Improving the methodological basis of assessing the competitiveness of a tourist region: the case of the regions of the Republic of Uzbekistan

. In the article, scientific suggestions for improving the methodological basis of the evaluation of the competitiveness of the tourist area have been developed. In this, a methodology for evaluating the integrated indicator of the competitiveness of the tourist area is proposed based on the integration of sub-indices of a complex nature such as "State of socio-economic development of the region", "Tourist attractiveness of the region", "State of regional tourist infrastructure", "Potential of tourist resources of the region". Based on methodological approaches and information maintained by the State Statistics Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Ministry of Tourism and Cultural Heritage on regional tourism statistics, 83 indices integrated into 4 sub-indices were used to determine the integrated indicator of competitiveness of the tourist area. Based on the proposed methodology, the relative indicators of tourism competitiveness of the regions of the Republic of Uzbekistan were determined.


Introduction
Tourism has been noted as one of the leading sectors of the world economy for the past two decades, and its growth rates and share in global macroeconomic indicators have led to recognition as an industry of the future [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16].According to the World Tourism Organization, 49 percent of international tourist visits in 2019 were accounted for by Italy, France, the United States, Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, Turkey, Thailand, Mexico, and other tourist areas with tourist potential accounted for the remaining share of the international tourism market.is participating in a fierce competition.
In 2020, the global impact of the pandemic caused the world tourism industry to face an economic crisis, and laid the foundation for a fierce competitive environment in the further development trends of the industry.In the post-pandemic conditions of the world, special attention is being paid to modern scientific researches dedicated to the issues of rapid development of the tourism sector, restoration of its position in socio-economic development.Researching the methodological and practical aspects of this issue from the point of view of improving the theoretical and methodological bases of increasing its competitiveness based on the attraction of new opportunities for effective use of the potential of the tourist area in the environment of the digital economy is distinguished by its relevance today.Improving the methodological bases of assessing the competitiveness of individual regions in the field of tourism is one of these issues and determines the relevance of our research.Dj.Ritchie and G. Crouch's model is famous as the first general model of tourism destination competitiveness (1994).It is made up of five interdependent and timeincreasing constituents, linking micro-and macro-environmental factors: primary resources and attractions, supporting resources and factors, tourism destination policies, planning and development, area management.The lack of measurement of competitive factors is a weakness of this model.Not all attributes are equally important in terms of their contribution to the competitiveness of a tourist destination.DJ in 2003.Ritchie and G.The Crouchs emphasize that the model developed by them is not perfect, therefore, it is necessary to be careful when using it in practice.
L. Dwyer and S. Kim's model not only combined a number of determinants into expanded categories, but also simplified the previous model and somewhat expanded the scope of analysis, taking into account the factors that create demand, clarifying the elements of competitiveness that serve to achieve socio-economic development.The authors argue that for discerning and demanding travelers, qualitatively differentiating aspects of destinations are of particular importance, which further increases the attractiveness and uniqueness of these destinations.However, the fact that most of the determinants selected within the framework of this model are not substantiated by any empirical tests, and the absence of causal relationships between them has been criticized by researchers (M.Henefik, M. Khemdi, I. Ahmad).
T. Vavr's method is based on the measurement of indicators that represent the structural picture of customer satisfaction in the form of a two-dimensional table.The evaluation method is based on determining the level of importance of a relatively large number of variables selected by the customers themselves and comparing the ratings of the level of importance with respect to the ratio of specific providers of destination services to tangible derivative indicators of productivity.This in turn makes it possible to distinguish three different determinants of satisfaction: effective, satisfactory and unsatisfactory results.However, later this model K. Matsler, E. Sayerwein, A. It has been criticized by researchers such as Heishmidt (2003).One of the criticisms was that according to it, this theory cannot explain that different satisfaction factors can be obtained within the destination.
Destination benchmarking.M. Fuchs and K. Weyermar critically evaluated the system of benchmarking indicators implemented by the Austrian government in 1987, based only on price and quality, and extended this approach to comparative analysis by linking it to measures to meet the needs of tourists.They divided tourism quality attributes into three different groups of factors (basic or core factors, motivational factors and performance factors) (Fuchs M., Weirmair K., Destination benchmarking: an indicator-system's potential for exploring guest satisfaction, 2004).
Taking into account the complexity of questions related to the concept of sustainable development of tourism, in 2012 L. Gernat and Dj. Gordon tries to develop a unified methodology for assessing the sustainability of tourism based on a number of quantitative indicators using benchmarking.Based on it, the researchers developed the methodological basis of the sustainable tourism benchmarking tool (STBT), which provides a number of criteria that can be used to evaluate the stability of tourism activities in different countries.
The Competitiveness Monitor was created in 2005 as a result of a partnership between the TTRI Research Institute and the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC).Research is based on data from WTTC.Researchers N. Eight groups of indicators (total of 54) presented by Guruchyurn and G. Sudjuartol in the form of indices show the level of competitiveness of each country in the field of tourism in relation to other countries.The model is based on the calculation of the following group of indicators: price competitiveness; openness of markets for international trade; technological progress; infrastructure development; human impact of tourism; social development; environmental protection; human resources.
The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index was developed by the World Economic Forum.This index is calculated every two years based on the analysis of information from tourism and travel experts, international organizations and data from open sources.The first report on the competitiveness of travel and tourism was published in 2007.It covered 124 countries with established and developing markets, and in 2019, tourism competitiveness issues in 140 countries of the world were highlighted.It should be admitted that although it is not recognized by scientists as an ideal index, today the TTCI index is the most widely used model for assessing the competitiveness of countries in terms of tourism development.
The topic of assessing the competitiveness of destinations is not considered a closed topic abroad.It is actively discussed and widely researched theoretically and practically.Many researchers are using flexible versions of previously developed models.In particular, M. Kukkulelli and G. Goffm (2015) Dj.Richie and G. Expanding the model of Crouchs, they put into practice a set of sustainability indicators of competitiveness in the tourist direction.This approach made it possible to look at the structure of the destination's touristic potential for the first time.D. Mendola and S. Volo (2017) proposes a methodological framework for the construction of composite indicators in the tourism sector as a tool for monitoring and summarizing multidimensional phenomena, as well as an operational scheme for evaluating the effectiveness of indicators in empirical evaluations.K. Milichevich, T. Michalik and I.Sever (2017) put forward the issue of matching the branding tool to the tourist destination competitiveness index, which measures the level of customer satisfaction in their theory.
Based on the specific aspects of the country, Chinese scientists have been carrying out purposeful and somewhat successful research on the development of models for assessing the competitiveness of tourism in their provinces, adding 27 indicators to the number of indicators used in international research (N.Shi, 2010).
They are actively engaged in studying the wishes and desires of tourists in order to increase the competitiveness of the provinces.Since 2011, the World Tourism Cities Federation has published 6 indicators describing tourist flows and income from tourism, tourism potential, tourism attractiveness, state support for the tourism industry, the contribution of the tourism industry to the country's economy, and the feeling of tourist satisfaction.the touristic development level rating (WTCDI) of the cities including a separate sub-index is calculated.
A number of Korean researchers (2015) are trying to develop models for evaluating the competitiveness of cities in terms of tourism using the Delphi method and adapt existing ones to real reality.The evaluation criteria consists of the following six factors: competence of local self-government bodies, personnel and intellectual capacity, tourist infrastructure, culture, tourism efficiency.
Thai scientists A. Srivihok and A. Intrepeyrot (2015) later propose a model for determining the competitiveness of tourism and travel, which can be used in the development of oil tourism, but also in the development of related strategic plans and marketing management activities in the field of related sectors, including transport and information and communication technologies.
The study of local and foreign approaches to regional tourism competitiveness assessment shows that most of the popular methodologies for regional tourism competitiveness assessment can be widely used in the conditions of Uzbekistan in their initial form or by making certain changes and additions to them.In addition, the development of a methodology for assessing the competitiveness of the tourist area based on the possibilities of keeping statistics on tourism in our country is the demand of the time.Based on the methodological approaches and data maintained by the State Statistics Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the State Committee for Tourism Development on regional tourism statistics, we proposed to use 83 indices integrated into 4 sub-indexes to determine the integral indicator of the competitiveness of the tourist area (Table 1).

SI4-AUTHORITY OF TOURIST RESOURCES OF THE AREA МICE tourism resources
Human resources I46th international conference number I47 (festivals, forums, fairs, etc) I67-Guides-liners I68-Folk ensembles serving tourists I69-the number of employees of tourist organizations I70-number of employees of hotels and other means of Based on this, the methodology for determining the competitiveness index of the tourist area was developed during the dissertation research.The procedure for determining the competitiveness index of a tourist area is proposed below: HR = W ir × IR + W tj × TJ + W ti × TI + W tr × TR , 0 <  < 5 , (1) here: HR -Integrated indicator of competitiveness of the region; IR -1-sub-index: "State of socio-economic development of the region"; TJ -2-subindex: "Tourist attractiveness of the region"; TI -3-subindex: "State of regional tourist infrastructure"; TR -4-subindex: "Tourist resources potential of the region"; W − the weight of the subindex in the integral index.The value of the indicator of touristic attractiveness of the area was estimated using the sociological survey method.A questionnaire was distributed to experts in the field of tourism on the basis of 0-5 points of the touristic attractiveness of the regions, and the result was evaluated using the method of expert evaluation.
It was proposed to determine the weight of each sub-index included in the integral indicator by attaching points to them based on the expert evaluation method.The importance of each sub-index in the integral indicator was evaluated by experts in a 0-5 point system.In this case, the calculated weight of each sub-index for a particular expert is determined by the following formula: here: EV − i-the weight assigned to the j-th subindex by the th expert; E ij − i-the evaluation given by the th expert to the j-th subindex weight; m − number of subindexes; n − number of experts.
The weight of sub-indices in the integral index is determined by the following formula: here: W j − the weight of the j-th subindex in the integral index; n − the weight set by the i-th expert to the j-th subindex; E ij − the evaluation given by the i-th expert to the j-th subindex weight; m − number of subindexes; n − number of experts here: SI j -value of the j-th integral sub-index ("State of socio-economic development of the region"; "Tourist attractiveness of the region"; "State of the regional tourist infrastructure"; "Potential of tourist resources of the region"); I k -k-th normalized (standardized) index; V k -The weight of the k-th index in the integral subindex; n -number of pointers.
It is known that the evaluation indices of the competitiveness of the tourist area presented in Table 1 have different measurement units and sizes.Normalization (standardization) methods are used in economic statistics to include these indicators in the integrated indicator.Among them, one of the most common methods is the "minimax" linear normalization method.Therefore, in order to determine and evaluate the dynamics of regional tourism market development efficiency, we proposed to standardize all the indicators using the following formula:  Sub-indices of territorial competitiveness were estimated for individual regions of the Republic of Uzbekistan using standardized indices and their weights (Table 4).Also, for each region, based on the sub-indices and its weight values in the integral index, the regional competitiveness indicator was determined (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).

Conclusion
The study of local and foreign approaches to regional tourism competitiveness assessment shows that most of the popular methodologies for regional tourism competitiveness assessment can be widely used in the conditions of Uzbekistan in their initial form or by making certain changes and additions to them.
In addition, the considered models differ in terms of indicators and approaches used in the evaluation of quantitative indicators, which may lead to different results regarding the evaluation of tourism competitiveness in the regions of our country.In our opinion, it is necessary to develop a new and reasonable methodology that can be used by all regions in order to obtain accurate and timely results regarding the assessment of regional tourism competitiveness in our country.Only in the conditions where it is possible to make mutual comparisons and have real results regarding the assessment of regional tourism competitiveness, promising opportunities will be created for our country and its regions to improve their position and socio-economic indicators in the market of national and international tourist services.Thus, the formation of the tourism industry as an important branch of the region's economy and its sustainable development cannot be ensured through market mechanisms alone, for this, state support is definitely required.It is in this place, in the course of establishing mutually beneficial cooperation between the government, business sector, educational and scientific research institutions, which envisages state, private-public partnership relations, consistent implementation of socially significant programs and innovative projects at the regional level is important in improving the well-being of the population.serves as an economic catalyst.In this regard, the improvement of the regional tourism infrastructure is one of the main factors of increasing the competitiveness of the tourist area.

Integral
Competitiveness Indicator of the Region The State of Socio-Economic Development of Si1 Region Macroeconomic indicators of the region The state of development of the field of education I1-GNP, billion soums; I2-GNP per capita, thousand soums; I3-The place of regions in the main economic indicators of the republic, market services (%); I4-Production of consumer goods, bln.soum; I5-Investments in fixed capital, billion soums; I6-Investments in fixed capital, billion soums; I7-Number of registered enterprises and organizations.I8-Number of vocational colleges; I9-Number of HEIs; I10-Specialists who graduated, thousand people.The state of development of the health sector I13-The number of business entities using the benefits; I14-Benefit amount used; I15-The number of objects created by the received privilege; I16-The number of jobs created through these facilities The level of use of benefits provided to the industry I11-Number of doctors per 10000 population; I12-Number of secondary medical personnel per 10000 population.SI2-TOURIST ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE REGION I17-Environmental attractiveness of the area; I18-The historical and cultural attractiveness of the region; I19-The attractiveness of the Region as a domestic tourism destination; I20-Region's attractiveness as an inbound tourism destination.SI3-STATE OF THE REGIONAL TOURIST INFRASTRUCTURE Sanitary and hygiene infrastructure Deployment infrastructure I41-Newly established sanitary-hygienic offices in tourist facilities I42-Newly established roadside sanitation stations Number of places in I21-hotels Number of places in I22 guest houses Number of places in I23-hostels Recreational tourism infrastructure Catering infrastructure I24-number of youth recreation camps; I25-The number of boarding houses, resorts, tourist bases I43-Number of restaurants Medical and wellness tourism infrastructure I44-The number of places in sanatoriums and sanatorium facilities; I45-Number of clinics (serving foreign tourists).
accommodation I71-Number of employees of sanatorium-resort facilities Gastronomic tourism resources I48-organized cafes, catering establishments, restaurants in total, including; I49-Uzbek national dishes; I50-foreign national dishes Eco-agritourism resources Ethnographic tourism resources I72-Forestry facilities; I73-Objects of forest hunting farms; I74-Fishing lakes; I75-Reservoirs and lakes; I76-Protected areas; I77-Dor Roads; I78-Ecotourism facilities adapted to serve tourists; I79-Ecotourism facilities, agrotourism facilities adapted to serve tourists; I80-Roadside tourism facilities complex; I81-"Safari" service facilities I51-Organized cafes, the number of neighborhoods included under the general prosperous village program; I52-The number of neighborhoods granted tourism status.Historical and cultural tourism resources I53-Cinema; I54-Museums; I55-Theatres; I56-Amusement and theme parks; I57-Number of concert organizations; I58-parks of culture and recreation; I59-houses of culture and recreation of the population; I60-Objects of historical and cultural heritage; I61-Archaeological sites Pilgrimage tourism resources Promotion of tourist resources I62-Waqf objects; I63-Mosque; I64-Church; I65-Synagogue; I66-Buddhism I82-Number of prepared materials promoting the tourism potential of the region; I83-Posting materials promoting the tourism potential of the region in the mass media (TV, radio, print, internet) E3S Web of Conferences 420, 10022 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342010022EBWFF 2023 k-th normalized (standardized) index; k i -the actual value of the indicator; k max -the maximum value of the indicator; kmin -the minimum value of the indicator.

Fig. 1 .
Fig. 1.Integrated indicator of tourism competitiveness of regions of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Fig. 2 .
Fig. 2. Value of sub-indices of tourism competitiveness of regions of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Table 1 .
Indices integrated into 4 sub-indices in determining the integral index of competitiveness of the tourist area.

Table 3 .
The weight values of the j-th subindex in the integral index.