Supporting Winter Sports. Over 33 million rubles were invested into the infrastructure of a new section of the Sheregesh resort. The total intended investments to this project made $100 million.
Federal status and mining investors
In the fall of 2006, the administration of Kemerovo region submitted an application to the Federal Agency for Management of Special Economic Zones of the Ministry for Economic Development and Trade to participate in a competition on establishing the tourism and recreation special economic zone in the south of Kuzbass, specifically in Sheregesh. The scope of the project covered the construction of a modern ski resort during 3,5 years. The expected project investments were estimated as 15 billion 700 million rubles, 8 billion of which should be invested by coal companies of Kuzbass and 2,5 billion should be allocated from federal and regional budgets. It was planned to attract the remaining sum through the federal target programs. This also implied that the residents of such zones would get certain tax benefits. Unfortunately, when the project was initially reviewed in Moscow, it failed to receive the declared status. However, despite this failure, neither investors nor the regional and district authorities dropped the idea of development. In 2009 over 300000 Russian and foreign tourists visited the resort.
In 2010, the application of the local authorities to award Gornaya Shoria the status of the tourism and recreation special economic zone was supported. The total area of this zone made 1,981 hectares. It was planned to attract private investments and create additional jobs for further and sustainable development of Sheregesh. The
strategy was aimed at comprehensive year-round functioning of the resort. The total construction cost of the Sheregesh resort makes 15,7 billion rubles, while half of this sum comes from private investors with the biggest share from coal and mining companies.
In 2012, the regional authorities set a new challenge to Sheregesh, i. e. to welcome up to one million tourists a year. To achieve this, a new development concept was designed. It was intended to transfer some federal lands into municipal property and therefore create five skiing sectors. The second challenging task was to create the general development strategy. The distinctive feature of Sheregesh was that almost all its facilities had their owners. This causes difficulties in creating the general development strategy of the resort, including management of economic and municipal issues and promotion of the resort worldwide. The owners only began to unite their efforts in the last two-three years, which were difficult for the resort. Abnormally dry and hard winter, frozen water intakes, and problems with power supply led to sharp and continuous decrease in sales volumes. The owners realized that the only possible way to survive is to unite efforts [17].
According to the ranking of the Booking.com, in 2014/2015 season the Kuzbass Sheregesh became the most popular in Russia. The flow of tourists to Sheregesh Ski Resort reached 960000 tourists during a season.
In 2014, the regional project Sheregesh Tourist and Recreation Cluster took the highest place in the ranking of the federal program Development of Domestic and Inbound Tourism in the Russian Federation (2011-2018).
The designed master plan of the resort was adjusted to western (mainly Canadian) experience to overcome problems of chaotic development and seasonality of the resort. Thus, this fostered the global objective to promote the transformation of the Sheregesh resort into the world-class year-round resort. The experts made the digital topographical survey, which for the first time allowed carrying out the global analysis of slopes taking into account certain factors, including, land topography, illumination, etc.
The development of the Sheregesh resort is a vivid example of creating a modern ski resort within a short time and under adversity. In view of the above difficulties the result achieved by the region in terms of its tourism development looks rather impressive. High dynamics is reflected in the mere statistics. In 2000, over 150000 people had their holidays in Kemerovo region, while in 2018 this figure made over 1 million 500 thousand people.
Results
New path creation - what is the problem
The original economic theories on path dependence were strongly related to the idea that changes in dominant technological and economic paths can be raised only by an exogenous (external) shock [18, 19]. Once historical selections of technological, social and other practices have become stable, it is not possible to escape from a formed path unless an external shock creates a new path
[1, 5, 20].
Recent evolutionary studies have challenged the traditional model of path dependence and its focus on exogenous shocks, historical chance and accidents as a source of new path creation. The main arguments are that new regional paths «do not start from scratch but are strongly rooted in the historical economic structure of a region» [3. P. 261]. Pre-existing regional context plays the central role in path creation and development or neglecting stressed that new path development is shaped by «preex-isting resources, competences, skills and experiences that have been inherited from previous local paths and patterns of economic development» [8. P. 115].
Most of the evolutionary studies on path creation are focused on technological aspects and new industries [21-25]. The main mechanisms of new industry development can be found in technological connectivity and interdependence of regional industries, territorial and sectoral knowledge dynamics, and branching processes [1, 7, 9, 21-29]. Scholars stress that in the majority of cases new paths are created in technologically related fields where preexisting industrial structures (as well as logistics, supply chains, regional brand, etc.) predetermine possible ways [23, 29, 30]. It is some kind of socioeconomic isomorphism. This approach and corresponding empirical studies can be found in the growing number of EEG literature [8, 22, 31]. Martin and Sunley [5] claim that the transition of declining industries into new technologically related sectors of growth show that path creation is an inherent latent part of any ongoing processes of path dependence. However, does it mean that new paths cannot appear at all; that even by creating new paths the local economies are locked-in by current technologies moving towards technological connectivity? The process, through which actors of a new path use and transform generic resources of the region to new industries completely different from existing trajectories, is not conceptualized in detail in research literature.
Path creation as network activities of different actors
Current evolutionary scholars consider path creation as the most complex process than just a series of accidents or technological shift and diversification to close related fields. New path creation is a complex interactive process when different distributed actors exchange knowledge, integrate resources and jointly construct new markets, form new regional products, create new regulations, attract investments and as a result foster conductive environment for new industry development [7, 31]. At least three dimensions can be identified within this constructive process: actors, networks, and institutions [7-9, 22, 32].
There can be a broad range of different actors involved in the path creation process: public bodies (national authorities, local governments, special economic zones, etc.), companies (including start-ups and spin-offs) operating in the region, universities, associations, external investors, as well as local citizens. Formal and informal networks are important since they provide an opportunity for knowledge exchange and create the basis for resource allocation. It includes associations, clusters, unions, etc. Formal and informal rules, laws, cultures and routines
that define actors' behavior form institutional contexts. The six key processes (knowledge creation, entrepreneurial experimentation, market formation, resource mobilization, creation of legitimacy, guidance of the search) can be interpreted as aggregates of the distributed agency in an emerging technological field, thus forming distinct resources for the actors involved in a new path as well as for the future evolution of the industry as a whole [21].
Who rules?
How and why do heterogeneous actors start acting jointly upon locked-in structures and mobilizing resources to create a new industry? As R. Garud and P. Karnoe [33, 34] have argued, any theory of path creation should attach a prominent role to the importance of some strategic agency and the deliberate, «mindful deviation» of entrepreneurs from established paths. Entrepreneurial activity towards new paths creation is not a random act. That is, entrepreneurs are always attempting to release from structures that they are embedded into while reusing some of the rules and resources [33]. What is this strategic agency that rules new path creation? Is it a task-oriented public policy body or self-organized private actor? Current researches focused on technological shifts of regional firms and their entrepreneurial activities underestimate the influence of nonfirm actors, institutions, and public policy in creating news paths in the region [21, 23, 35, 36].
Conclusions
As we can see from Sheregesh case there are three main factors for new path creation in mining region. Firstly, old «coal» path has to be in crisis and this crisis has to be recognized by main stakeholders - key industry and authorities. Necessity to save investments is the strongest motivation to search for alternatives for the core regional business, even if this business is resource-based. Secondly, there have to be some society visible actors (local authorities, NGO) who distinctly offer new alternative. The idea can be borrowed (external knowledge transfer) and re-contextualized in local conditions. Thirdly, only interplay and collaboration of three main key actors - industry (as investor and management competences provider), authorities (for public articulation, process mediation and regulations support) and social institutions (as experts, external knowledge interpreters) can provoke new path creation.
The main empirical and methodological findings summarized in Fig. 2.
This paper has highlighted that new path can appear not only in diversified regional economy by intercrossing innovations or by branching process to related technological spheres. The case of Sheregesh resort in Kemerovo region demonstrates that economic interests and resources of private actors mainstreamed and supported by strategic interests of the public policy may create a new path which is not technologically interconnected or complimentary with the old one. Moreover, financial resources, human resources (mainly management), networks, access to external resources, lobbing resources of the «old» path can serve critical inputs to create a new one, even if these two
paths do not have any technological connectivity. The Sheregesh case study (when coal industry has initiated and supported development of tourism) has shown that
these two traditionally conflicted paths can not only coexist but also be two essential parts of the region's sustainable development.
KEMEROVO MINING AND METALLURGY INDUSTRY
ENABLING ËNVIRONMËNt for creation of new technologies; resources to support and retain management staff; positive social environment; partnership with authorities; investment climate
Fig. 2. New path creation in Kemerovo region
Рис. 2. Формирование новой траектории развития в экономике Кемеровской области
The article presents only one side of the coal-tourism and old-new path interplay: how the old path influences the new one. Authors are going to develop this analysis and examine how new path influences an old one. We suggest that tourism
REFERENCES
1. Boschma R.A., Frenken K. Technological relatedness and regional branching. Beyond Territory. Dynamic geographies of knowledge creation, diffusion and innovation. Eds. H. Bathelt, M.P. Feldman, D.F. Kogler. London, Routledge, 2011. pp. 64-81.
2. Boschma R.A., Martin R. The aims and scope of evolutionary economic geography. The handbook of evolutionary economic geography. Eds. R. Boschma, R. Martin. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, 2010. pp. 3-39.
3. Neffke F., Henning M., Boschma R. How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography, 2011, no. 87, pp. 237-265.
4. Martin R. Roepke lecture in economic geography - rethinking regional path dependence: beyond lock-in to evolution. Economic Geography, 2010, no. 86, pp. 1-27.
5. Martin R., Sunley P. Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 2006, no. 6, pp. 395-438.
6. Scott A.J. Geography and economy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006. 192 p.
7. Boschma R., Coenen L., Frenken K., Truffer B. Towards a theory of regional diversification: combining insights from evolutionary economic geography and transition studies. Regional Studies, 2017, vol. 51:1, pp. 31-45. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1258460
8. Trippl M., Grillitsch M., Isaksen A. Exogenous sources of regional industrial change: Attraction and absorption of non-local
sustains regional economy and provides old coal path enabling environment for creation of new technologies; resources to support and retain management staff; positive social environment; partnership with authorities; investment climate.
knowledge for new path development. Progress in Human Geography, 2017. DOI: 10.1177/0309132517700982.
9. Vale M., Carvalho L. Knowledge networks and processes of anchoring in Portuguese biotechnology. Regional Studies, 2013, no. 47, pp. 1018-1033.
10. Carson D.A., Carson D.B. Path dependence in remote area tourism development: why institutional legacies matter. Tourism destination evolution. Eds. P. Brouder, S.A. Clave, A.M. Gill, D. Ioan-nides. London, Routledge, 2017. pp. 103-122.
11. McLennan C.L.J., Becken S., Moyle B.D. Framing in a contested space: media reporting on tourism and mining in Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 2015, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 960-980. DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2014.946893.
12. Miller E., Van Megen K., Buys L. Diversification for sustainable development in rural and regional Australia: how local community leaders conceptualise the impacts and opportunities from agriculture, tourism and mining. Rural Society, 2012, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 2-16.
13. Schmallegger D., Carson D. Is tourism just another staple? A new perspective on tourism in remote regions. Current Issues in Tourism, 2010, no. 13, pp. 201-221. DOI: 10.1080/13683500903359152.
14. Brouder P., Eriksson R.H. Tourism evolution: on the synergies of tourism studies and evolutionary economic geography. Annals of Tourism Research, 2013, no. 43, pp. 370-389. Available at: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.07.001 (accessed 12 October 2020).
15. Asheim B.T., Boschma R., Cooke P. Constructing regional advantage: platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge. Regional Studies, 2011, vol. 45, Iss. 7, pp. 893-904.
16. Riabov V., Stolbova O. Modern industrial complex of Kemerovo region. Vestnik Kemerovskogo universiteta, 2017, no. 3, pp. 41-46. In Rus. DOI: 10.21603/2542-2448-2017-3-41-46.
17. Valtseva A., Ailarova N. Tourist business in Sheregesh began with houses, which remained from builders. RATA news. Daily electronic newspaper of the Russian Tourism Union, 2012, no. 3183. Available at: http://www.ratanews.ru/news/news_3122012_2.stm (accessed 12 October 2020).
18. David P.A. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 1985, no. 75, pp. 332-337.
19. David P.A. Path dependence in economic processes: implications for policy analysis in dynamical systems contexts. The evolutionary foundations of economics. Ed. by K. Dopfer. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005. pp. 151-194.
20. Henning M., Stam E., Wenting R. Path dependence research in regional economic development: cacophony or knowledge accumulation? Regional Studies, 2013, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1348-1362. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.750422 (accessed 12 October 2020).
21. Binz C., Truffer B., Coenen L. Path creation as a process of resource alignment and anchoring: industry formation for on-site water recycling in Beijing. Economic Geography, 2016, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 172-200. DOI: 10.1080/00130095.2015.1103177.
22. Carvalho L., Vale M. Biotech by bricolage? Agency, institutional relatedness and new path development in peripheral regions. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2018, vol. 11, pp. 275-295. DOI: 10.1093/cjres/rsy009
23. Dawley S., MacKinnon D., Cumbers A., Pike A. Policy activism and regional path creation: the promotion of offshore wind in North East England and Scotland. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2015, vol. 8 (2), pp. 257-272. DOI: 10.1093/cjres/rsu036.
24. Feldman M.P., Lendel I. The emerging industry puzzle. Optics unplugged. Beyond Territory. Dynamic geographies of knowledge creation, diffusion, and innovation. Eds. H. Bathelt, M.P. Feldman, D.F. Kogler. London, Routledge, 2011. pp. 107-148.
25. Miorner J., Trippl M. Paving the way for new regional industrial paths: actors and modes of change in Scania's Games Industry.
European Planning Studies, 2017, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 481-497. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1212815.
26. Bresnahan T., Gambardella A., Saxenian A. Old economy' inputs for 'new economy' outcomes: cluster formation in the New Silicon Valleys. Clusters, networks and innovation. Eds. S. Breschi, F. Malerba. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005. pp. 113-135.
27. Crevoisier O., Jeannerat H. Territorial knowledge dynamics: from the proximity paradigm to multi-location milieus. European Planning Studies, 2009, no. 17, pp. 1223-1241.
28. Karn0e P., Garud R. Path creation: co-creation of heterogeneous resources in the emergence of the Danish Wind Turbine Cluster. European Planning Studies, 2012, no. 20, pp. 733-752.
29. Martin R. (Re)placing path dependence: a response to the debate. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2012, no. 36, pp. 179-192.
30. Isaksen A., Trippl M. Exogenously led and policy-supported new path development in peripheral regions: analytical and synthetic routes. Economic Geography, 2017, vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 436-457. DOI: 10.1080/00130095.2016.1154443.
31. MacKinnon D., Dawley S., Pike A., Cumbers A. Rethinking path creation: a geographical political economy approach. Economic Geography, 2019, vol. 95:2, pp. 113-135. DOI: 10.1080/00130095.2018.1498294
32. Musiolik J., Markard J., Hekkert M. Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: towards a conceptual framework for system building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2012, no. 79, pp. 1032-1048.
33. Garud R., Kumaraswamy A., Karn0e P. Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies, 2010, no. 47, pp. 760-774.
34. Garud R., Karn0e P. Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. Path Dependence and Creation. Eds. R. Garud, P. Karn0e. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001. pp. 1-39.
35. Hassink R., Klaerding C., Marques P. Advancing evolutionary economic geography by engaged pluralism. Regional Studies, 2014, no. 48, pp. 1295-1307.
36. Andrades L., Dimanche F. Destination competitiveness and tourism development in Russia: issues and challenges. Tourism Management, 2017, vol. 62, no. C, pp. 360-376.
Received: 22 October 2020.
Information about the authors Liliya G. Kiriyanova, Cand. Sc., associate professor, National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University.
Кирьянова Л.Г. / Известия Томского политехнического университета. Инжиниринг георесурсов. 2020. Т. 331. № 11. 208-216
УДК 332
УГОЛЬНАЯ ПРОМЫШЛЕННОСТЬ И ТУРИЗМ: МОЖНО ЛИ ДОБИТЬСЯ УСТОЙЧИВОГО РАЗВИТИЯ ТРАДИЦИОННОЙ СЫРЬЕВОЙ ТЕРРИТОРИИ?
Кирьянова Лилия Геннадьевна,
kiriyanova@tpu.ru
Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет, Россия, 635050, г. Томск, пр. Ленина, 30.
Зависимость региональной экономики от добывающей промышленности - один их методологических и управленческих вызовов. Важно понять, как стимулировать появление новых социально-экономических траекторий и сформировать устойчивость сырьевого региона. В статье показывается, что новые траектории развития могут формироваться не только в диверсифицированной региональной экономике на основе смежных инноваций и «ответвлений» в технологически связанные отрасли. Технологическая связанность - не единственный способ для «старой» сырьевой экономики развить новое направление. Угольная промышленность и туризм часто рассматриваются как взаимоисключающие фокусыI экономики, которые не могут сосуществовать в одном регионе. В этой статье мы1 покажем успешную модель появления туристической отрасли в традиционном угольном регионе, учитывающую стадии, механизмы, ресурсыI и взаимодействие основных агентов изменений. В статье демонстрируется, что финансовые ресурсыI, человеческий капитал, инфраструктура, сети, доступ к внешним ресурсам и лоббистский потенциал угольной промышленности могут стать критической основой для формирования туристической отрасли в регионе. Экономические интересыI и ресурсыI частных акторов, поддержанные стратегическими интересами государственной и местной политики, могут сформировать новую отрасль, технологически не связанную со «старой». Угольная промышленность и туризм могут формировать синергетический эффект и совместно обеспечивать устойчивое развитие территории. Модель несвязанной диверсификации создает условия для долгосрочного устойчивого развития и может быть использована в других российских сырьевых регионах.
Ключевые слова:
Сырьевые регионыI, региональная диверсификация, угольная промышленность, туризм, теория колеи.
Информация об авторах
Кирьянова Л.Г., кандидат философских наук, доцент Школы инженерного предпринимательства, Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет.
