Journal number 3 ∘ Ioseb Khelashvili ∘ Mariam Sharia ∘
Economic Impact of Tourism Industry Development in Georgia: Current Trends

doi.org/10.52340/eab.2025.17.03.06

This study analyses the impact of tourism industry development on Georgia’s economy through a mixed-method research approach that integrates both quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative component relies on statistical data, applying polynomial regression and Leontief\\'s input-output model to assess the depth assessment of tourism\\'s integration into the economic system. The qualitative aspect involves a survey of representatives from 78 accommodation providers, aimed at identifying the structure and trends in the consumption of Georgian versus imported products and services. The results revealed that although the absolute indicators of Georgian products are increasing, their share is shrinking due to the concurrent rise in imports. Moreover, the study reveals that the tourism industry’s expansion significantly influences key supply sectors such as manufacturing, trade, and real estate. The research highlights the importance of enhancing the involvement of local resources in Georgia\\'s tourism development strategy to retain generated income and reduce import-related expenditures.

Keywords: Tourism industry, economic impact, input-output model, Georgia
JEL Codes: L83, C67, O18, O13, R11

Introduction

The tourism industry in Georgia encompasses a wide range of consumer services, ranging from core and supplementary services for tourists, to domestic and international transportation, food and beverage services, security provision, environmental protection, sanitation, insurance organisation, and many others. This diversity fosters extensive economic linkages both within and beyond the national economy, and on the other hand, underscores the importance of studying the interconnected processes.
As one of Georgia’s leading economic sectors, tourism warrants thorough investigation - particularly in areas such as revenue generation, local economic simulation, dependence on external markets, and its overall economic impact.
The aim of this study is to explore the characteristics of the economic impact of the tourism industry in Georgia, determine current trends, and outline potential directions for future development.
The study’s goal-oriented objectives shape its overall structure and stages, including an overview of concepts related to the topic, an evaluation of the main tourism segments’ contribution to the national economy, and an analysis of the economic linkages driven by the tourism industry in order to provide baseline data for rational future development directions.

Concepts and Information Sources on Intersectoral Economic Linkages in the Tourism Industry
Scientific studies on the economic impact of tourism have traditionally examined both sectoral dimensions and territorial units (Davis, Webster 1981; Juanita et al 1983; Wagner 1997; Strehlow et al 2023; Majewski 2024; Miralles et al 2024).
The study analysis of tourism’s economic contribution began in the 1960s, coinciding with a period of rapid global growth in the sector, particularly across Europe and North America. Reflecting this trend, the United Nations designated 1967 as the International Year of Tourism (UN Tourism).
By the 1970s, research had already highlighted the substantial environmental impact potential of tourism, emphasizing the need for continued investigation in this field. J. Diamond observed that tourism could play a pivotal role in economic development by creating jobs, boosting local business revenues, and encouraging infrastructure expansion. (Diamond 1977).
Subsequent, more developed and expansive studies focused on areas such as income generation, business growth, infrastructure development, and support for sustainable development – particular in promoting responsible use of local natural and cultural resources, poverty reduction, and other related issues. Tourism has been recognized as having a notably positive impact on developing economies, especially in rural regions, by revitalizing local agriculture, food production, and other traditional economic activities (Archer et al 2007).

Researchers have also drawn attention to the potential challenges associated with tourism development, which span a wide range of issues, including environmental pollution, risks of negative impacts on the social and cultural environment, overdependence on tourism in the national economy, and economic leakage (referring to the significant portion of tourism-generated income spent on imported goods and services, as well as on international corporations and foreign companies involved in partnerships). Additional challenges involve the limited participation of local populations in tourism development, inequitable distribution of tourism revenues among local communities, and the vulnerability of developing economies to exchange rate fluctuations, and others (Archer 2007).
The growing influence of tourism on the economy has underscored the need for standardised indicators and the development of suitable research concepts. In this regard, the late 1990s and early 2000s witnessed the development of various methodologies, most notably the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA). These methodologies are based on Leontief’s Input-Output Model – first introduced in 1936 (Blake 2001; van de Steeg & Steenge 2008). The TSA framework provides a structured approach to quantitatively evaluate of tourism-related expenditures, income generation, and employment within a country\\'s economy.
It is noteworthy that the TSA model has gained broad international recognition. A collaborative initiative between the United Nations, the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) resulted in the 2008 release of comprehensive guide titled: “Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework.”
The methodology for measuring and assessing the economic impact of tourism has evolved significantly, notably through the adoption and expansion of the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA), leading to the formation of models such as Tourism Policy and Forecasting (TPF) and the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model. These methods are based on evaluating tourism’s economic impact while considering intersectoral linkages within the economy (Adams & Parmenter 1995; Blake et al 2001; Yang 2020). The Tourism Policy Analysis method is applied within the TPF model to assess alternative tourism development scenarios (Blake et al 2001; Chen et al 2020).
Given the extensive and multifaceted impacts of the tourism industry, analytical methodologies were also developed to calculate its direct, indirect, and induced economic effects (WTTC). These assessments utilise the so-called multiplier formula, which measures how variations in tourism income affect a range of economic indicators across these three categories. At present, five primary types of tourism multipliers are employed, focusing on sales (transactions), income, employment, expenditures, and output (production) (Archer 2007).
There is growing interest in adapting international methodologies for assessing tourism’s economic impact to better reflect the specific conditions, challenges, and emerging innovations of individual countries or regions. Examples of such studies include: the evaluation of tourism’s broader economic effects Cyprus (Giannakis et al 2023); the use of regional TSAs in Scandinavian countries (Karlsdottir, Gassen 2021); analysis of interregional tourism dependency in Sergipe, Brazil (Ribeiro et al 2024); input-output modeling of tourism’s economic impact in Banten, Indonesia (Astutik et al 2025); the development of a Blue Economy Satellite Account for Korea’s coastal tourism sector (Chang et al 2024); tourism economic impact assessment in mountain regions such as the Apennines Regional Park (Danzi, Figini 2022); exploration of tourism’s effects on Brazil’s hydro-energy sector (Lee 2025); analysis of tourism dynamics during the COVID-19 crisis in Mexico (Kido, Kido 2021); and the integration of information systems into TSA reporting (Pappas, Diakamichalis 2024).
The Georgian Context
In Georgia, the significance of assessing tourism’s economic impact and developing appropriate accounting frameworks has gained increasing recognition since the second decade of the 21st century (Margvelashvili, Kveladze 2013). Notably, attention has been drawn to the multiplier effects of tourism, with agritourism identified as a key driver for stimulating rural economies (Margvelashvili, Kveladze, 2013).
Scholarly research has emphasized the importance of implementing the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA) as a methodological priority (Khokhobaia 2014). Based on an analysis of the methodologies used by Georgian tourism statistics producers and aligned with UNWTO standards, a tailored tourism statistics system model has been designed for Georgia, specifically for TSA implementation (Bregadze 2018).
The TSA and input-output model have also gained prominence as analytical tools for assessing the economic influence of tourism activities at national and regional levels. (Gavasheli 2018). One such study focused on the impact of tourism on Georgia’s food and beverage sector (Khelashvili 2020).
Currently, TSA reports and tourism economic impact data are published in accordance with methodologies established by international organizations such as the UN, World Bank, EU institutions, WTTC, OECD, WB-Tourism Watch, and the UN Tourism Data Dashboard.
In Georgia, official national tourism statistics and periodic reports are compiled by two entities: the National Statistics Office of Georgia (Geostat), and the Georgian National Tourism Administration (GNTA), which concentrates on research and economic indicators.

Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative research methods to examine current trends in tourism industry development and their impact on the Georgian economy. The research included statistical data analysis, the application of Leontief’s input-output model, and a survey of accommodation sector representatives.

Quantitative Analysis
Statistical Data and Polynomial Regression

To evaluate macroeconomic trends in tourism development, the study analyzed the following statistical data: (a) The structure and characteristics of tourism industry revenues in Georgia based on data from 2018 to 2024; and (b) Macroeconomic indicators of tourism development in Georgia based on data from 2020 to 2023. Polynomial regression was applied to interpret irregular trends, following the methodology outlined by Montgomery et al. (2021).
Input-Output Model
To quantitatively evaluate the economic impact of tourism, Leontief’s input-output model was employed. This model facilitates the assessment of both direct and indirect effects across economic sectors (Leontief 1986; Miller, Blair 2009).
Input-output tables for Georgia’s economy from 2020 to 2023 were utilized to analyse intersectoral linkages, with particularfocus on the “accommodation and food service” sector.

Qualitative Survey
To complement the statistical data, a qualitative online survey was conducted to examine the current situation and trends in the consumption of Georgian products by accommodation establishments.
The survey targeted owners, managing partners, and top-level managers, with a total of 78 respondents participating. Selection criteria included the type, size, and geographical location of each accommodation, ensuring representative coverage across the sector.
The survey was distributed through targeted outreach using the Jotform platform, and featured both closed and open-ended questions. Data analysis was carried out using descriptive statistical methods and thematic coding to uncover relevant patterns and insights.

Characteristics of the Revenue Structure in Georgia’s Tourism Industry

The analysis, based on data generalisation using the polynomial method (see Figure 1.), revealed the following trends:
• Since 2021, the share of revenues from land and water transport services, as well as accommodation facilities, has been declining within total tourism income.
• Conversely, the share of expenditures on food and beverage services has been steadily increasing.
• Revenues from travel agencies, tour operators, and other reservation services, along with related activities, have remained relatively stable.
• By the end of the analysis period in 2024, a relatively higher increase was observed in revenues from air transport services.

 

Overall, the share of tourism revenues in the country\\'s GDP has been steadily increasing. As a result, the importance of analysing the impact of this sector on the national economy has grown accordingly. To assess this dimention, data from the Tourism Satellite Account – compiled in accordance with international standards and published by the Georgian National Tourism Administration for the years 2020–2023 – were utilised.
The expanding tourism industry naturally influences the sectors that support and supply it. Variations in the relevant data over recent years reveal distinct trends. Notably, there has been an increase in total output (production), accompanied by a fluctuating rise in value-added components and taxes. (See Figure 2, Table 2).

 

 In the context of tourism industry development, particular attention should be paid to its impact on domestic consumption and imports, which exhibit opposing trends. Specifically, a noticeable shift has occurred in their dynamics: as the tourism sector expands, the share of domestically produced goods and services declines, while expenditures on imports increase (see Figure 2). If this trend persists, it could undermine the tourism industry\\'s potential to effectively stimulate the national economy.

 

The identified and previously discussed trends underscore the importance of analyzing the development of Georgia’s tourism industry in relation to its impact on the national economy, its intersectoral linkages, and the dynamics of emerging trends.

 

Characteristics of Intersectoral Economic Linkages in Georgia’s Tourism Industry
The impact of tourism industry development on related sectors of the national economy is examined below using the most capital-intensive branch of tourism as a case study. According to reports from the Georgian National Tourism Administration and international statistical standards, this branch is classified as “Accommodation and Food Service Activities.” Related sectors are also analyzed based on the classification systems employed in the corresponding reports (see Table 4).
The data analysed for the Accommodation and Food Service Activities sector covers the period from 2020 to 2023, with a focus on identifying the characteristics and changes in linked sectors resulting from its development.
Intersectoral linkages between the tourism industry and other sectors of Georgia’s economy vary significantly in intensity, ranging from several hundred thousand GEL to several hundred million GEL (see Table 4). Based on 2023 data, the most substantial linkages – exceeding 200 million GEL were recorded with the following sectors:
• Manufacturing – 453.32 million GEL
• Wholesale and Retail Trade – 358.47 million GEL
• Real Estate Activities – 215.39 million GEL
Together, these three sectors accounted for 58.6% of the total supply to the Accommodation and Food Service Activities sector in 2023.
However, the intensity of these linkages has not followed a uniform trajectory. During the observed period, the wholesale and retail trade sectors exhibited a steady increase, with its share of total domestic supply rising from 11.5% in 2020 to 20.4% in 2023. In contrast, the other two priority sectors showed declining trends. Specifically, the role of manufacturing decreased from 32.3% to 25.8%, and real estate activities fell from 15.8% to 12.3% over the same period.
According to 2023 data, several sectors demonstrated significant linkages to this capital-intensive branch of the tourism industry, with contributions ranging from 100 to 200 million GEL. These include: a) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing – 198.05 million GEL; b) Electricity, Gas, Steam, and Air Conditioning Supply – 132.28 million GEL; c) Financial and Insurance Activities – 115.26 million GEL. Collectively, these three sectors accounted for 24.5% of the total supply to the tourism industry in 2023. Among them, Financial and Insurance Activities showed a notable upward trend, with its share increasing from 3.2% in 2020 to 6.6% in 2023. The other two sectors exhibited relatively minor changes over the same period.
The next group comprises sectors classified in this analysis as moderately linked, with contributions ranging from 20 to 100 mllion GEL (2023 data): These are: a) Transportation and Storage – 73.06 million GEL; b) Water Supply, Sewerage, Waste Management and Remediation Activities – 41.66 million GEL; c) Administrative and Support Service Activities – 41.62 million GEL; d) Professional, Scientific, and Technical Activities – 31.8 million GEL; e) Construction – 25.58 million GEL (based on 2023 data); f) Collectively, these sectors contributed 12.4% to the overall intersectoral linkages of the tourism sector in 2023.
In terms of trends, Water Supply, Sewerage, Waste Management and Remediation Activities
showed notable growth, reflecting improvements in environmental conditions for guests at accommodation facilities. A positive trend was also observed in Transportation and Storage, indicating enhanced logistics and supply chain efficiency for accommodation services.
The remaining sectors exhibited less pronounced annual fluctuations. Professional, Scientific, and Technical Activities recorded a slight increase, while Administrative and Support Services and Construction experienced a decline.
The category of limited and minor linkages (25 million GEL or less) includes the following sectors: a) Information and Communication – 15.6 million GEL; b) Public Administration and Defence – 4.99 million GEL; c) Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation – 1.38 million GEL; d) Mining and Quarrying – 1.59 million GEL; e) Healthcare and Social Work – 0.55 million GEL; f) Education – 0.38 million GEL. The combined contribution of these sectors to the tourism industry\\'s intersectoral linkages in 2023 amounted to 1.7%. Trends in these sectors do not exhibit a clearly defined pattern. However, a notable increase in Public Administration and Defence was recorded in 2023.
In the context of tourism development, particular attention should be given to the potential enhancement of specific sectors. For example, Human Health Activities could improve traveller safety and strengthen the destination’s appeal. Similarly, Education, Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation could contribute to higher service quality and enhance Georgia’s overall competitiveness.
Additional linkages include the self-supply of the Accommodation and Food Service Activities sector, amounting to 35.83 million GEL, and sectors grouped under the “Other” category, which contributed 7.9 million GEL in 2023.

 

Survey Results of Accommodations
The accommodations survey aimed to assess the share of Georgian versus imported products used by hospitality establishments, as well as to track recent changes in this regard. The evaluation also considered key criteria – price, quality, and delivery reliability – for both Georgian and imported products.
Respondents rated these products based on the specified criteria and shared their perspectives on the opportunities and challenges of integrating Georgian products into the value chain of accommodation services.
A total of 78 representatives from accommodation facilities participated in the survey. The sample was geographically diverse, covering all regions of Georgia under government control (see Map 1), and included a wide range of accommodation types and sizes (see Figure 4).
The respondents were primarily owners, managing partners, and top-level managers of the surveyed establishments.

 

Based on consultations with relevant experts, 23 priority product categories were identified in the survey, all of which play a role in the operational processes of accommodation facilities. These categories include: 1. Reusable items (e.g., linens, dishes, etc.); 2. Furniture; 3. Cleaning supplies; 4. Disposable items (e.g., soap, shampoo, napkins, etc.); 5. Construction and repair materials; 6. Alcoholic beverages; 7. Mineral and still water; 8. Juices; 9. Sugar and confectionery; 10. Cans and jams; 11. Fats and oils; 12. Flour and grains; 13. Spices and pepper; 14. Coffee and tea; 15. Fruits (including dried fruits); 16. Nuts and kernels; 17. Potatoes; 18. Vegetables; 19. Grains and legumes; 20. Fish and aquatic products; 21. Dairy products; 22. Eggs; 23. Meat.
Respondents assessed the involvement of both Georgian and imported products in their facility’s value chain across these categories. Most participants reported that the share of Georgian products has increased in recent years, although they emphasized that significant potential for further growth remains.
According to survey responses, Georgian products continue to face challenges competing with imports in terms of price, quality, and delivery reliability. While many respondents expressed a strong desire to integrate more Georgian products into their value chains, they noted that such products are often unavailable, produced in limited quantities, or do not meet required standards of quality and affordability.
Despite these challenges, most respondents observed growing demand for Georgian products, which has contributed to a corresponding increase in supply. Positive dynamics were attributed to: a) the emergence of new Georgian-made products (e.g., hygiene items); b) the expansion of traditional product manufacturing and improved marketing efforts by domestic producers; c) relative improvements in distribution networks.
A small portion of respondents reported a decline in the share of Georgian products, citing insufficient support for local production. These respondents emphasized that imported products are often more reliable, higher in quality, or more affordable, and highlighted difficulties in verifying the quality of Georgian goods, leading them to prefer certified and trusted imports.
When asked about the challenges of integrating Georgian products into the value chain of accommodation facilities, the most frequently mentioned issues were high prices and supply difficulties. Other weaknesses included uncompetitive price-to-quality ratios, a lack of proper quality control tools and standards, and an unstable economic environment.
In terms of opportunities for improvement, respondents suggested: a) Increasing production volumes b) Regulating prices c) Establishing robust quality control systems d) Further developing distribution networks for Georgian products
Compared to previous years, there is a visible trend of improvement and growth in local production. This observation aligns with statistical data, which shows that Georgian production has increased in absolute terms. However, its relative share has declined, due to a parallel rise in imports during the 2020–2023 period.

Conclusion
The extensive scope of supply and demand within Georgia’s tourism industry underscores the importance of analyzing its impact on the national economy and leveraging its potential to support the rationalization of economic development.
The role of Georgia’s tourism industry in this regard was examined in three stages: The contribution of individual components of the tourism industry to GDP and the identification of short-term changes; Structural features of the industry in terms of revenue generation; The characteristics of intersectoral linkages between the tourism industry and the broader national economy.
The contributions of key tourism sectors to Georgia’s GDP vary significantly and reveal important trends. Notably, a declining trajectory was observed in leading components such as accommodation services and land transport, while food and beverage services demonstrated an upward trend in revenue generation.
Structural shifts within the industry highlight absolute growth in the consumption of locally produced goods and services. However, the declining share of domestic products, driven by rising imports, signals an increasing dependence on external sources and a potential outflow of income generated by the sector.
The analysis of tourism’s impact on the domestic economic structure—particularly on supporting and supplying sectors—revealed that the most intensive linkages are formed with manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, and real estate activities. The study also emphasized the importance of activating additional sectors, including information and communication, healthcare, social services, safe travel infrastructure, education, arts, entertainment, and recreation—all of which could enhance Georgia’s competitiveness and international visibility.
From a methodological standpoint, the study employed a combined quantitative and qualitative approach, offering a research design that can be replicated in similar assessments of tourism’s economic impact.
It is important to note that the current study is limited to the 2020–2023 period, highlighting the need for continued and more in-depth research to further explore the evolving role of tourism in Georgia’s economic development.

References:
• Adams P., & Parmenter B. (1995). An Applied General Equilibrium Analysis of the Economic Effects of Tourism in a Quite Small, Quite Open Economy. “Applied Economics”. Volume 27 (10). https://doi.org/10.1080/00036849500000079
• Archer B., Gooper Ch., Ruhanen, L. (2007). The Positive and Negative Impacts of Tourism. Chapter 5. Book - Global Tourism. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-7789-9.50011-X
• Astutik E., Anggraeni L., Djuanda B., Rindayati W. (2025). The Impact of the Tourism Sector on the Economy of Banten using Input-Output Model. “International Journal of Multidisciplinary Science”. Volume 4 (1). DOI: 10.56127/ijml.v4i1.1925
• Blake A., Durbarry R., Sinclair T., Sugiyarto G. (2001) Modelling Tourism and Travel using Tourism Satellite Accounts and Tourism Policy and Forecasting Models. “Christel DeHaan Tourism and Travel Research Institute”.
• Bregadze G. (2018). Priorities in Shaping the Economic Policy for Tourism Development. “Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University”. Doctoral Dissertation. https://digitallibrary.tsu.ge/book/2019/jun/disertations/bregadze%20giorgi.pdf
• Chang J-I., Kim G., Park D-I., Choi I. (2024). Development of Ocean Economy Satellite Accounts for the Coastal and Marine Tourism Sector in Korea. “Journal of Coastal Research”. P. 373-377. DOI: 10.2112/JCR-SI116-076.1
• Chen T., Peng L., Yin X., Jing B., Yang J. (2020). A Policy Category Analysis Model for Tourism Promotion in China During the COVID-19 Pandemic Based on Data Mining and Binary Regression. “Risk Management and Healthcare Policy”. Volume 13. P. 3211-3233. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/RMHP.S284564
• Danzi L., Figini P. (2022). The tourism economics of marginal and mature mountains. The case of the Regional Park of Corno alle Scale (Apennines), Italy. “Current Issues In Tourism”. Volume 26 (5). P. 772-788. DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2022.2038092
• Davis H. C., Webster D.R., (1981). A Composition Approach to Regional Socio-economic Impact Assessment. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. “Socio-Economic Planning Sciences”. Volume 15 (4). P. 159-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(81)90019-7
• Diamond J. (1977). Tourism\\'s Role in Economic Development: The Case Reexamined. “Economic Development and Cultural Change”. Volume 25 (3). P. 539-553. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1152656
• Gavasheli, M. (2018). The Tourism Sector and Models for Assessing Its Impact on the Regional Economy. “Globalization and Business”. Volume 3 (5). https://doi.org/10.35945/
• Giannakis E., Empora N., Mamuneas T. (2023). Measuring the Economy-wide Impact of the Tourism Industry in Cyprus. “Journal of Tourism Economics and Policy”. Volume 17 (1). P. 12-26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376834781_Measuring_the_Economy-wide_Impact_of_the_Tourism_Industry_in_Cyprus
• Juanita L., Var T. (1983). The Economic Impact of Tourism in Metropolitan Victoria, B.C. “Journal of Travel Research. Sage Journals”. Volume 22 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/004728758302200202
• Karlsdóttir A., Gassen N.S., Zhang J., Kinnunen J. (2021) Regional Tourism Satellite Accounts for the Nordic Countries. "Nordregio, Nordic Council of Ministers”. DOI:10.6027/R2021:2.1403-2503
• Khelashvili I. (2020). The Impact of Tourism on the Sectoral Economy of Georgia (Using the Food and Beverage Industry as an Example). “Economy and Business” (2). Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. http://eb.tsu.ge/?leng=ge
• Khokhobaia M. (2014). Methodological Foundations for Assessing the Economic Impact of Tourism. “Management, Marketing, Tourism”. P. 119-129. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342515331_ekonomikaze_turizmis_gavlenis_gansazghvris_metodologiuri_sapudzvlebi.
• Kido A., Kido T. (2021). Initial Assessment of the Impact of the SARS-CoV-19 on Tourism in Mexico. “Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas”. Volume 16 (3) DOI: 10.21919/remef.v16i3.624
• Kveladze K. (2013). The Multiplier Role of Tourism in the Development of the Country\\'s Progressive Sectoral Structure. “Scientific Proceedings of Paata Gugushvili Institute of Economics, TSU”. Volume 6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316735628_turizmis_multiplikatoruli_roli_kveqnis_progresuli_dargobrivi_strukturis_ganvitarebashi#fullTextFileContent
• Lee L., Wang Y., Zuo J. (2025). Exploring the Inequality and Driving Factors in China’s Tourism Industry from the Perspective of Water-Energy Nexus. “Journal of Environmental Informatics”. DOI: 10.3808/jei.202500533
• Leontief W. (1986). Input-Output Economics. “Oxford University Press”.
• Majewski L. (2024) Economic Impact Analysis of Nature Tourism in Protected Areas: Towards an Adaptation to International Standards in German Protected Areas. “Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism”. Volume 45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2024.100742
• Margvelashvili M. (2013). Assessment of the Current Situation for Tourism Development in the Regions of Georgia. [Research Project]. http://library.bsu.edu.ge/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl?biblionumber=55035
• Miller R. E., Blair P. D. (2009). Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. “Cambridge University Press”.
• Miralles C. C., Roura M. B., Salas S. P., & others. (2024). Assessing the Socio-economic Impacts of Tourism Packages: A Methodological Proposition. “International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment”. Volume 29. P. 1096–1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02284-z
• Montgomery D. C., Peck E. A., & Vining G. G. (2021). Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis.
• Pappas T., Diakamichalis M. (2024, December). Tourism Satellite Account: Approach and information system development [Conference presentation]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386907106_Tourism_Satellite_Account_Approach_and_Information_System_Development
• Ribeiro L.C., Carvalho D., Lopes T., Sousa F., José F. (2020). - Interdependence Between the Tourist Regions of Sergipe, Brazil. “Region: the journal of ERSA”. P. 1-19. DOI: 10.18335/region.v11i2.531
• Strehlow H. V., Korzhenevych A., Lucas J., Lewin W.-C., Weltersbach M. S., Riepe C., & Arlinghaus R. (2023). Economic Impact of Resident and Nonresident Marine Anglers to the Local Economy in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany. “Fisheries Management and Ecology”. https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12664
• United Nations, World Tourism Organization, OECD, & Eurostat. (2008). Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended methodological framework (Series F No. 80‑Rev. 1). “United Nations Statistics Division”. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesf/seriesf_80rev1e.pdf
• van de Steeg A., & Steenge A. E. (2008). Integrating the TSA and input-output methodology in tourism impact studies. “Statistics Netherlands”. https://www.iioa.org/conferences/intermediate-2008/pdf/7c3_van%20de%20Steeg.pdf
• Wagner J. (1997). Estimating the economic impacts of tourism. “Annals of Tourism Research”. (ELSEVIER). Volume 24 (3). P. 592-608. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00008-X
• World Bank. (2024). Tourism Watch. Quarterly Report: Q1 2024. “World Bank”. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099730206272452324/pdf/IDU-9d916167-d439-44c9-8398-890811bb8b3e.pdf
• Yang Y., Zhang H., & Chen X. (2020). Coronavirus Pandemic and Tourism: Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Modeling of Infectious Disease Outbreak. “Annals of Tourism Research”. Volume 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102913
• Georgian National Tourism Administration – Research and Economic Indicators https://gnta.ge/en/research/economic-indicators
• National Statistics Office of Georgia – Tourism Statistics https://www.geostat.ge/ka/modules/categories/100/turizmis-statistika
• OECD - https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/input-output-tables.html
• UN Tourism – History. https://www.unwto.org/history
• UN- UN Tourism Data Dashboard
• World Travel & Tourism Council. (n.d.). Home. WTTC. https://wttc.org/

---