CONTENTS

1. Introduction & Rationale...................................................................3

1.1. Introduction...................................................................................3
1.2. Rationale........................................................................................3
2. Situation Analysis................................................................................4
2.1. Macro Evironment (PESTEL)......................................................4
2.2. International resources & Capabilities.........................................4
2.2.1. Tangible resources...................................................................4
2.2.2. Intangible resources.................................................................4
2.2.3. Human resources......................................................................4
2.2.4. Management and Organizational capabilities.........................4
2.2.5. Digitalization and Innovation..................................................4
2.2.6. Adaptive and Crisis – Management capacity..........................4
2.3. Market performance & Industry structure...................................4
2.3.1. Quick comparison (headline numbers)....................................4
2.3.2. Industry organization & SME presence...................................4
2.3.3. Market segments......................................................................4
3. Vision & Strategic objectives.............................................................4
3.1. Vision statements............................................................................4
3.2. Strategic goals & SMART objectives............................................4
3.3. Comparative insights.....................................................................4
4. Competitive & Development strategies.............................................4
4.1. Infrastructure investment..............................................................4
4.2. Zoning and Spatial planning.........................................................4
4.3. Human resource development.......................................................4
4.4. Branding and Marketing...............................................................4
5. Governance & Stakeholder collaboration........................................4
5.1. Institutional structure....................................................................4
5.2. Public – Private partnerships (PPPs)............................................5
5.3. Community involvement................................................................6
5.4. Coordination merchanisms...........................................................6
6. Monitoring & Evaluation...................................................................7
6.1. Tracking progress through KPIs...................................................7
6.2. Mechanisms for Monitoring..........................................................9
6.3. Stakeholder involvement in the Evaluation process...................10
7. Comparative insights & Lessons learned........................................11
 1. Introduction & Rationale
1.1. Introduction
The global tourism landscape is characterized by a
diverse array of destinations, each employing unique
strategies to leverage their comparative advantages. A
comparative analysis of national tourism development
strategies offers invaluable insights into how different
countries approach destination management, marketing,
and sustainable growth. This report selects Vietnam and
Russia for such a comparison. This choice is deliberate, as
the juxtaposition of a tropical Southeast Asian nation with a
vast European-Asian superpower reveals starkly contrasting
priorities, resource allocations, and strategic visions rooted
in their distinct geographical, cultural, and economic
contexts.
1.2. Rationale
Firstly, the core tourism products of each nation are fundamentally
different. Vietnam, with its 3,260 km of coastline [1], has strategically
branded itself as a premier destination for "sun, sea, and cultural
experiences." This focus is evident in its success in attracting 18 million
international visitors in its peak year of 2019 [2], primarily to coastal and
cultural hubs. In stark contrast, Russia, the world's largest country at over
17 million km² [3], capitalizes on its cultural-historical wealth and unique
wilderness. Prior to the geopolitical shifts of 2022, it welcomed
approximately 24.5 million international arrivals in 2019 [4], largely drawn
to the urban cultural gems of Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Secondly, their geographical scales present divergent management
challenges. Vietnam’s elongated territory facilitates linear tour
development, while Russia’s vastness necessitates a strategy focused on
developing isolated destination clusters.
 Finally, their economic contexts shape strategic goals: Vietnam
views tourism as a spearhead economic sector (contributing ~9,2% to GDP
pre-pandemic [2]), whereas Russia has historically seen it as a tool for
economic diversification away from energy resources.
2. Situation Analysis
2.1. Macro Evironment (PESTEL)
2.1.1. Vietnam
P (Political)
- Tourism is positioned by the National Tourism
Development Strategy to 2030 as a spearhead sector,
providing strong institutional support and alignment
with national development priorities (Government of
Vietnam, 2020, Decision No. 147/QĐ-TTg)
- In January 2025, Vietnam extended visa exemptions
up to 45 days for citizens of Poland, the Czech
Republic, and Switzerland, reflecting the government’s
political will to boost international tourism (Vietnam
National Authority of Tourism, 2025)
- Administrative reform (2024–2025): Vietnam is
implementing large-scale administrative reforms,
including merging local units by mid-2025, aimed at
improving governance efficiency and creating a more
favorable environment for tourism management and
investment.
E (Economic)
- According to VNAT, Vietnam welcomed 12.2 million
international arrivals in the first seven months of 2025,
reflecting a 22.5% year-on-year increase and setting
new records(Vietnam National Administration of
Tourism, 2025). Domestic spending is also surging.
- In the first quarter of 2025, Vietnam’s tourism revenue
reached approximately VND 21.5 trillion (around
US$860 million), marking an 18.3% year-on-year
increase (Neo, 2025). This represents a remarkable
growth momentum in the early part of the year.
- Vietnam’s tourism remains highly dependent on
Northeast Asian markets, with South Korea and China
accounting for nearly 50% of total arrivals in 2024
(Government of Vietnam 2025), making the sector
vulnerable to external shocks and currency
fluctuations
S (Social)
- A strong transformation in the Vietnamese tourism
industry, especially in the travel behavior of young
people (Gen Z and Millennials). They prioritize
independent travel and sustainable travel with strong
support from social networks
- Travel is increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, with
39% of Vietnamese travelers in 2025 planning family
trips (Vietnam News, 2025)
T (Technological)
- In August 2025, authorities announced the
development of the “Visit Vietnam” super app,
designed to integrate tourism services into a single
smart [Link] app will feature AI-powered trip
planning and blockchain-verified reviews, aiming to
enhance visitor experience and strengthen Vietnam’s
position in smart tourism
- The Ministry of Science and Technology, together with
MoCST, is fast-tracking digital transformation in the
tourism sector (OpenGov Asia, 2025). This includes
building a smart tourism ecosystem with enhanced
 innovation, data-driven decision-making, and
integration of public-private partnerships to modernise
destination management and visitor experience.
E (Environmental)
- Vietnam’s tourism is strongly influenced by its tropical
monsoon climate, with distinct wet and dry seasons.
Unpredictable heavy rains and typhoons in central and
northern regions (particularly from June–October) often
disrupt travel schedules and damage infrastructure.
- Vietnam has strengthened its National Green Growth
Strategy 2021–2030, which includes stricter
environmental standards for hotels and the expansion
of eco-tourism areas.
L (Legal)
- Main: Law on Tourism 2017
- Vietnam’s amended Law on Protection of Consumers’
Rights (effective July 2024) is particularly relevant for
the tourism sector, as it requires travel agencies and
online platforms to provide transparent information on
pricing, refund policies, and service quality.
2.1.2. Russia
P (Political)
- Russia’s tourism development is strongly shaped by
government policies and geopolitical realities. The
Federal Tourism Development Strategy until 2035
highlights state-led initiatives to expand domestic
tourism, reduce dependency on outbound tourism
- However, ongoing geopolitical tensions, including the
war in Ukraine and Western sanctions, have disrupted
inbound tourism from Europe and North America. So
we will see limit visa access and air connectivity,
 shifting focus to "friendly" markets like China, India,
and the Middle East
E (Economic)
- Tourism contributed about 7.5 trillion rubles
(~US$80B) to GDP in 2024 (Statista, 2024)
- Inbound arrivals rose sharply: 1.57 million leisure
tourists in 2024 (vs. 611,000 in 2023). Chinese tourists
alone accounted for 848,000 visits (Tourism Review,
2025)
- Tourism benefits from a weaker ruble making Russia
affordable for Asian visitors, with arrivals projected to
rise 43.3% y-o-y to 13.3 million in 2025. So that
opportunities lie in domestic tourism subsidies and
niche markets like eco-tourism.
S (Social)
- Rosstat’s 2024 data shows a rapidly aging population,
with most citizens concentrated in the 40–70 age
range, and a strong gender imbalance favoring women
- Outbound travel options have become limited due to
sanctions, reinforcing a domestic travel boom, with
patriotic and regional tourism (Siberia, Far East)
gaining popularity
- Cultural shifts toward sustainability favor eco-tourism,
aligning with the strategy's ecological definitions
(Government of the Russian Federation, 2019- 2035)
T (Technological)
- Russia’s Tourism Development Strategy 2035
introduced a federal “Tourist Marketplace” — a
digital platform integrating booking, navigation, and
payments
- Moscow is actively developing a "smart tourism
ecosystem," with apps that help visitors explore
cultural sites, book transport, and receive real-time
updates. These include Yandex-based navigation tools,
ride-hailing integration, and QR-guided attraction
 information, supported by city government efforts to
digitalize tourism.
E (Environmental)
- The strategy defines "ecological tourism" and stresses
capacity limits to preserve biodiversity (Government
of the Russian Federation, 2019), promoting trails and
sustainable practices.
L (Legal)
- Legal standards are guided by GOST (state
standards), ensuring uniform service definitions
nationwide.
- However, the heavy reliance on GOST can limit
flexibility for innovative products. Regional
harmonization remains a challenge, as sub-federal
entities must align with federal law while addressing
local needs.
2.2. International resources & Capabilities
2.2.1. Tangible resources
Natural and Cultural Assets: Vietnam and Russia both boast rich
tangible tourism resources, though with differing scales. Vietnam’s appeal
lies in its diverse tropical landscapes – from the karst seascape of Ha Long
Bay (UNESCO World Heritage) to mountain highlands and lush deltas.
Vietnam has nine UNESCO World Heritage Sites (e.g. Huế Monuments,
Hội An Ancient Town, Phong Nha-Kẻ Bàng National Park) covering 6
cultural, 2 natural, and 1 mixed properties[1]. These sites, along with
3,260 km of coastline and beaches, form the backbone of Vietnam’s natural
and cultural attraction. Russia’s tangible resources are vast in comparison.
The Russian Federation spans multiple climate zones and offers
everything from Arctic tundra and Siberian taiga to subtropical Black Sea
resorts. It contains around 30 UNESCO World Heritage Sites (about 18
cultural and 11 natural)[2], including iconic cultural monuments (Kremlin
and Red Square, St. Petersburg’s historic center) and immense natural
wonders like Lake Baikal and the volcanoes of Kamchatka. This
abundance gives Russia a high “tourist uniqueness” potential in terms of
sights and wilderness. However, Russia’s sheer size also means many
attractions are remote or underdeveloped for tourism.
Infrastructure and Facilities: The quality and distribution of
tourism infrastructure differ notably. Vietnam’s tourism infrastructure has
improved rapidly in major hubs (e.g. modern airports in Hanoi, Ho Chi
Minh City, Đà Nẵng, and a growing stock of hotels), but remains uneven
nationwide. According to the 2024 Travel & Tourism Development Index
(TTDI), Vietnam’s tourist services infrastructure pillar scored only 2.2/7
(ranked 80th globally)[3]. This indicates gaps in facilities like tourist
accommodation, recreation, and supporting services in many areas. Basic
transport infrastructure in Vietnam is developing – new expressways and
airport expansions are underway – yet connectivity to some rural or
emerging destinations is limited. By contrast, Russia inherits extensive
infrastructure in certain respects (e.g. a well-developed rail network and
large international airports in Moscow and St. Petersburg). Major Russian
cities offer a full range of tourist services (world-class hotels, museums,
restaurants), and flagship projects like the 2018 FIFA World Cup spurred
upgrades in airports and roads. Still, outside key cities and the “Golden
Ring” of historic towns, regional infrastructure can be lacking. Many
natural areas in Russia (e.g. Siberia, Far East) have minimal tourist
facilities, and distances are enormous. Overall, Russia’s transport
infrastructure is strong (particularly air and rail) but tourist-specific
infrastructure development is inconsistent. Vietnam’s smaller geographic
scale has enabled more concerted infrastructure growth in popular areas,
though it still trails Russia on some heavy infrastructure; for example,
Russia’s air transport infrastructure historically scored higher, reflecting
greater route capacity and facilities[4][5]. In summary, Vietnam’s tangible
assets are concentrated and accessible in a relatively compact area, whereas
Russia’s are more dispersed – a strength in variety but a challenge for
development and access.
 2.2.2. Intangible resources
Destination Image and Brand: Intangible tourism resources
encompass brand image, cultural ambiance, hospitality, and institutional
support. Vietnam enjoys a growing reputation as a safe, friendly, and
culturally rich destination. Its safety and security conditions are among
the world’s best for travelers (WEF Safety & Security score 6.19/7, rank
23rd)[6]. The traditional hospitality (“hiếu khách”) of Vietnamese people
and a distinctive culture (from cuisine to festivals) add to the country’s
appeal. Vietnam’s tourism brand has been actively promoted (“Vietnam –
Timeless Charm”), emphasizing its heritage and exotic landscapes.
However, Vietnam’s brand strength is somewhat recent and still developing
on the global stage. In contrast, Russia’s tourism image has long been
linked to its rich history (the lore of Tsarist palaces, museums like the
Hermitage, ballet, literature) and the mystique of destinations like Moscow
and St. Petersburg. Russia was once among the world’s most visited
countries (33 million international arrivals in 2013)[7], indicating
significant global interest. Yet recent geopolitical events have negatively
affected Russia’s brand. Travel advisories from Western governments urge
caution or avoidance of Russia due to the conflict in Ukraine[8], and
airspace bans and payment system restrictions since 2022 have made
Russia less accessible to international tourists[9]. These factors tarnish
Russia’s image and convenience as a destination, an intangible liability
that Vietnam does not face.
Cultural Capital and Hospitality: Both nations possess deep
cultural capital. Vietnam’s intangible heritage – from colonial and
indigenous fusion culture to 14 UNESCO-recognized intangible heritages
like folk songs and festivals – enhances its soft power in tourism. Tourists
often cite Vietnam’s lively street life, cuisine, and welcoming local
communities as intangible draws. Russia’s cultural intangible resources are
also significant (e.g. traditions like Maslenitsa festivals, Tatar Sabantuy,
Siberian shamanistic rituals[10]). Russian hospitality can be warm, but
visitor perceptions have historically been mixed; language barriers and the
Soviet legacy of service can sometimes hamper the tourist experience
outside major centers. There have been improvements, with younger
generations and private businesses adopting more customer-friendly
practices. Both countries see political support for culture and tourism, but
to differing extents. Vietnam’s government has identified tourism as a key
economic sector, yet the WEF “Prioritization of Travel & Tourism”
indicator for Vietnam is relatively low (score 3.63/7, rank 98)[3],
suggesting that despite rhetoric, tangible support (budget, policies) had
been limited. Russia formulated a comprehensive Tourism Development
Strategy to 2035 in 2019, indicating high-level recognition of tourism’s
importance[11][12]. Government-backed cultural events, visa relaxations
(e.g. free e-visa initiatives), and national marketing campaigns (like “Visit
Russia”) were launched to bolster its tourism brand. Overall, Vietnam
currently benefits from a more positive global image and openness,
whereas Russia’s intangible strengths (historic culture) are offset by
reputational challenges and limited international openness. This is reflected
in the TTDI Openness pillar: Vietnam (rank ~80th) was already
middling[13], and Russia’s openness has worsened due to sanctions and
visa restrictions, making its destination brand far less accessible and
attractive to many markets as of 2023.
2.2.3. Human resources
Workforce Quantity and Quality: Tourism human resources are
crucial for service quality and industry growth. Vietnam’s tourism
workforce is large and young, but skills remain a concern. In the late
2010s, travel and tourism accounted for roughly 9% of Vietnam’s
employment (including indirect jobs), reflecting the sector’s significance.
Many Vietnamese workers enter tourism due to expanding hotels, airlines,
and tour operations. The workforce is praised for its enthusiasm and
friendliness, yet skill gaps are noted in foreign language proficiency,
customer service, and management training. The need for upskilling is
recognized: Vietnam’s tourism authority has stressed improving human
resources training as a priority for post-pandemic recovery[14]. Indeed,
stakeholders have called for more hospitality education and partnerships
(e.g. a new Sun Group–EHL tourism academy to train international-
standard staff by 2025). Vietnam’s Human Resources and Labour
Market pillar in TTDI 2024 ranked a respectable 49th[6], indicating
moderate performance – a committed, inexpensive labor force tempered by
shortages of high-skilled talent.
Russia’s tourism human resources are drawn from a highly educated
population, yet tourism is a relatively small employer in the national
economy. In 2019, travel and tourism contributed only 5.6% of Russia’s
total employment[15] (about 3.5 million jobs), underscoring that the
sector has not been a dominant job creator. The workforce quality in
Russia’s tourism varies by region. In major cities, staff in upscale hotels
and tour companies are often well-trained (many with university degrees
and knowledge of foreign languages). Russia has universities and institutes
producing tourism and hospitality graduates. However, outside urban
centers and established tourist areas, there is a dearth of skilled personnel.
Language remains a barrier – English and other languages are not widely
spoken by service staff in many parts of Russia, which historically
hindered foreign tourists’ experiences. Additionally, hospitality culture in
Russia can be less proactively customer-centric compared to Southeast
Asian destinations. The Russian government has acknowledged these
issues; initiatives exist to retrain workers and improve service standards as
part of the 2035 strategy. Both countries thus face human capital
challenges: Vietnam in upgrading skills to match rapid growth, and Russia
in expanding and incentivizing a workforce in a sector traditionally viewed
as secondary. Encouragingly, each has seen grassroots improvements (e.g.
Vietnamese tour guides becoming more proficient in Korean or Chinese to
serve new markets, Russian regions like Krasnodar training local guides
for domestic tourism). The commitment to human resource development
will be key going forward – Vietnam appears to be addressing this via
education and digital training programs, while Russia’s capacity to do so
may depend on broader economic and demographic trends (especially post-
2022, with some skilled young workers leaving and fewer international
exchanges).
2.2.4. Management and Organizational capabilities
 Destination Management and Governance: Effective management
and organizational capabilities – including marketing, policy coordination,
and innovation – differ markedly between Vietnam and Russia. In Vietnam,
tourism management is centralized under the Ministry of Culture, Sports
and Tourism (via the Vietnam National Administration of Tourism, VNAT)
but also involves provincial authorities for local destinations. Vietnam has
made strides in destination marketing and branding in the past decade
despite limited budgets. For example, campaigns targeting Western and
Northeast Asian markets helped Vietnam’s international arrivals grow to 18
million in 2019. However, Vietnam’s institutional capacity still has
weaknesses. The WEF’s Business Environment pillar (a proxy for policy
environment) ranked Vietnam only 65th[16], and stakeholders often cite
bureaucratic hurdles and slow policy responses (e.g. delayed visa reforms)
as impediments. Coordination between government and industry is
improving – public-private partnerships like the Tourism Advisory Board
were established to advise on marketing and COVID-19 recovery. Yet
Vietnam’s marketing & promotion spending remains modest, and
destination management organizations (DMOs) at regional levels are
nascent. On the innovation front, Vietnamese tourism entrepreneurs (many
small or medium enterprises) have been quick to adapt with new products
(e.g. community-based tourism, food tours) but often lack R&D support or
advanced technology integration. Operational efficiency issues are noted in
areas like environmental management at tourist sites (crowding, waste
management) and service consistency.
Russia’s tourism management features a strong government role.
Until 2022, the federal agency Rostourism spearheaded national tourism
policy, and a new “energetic team led by Zarina Doguzova” in 2019 sought
to modernize Russian tourism governance[17]. Under her tenure, Russia
pursued initiatives to simplify visas and promote regions beyond the
Golden Ring. The government created the national project “Tourism and
Hospitality Industry” with hefty funding to develop infrastructure and
marketing by 2030. Organizational capabilities in Russia benefit from
top-down planning – e.g. the Strategy 2035 document lays out clear targets
for tourist numbers and infrastructure in each region[18][19]. This
centralized approach can mobilize resources (such as large investments in
ski resorts or ecotourism in certain regions). However, it also faces
bureaucratic inefficiencies and the risk of rent-seeking. Researchers note
that while huge federal funds were allocated to support tourism during
crises, there are “risks of opportunistic behavior” by interest groups, and
the sector’s success will depend on government’s ability to resist such
pressures[20]. In terms of marketing and innovation, Russia historically
underperformed in agile marketing – its image relied on legacy attractions
and events (like sports), and less on creative branding. The Prioritization
of Travel & Tourism in government was middling before (Russia ranked
Aux, not explicitly cited, but known issues), although crisis conditions
have elevated tourism’s profile as an economic diversifier. One advantage
Russia holds is strong state institutions to enforce standards (e.g. safety
regulations, hotel classification) and a legacy of technical innovation that
can spill into tourism (for instance, using online platforms for museum
tickets, or developing Mir payment system for visitors after
Visa/Mastercard pullout). Vietnam’s advantage, on the other hand, is a
more nimble private sector and openness to international best practices via
partnerships (such as collaborations with international education
institutions and consultants). In summary, Vietnam’s tourism
management is gradually improving through public-private collaboration
and targeted reforms (like visa liberalization and digital transformation in
marketing), whereas Russia’s management capacity has been
characterized by ambitious state-led programs that require efficient
execution. Notably, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian
government actively engaged with tourism businesses to shape relief
policies, which “helped reduce uncertainty for firms and implement
appropriate sectoral policies”[21] – a coordination success that Vietnam
also mirrored with its tourism stimulus packages. Both countries realize
that strengthening institutional and marketing capabilities (Vietnam by
enhancing governance and funding, Russia by increasing flexibility and
reducing red tape) is critical to unlocking their full tourism potential.
 2.2.5. Digitalization and Innovation
Technology Adoption in Tourism: Both Vietnam and Russia have
identified digital transformation as vital to tourism development, but
Vietnam’s tourism sector has been particularly energetic in embracing
digital solutions recently. Across Vietnam, local destinations are
developing “smart tourism” ecosystems to enhance visitor
experience[22][23]. For instance, museums and heritage sites in Hanoi
offer online exhibitions and e-ticketing, while Ho Chi Minh City has rolled
out 3D virtual tours and interactive maps with AI chat assistants[23].
Leading tourist hubs like Quảng Ninh, Đà Nẵng, and Ninh Bình are using
VR (virtual reality 360° videos), QR code payments, and AI to provide
richer, contactless services[24]. These innovations were accelerated by
COVID-19, when virtual experiences and digital marketing became
essential. Vietnam’s government launched a project on applying Industry
4.0 tech to develop smart tourism, aiming to complete a nationwide smart
tourism ecosystem and push the sector to “become a key economic
sector”[25]. Despite this progress, experts note obstacles: most
Vietnamese travel businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) with limited capital for technology, and they face competition
from global online travel agencies dominating the domestic market[26].
Only about 10 Vietnamese companies offer online booking services,
indicating a gap in digital capacity that the government is trying to address
through training and supportive policies[26].
Russia’s tourism industry also pursued digital innovation, though the
momentum has been disrupted by geopolitical events. Pre-2020, Russia
invested in digital tourism infrastructure like online visa applications and a
national tourism portal. In 2017–2019, Russia piloted e-visas for certain
regions (Far East, Kaliningrad) and was set to expand a unified e-visa
system by 2021 to simplify entry for tourists – a move signaling digital
openness. Indeed, by 2023 Russia did re-launch an e-visa program for
citizens of 50+ countries to spur inbound travel (though excluding many
Western countries). Russian cities have leveraged technology as well: e.g.
Moscow’s city tourism committee developed sophisticated mobile apps
and interactive city guides, and major museums (the Hermitage, Kremlin
museums) offer digital ticketing and virtual tours. In the private sector,
Russian IT firms created popular travel apps for domestic users (booking
platforms, guided audio tour apps). However, Russia’s integration into the
global digital travel ecosystem has been hampered by sanctions – for
instance, the withdrawal of some international tech services and payment
systems (Visa/Mastercard) in 2022 forced Russia to rely on domestic
alternatives. Nonetheless, domestic innovation continues: local
entrepreneurs have introduced platforms for vacation rentals (akin to
Airbnb) and cashless payment systems (Mir cards, QR payments) that
facilitate travel within Russia. Both countries recognize innovation in
product development as crucial: Vietnam is encouraging new tourism
products (e.g. agri-tourism, wellness retreats) and the use of data analytics
to personalize marketing. Russia is similarly pushing thematic routes (like
the “Silver Necklace” in the Northwest) and tech-driven safety systems for
adventure tourism. While Vietnam currently benefits from greater
connectivity to global tech and travel networks, Russia’s tourism
innovation is more internally focused due to its isolation from some
international markets. Still, Russia’s strong IT sector could keep its tourism
businesses competitive for Russian travelers (e.g. the rise of domestic
OTAs and digital tour operators). In conclusion, Vietnam leads in
embracing digital tools for tourism promotion and experience (with
government and provinces proactively implementing smart tourism
initiatives[23]), whereas Russia’s digitalization in tourism, once
promising, is now adapting to a self-sufficient model under sanctions. Both
face the challenge of extending digital benefits to smaller enterprises and
remote areas.
2.2.6. Adaptive and Crisis – Management capacity
Response to COVID-19 and Crises: The ability to adapt to crises
(such as the COVID-19 pandemic and other shocks) has been tested for
both Vietnam and Russia in recent years. Vietnam initially earned
international praise for its swift and effective COVID-19 response, which
indirectly benefited its domestic tourism. Early border closures and health
measures in 2020 kept infection rates very low, allowing domestic travel to
resume by mid-2020. This agility in crisis management meant Vietnam’s
domestic tourism rebounded quickly – local travelers flocked to seaside
resorts and highland retreats when it was safe, partially compensating for
the absence of foreign tourists. However, Vietnam’s strict entry restrictions
remained until March 2022, which, while health-driven, delayed the
international tourism recovery. Post-COVID, Vietnam moved decisively to
regain competitiveness: it extended e-visas to citizens of all countries and
lengthened stays to 90 days in 2023, addressing a long-standing weakness
in openness. Officials also recognized the need to reduce seasonality and
over-reliance on a few markets. In 2024, Vietnam’s tourism sector is
focusing on diversifying source markets and products to boost the
sustainability of tourism demand, after noting a drop in that
indicator[27][28]. For example, strategies include developing new tour
routes, promoting year-round attractions, and encouraging tourists to visit
secondary destinations to avoid overcrowding in hotspots[28]. Vietnam’s
relatively small size and centralized governance allowed a coordinated
pandemic response and a unified reopening strategy – a strength in crisis
management. Challenges remain (e.g. healthcare and hygiene infrastructure
for tourists ranked low at 81st[13]), but Vietnam is actively working on
these, with calls for “drastic measures” to improve environmental
sustainability and hygiene as part of resilient tourism growth[29].
Russia’s tourism sector has undergone a one-two punch of COVID-
19 and the fallout from the 2022 Ukraine conflict. These crises forced a
dramatic pivot toward domestic tourism. During the pandemic, with
outbound travel largely halted, Russians traveled internally in greater
numbers, and the government seized this opportunity to reorient the
industry. Analysts note that the 2020 crisis created conditions to change
Russia’s historically outbound-oriented tourism structure and foster
domestic tourism and regional development[21]. The government stepped
in with support schemes – for instance, a cashback program offering
rebates for domestic vacation spending was launched to stimulate local
tourism in 2020-21. The coordination between the Russian state and
tourism businesses during COVID-19 is credited with reducing uncertainty
and implementing timely support policies[21]. This adaptive approach
intensified after 2022: with most international tourists barred or unwilling
to visit Russia (only 200,100 foreign visitors in 2022, a 96% drop from
pre-pandemic levels[30][31]), domestic tourism became the lifeline. The
Russian government declared a goal to increase domestic tourist trips to
140 million annually by 2030[32], up from roughly 73–78 million in
2022–2023. By the first nine months of 2024, domestic trips had already
risen 11% year-on-year to 65.5 million[33], indicating robust growth. This
surge has led to record hotel occupancy in many regions (albeit
accompanied by rising prices)[34]. To manage this growth, Russia is
investing in new infrastructure (e.g. developing ski resorts in the Caucasus,
expanding Black Sea resort capacity) and spreading tourism to less-visited
regions.
Crisis Adaptability: Russia’s ability to adapt is also seen in how it
has mitigated the impact of sanctions on travel – by strengthening ties with
“friendly” markets (for example, welcoming tourists from Asia and the
Middle East with easier visa procedures and marketing campaigns). Still,
Russia faces a profound challenge: its international connectivity and
inbound tourism may remain stunted as long as geopolitical tensions
persist. The sector’s resilience thus relies on domestic demand and intra-
regional visitors. This contrasts with Vietnam, which has fully reintegrated
into international travel networks post-pandemic. Vietnam’s tourism
recovery is evident as it welcomed nearly 8.9 million foreign visitors in
2023 (exceeding targets, though not yet back to the 18 million of 2019),
and is on a positive trajectory. Vietnam also benefits from pent-up demand
and positive sentiment from key markets (thanks to goodwill earned during
COVID and its general stability).
In terms of institutional crisis management, both countries
displayed strengths: Vietnam through health crisis containment and phased
reopening, and Russia through rapid policy shifts to boost domestic
tourism under duress. Each also had weaknesses revealed: Vietnam saw
that lack of diversified markets (over-dependence on Chinese and East
Asian tourists) left it vulnerable, while Russia saw that lack of international
cooperation isolates its tourism. Vietnam is addressing its gap by targeting
new markets (India, US, Middle East) and improving adaptive capacity
like digital visas and product innovation. Russia’s path to greater tourism
resilience is more internally focused – improving quality and accessibility
of domestic tourism to compensate for lost international flows.
Domestically, Russian tourists have indeed “filled the gap” by exploring
their own country in record numbers, which suggests a cultural shift and
untapped internal demand being realized[21][32].
Overall, Vietnam appears to have a clearer route back to growth by
leveraging global travel trends (its adaptive measures align with a
reopening world), whereas Russia’s crisis management has prevented
collapse and even led to a regional tourism boom at home, but at the cost
of international isolation. How each country continues to build resilience –
Vietnam by pursuing sustainable, inclusive tourism growth[29], and
Russia by maintaining government support without breeding
inefficiency[20] – will determine their long-term recovery and
competitive standing in the post-crisis era.
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY TABLE
Aspect Vietnam Russia
Natural & 9 UNESCO World ~30 UNESCO World
Cultural Sites Heritage Sites (6 Heritage Sites (18
cultural, 2 natural, cultural, 11 natural)
1 mixed)[1]; [2]; vast geographic
compact yet diversity from Arctic
diverse landscapes tundra to mountain
(beaches, karst ranges and
bays, rainforests). coastlines.
Tourism Improving but Extensive basic
Infrastructur uneven. Modern infrastructure (rail,
e airports and hotels airports) in
 in main cities, developed regions;
while tourist high air transport
services capacity. Tourist
infrastructure facilities first-rate in
ranks low (score Moscow/SPB, but
2.2/7, 80th)[3] in sparse in remote
2024. areas.
Human Large, youthful Smaller tourism
Resources workforce; needs workforce share
skills upgrade. (5.6% of
Emphasis on employment)[15];
training post- well-educated, but
COVID (e.g. new foreign-language and
tourism academy). service skills uneven
HR pillar rank outside big cities.
49th[6]. Government-led
training in progress.
Competitive TTCI 2019: 63rd of TTCI 2019: 39th of
ness Rank 140[35]. TTDI 140[4]. (Russia not
(pre-COVID) 2024: 59th of 119 fully ranked in TTDI
(score 3.96/7)[36]. 2024 due to limited
Strengths in price, data). Traditionally
safety; weaknesses strong in
in health, natural/cultural
openness[6][37]. resources,
infrastructure; weak
in openness
(worsened post-
2022).
Digitalizatio Aggressively Moving toward digital
n adopting smart self-reliance. Pre-
tourism (e-tickets, 2022 advances in e-
 virtual tours, AI visas and online
chat guides)[23]. marketing; post-2022
National strategy focus on domestic
to build a complete digital platforms
digital tourism (local OTAs, Mir
ecosystem[25]. payments). Urban
Constraints: SME attractions use
funding and IT apps/VR; rural areas
infrastructure lag.
gaps[26].
Crisis Strong COVID-19 Pivoted almost
Resilience containment entirely to domestic
enabled quick tourism under COVID
domestic rebound. and sanctions[38]
Now diversifying [31]. Government
markets/products support (subsidies,
to reduce promotion) spurred
seasonality[28]. record domestic
Fully reopened trips[32]. Inbound
internationally with tourism severely
relaxed visas, reduced; future
aiming for resilience tied to
sustainable domestic market and
growth[29]. geopolitical shifts.

2.3. Market performance & Industry structure

2.3.1. Quick comparison (headline numbers)
Vietnam (2024)
- International arrivals: ~ 17.5 million, a 38.9 per cent
increase compared to the previous year.
- Domestic tourists: 110 million, up 1.6 per cent.
- Tourism revenue (2024): VND 840 trillion (US$33–35
billion).
- Share of economy / jobs:
+ Travel & Tourism’s contribution to the economy
will surge 13% ahead of 2019 levels, accounting for over
7% of Vietnam’s overall economy.
+ Jobs supported by Travel & Tourism are projected
to grow 6% to reach 5.96MN, to account for one in nine
jobs across the country.
Russia (2023)

- International arrivals: Foreign arrivals in 2023: ~8

million visitors (far below pre-pandemic 2019 levels of
~25 million).
- Domestic tourists: ~65.5 million trips (Jan–Sep 2024)
and projections for 2024 end-of-year ~90–92 million
trips.
- Tourism revenue: The latest value from 2020 is 4961
million USD, a decline from 17235 million USD in 2019.
- Share of economy/jobs: Tourism contributes ~3.7% of
GDP and 3.3–3.5 million jobs in Russia today, with
goals to reach 5% GDP share and create 400k more
jobs by 2030.
2.3.2. Industry organization & SME presence
Vietnam
- Public–private mix: Strong private-sector role (hotels,
tour operators, OTAs). National DMO (VNAT)
coordinates promotion and policy; provinces and PPPs
handle local development and infrastructure projects.
- SME presence: Vietnam’s economy is heavily SME-
based, ~ 97% of enterprises are SMEs in the economy
and the service sector (which includes tourism) is
dominated by small businesses (many homestays,
small tour operators, food & retail SMEs).
Russia
- The sector relies on a public–private partnership
model, with the government (federal and regional)
providing policy, infrastructure, and coordination,
while businesses deliver most services.
- SMEs play a central role in hospitality, food services,
and local tours.
- The strategy highlights support measures for SMEs
(simplified licensing, access to finance, tax incentives)
to boost their capacity.
- Large state or state-affiliated companies remain
influential in transport and major resort complexes,
meaning the industry is more state-coordinated than
in markets like Vietnam.
2.3.3. Market segments
Vietnam
- Inbound source markets (2024): China and South
Korea are top source markets in 2024, followed by
Taiwan, the US and Japan which have a strong return
of Asian source markets after visa relaxations and
more flights. Urban gateway cities (HCMC, Hanoi, Da
Nang) capture large shares.
- Domestic profile: Large domestic leisure market
(short-breaks, family travel, holiday peaks such as
Tết), and rising domestic spending.
Russia
- Inbound source markets: Inbound is currently
dominated by China (large growth in 2024 vs 2023),
CIS neighbours and some European/business travellers
— but overall inbound volumes remain depressed vs
2019. China became a leading inbound source in
2024.
- Domestic profile: The domestic market is dominant
and growing (staycations, regional tourism — Far East,
Siberia, Black Sea/Southern resorts, health & spa
resorts). Leisure + domestic short/seasonal trips are
the backbone of current demand. Business travel has
been a sizable part of some inbound categories.
 3. Vision & Strategic objectives
3.1. Vision statements
3.1.1. Vietnam
Vietnam’s Tourism Development Plan (Decision No. 509/QD-TTg,
2024) sets a vision for the country to become an attractive and competitive
destination by 2025, and by 2030 to develop tourism into a spearhead
economic sector oriented toward green growth and digital transformation.
By 2045, Vietnam aspires to be among the world’s leading destinations,
receiving 70 million international visitors and contributing 17–18 % of
GDP through tourism (1). This vision reflects stakeholders’ aspirations for
sustainability, cultural preservation, and local community benefits.

3.1.2. Russia
Russia’s Tourism Development Strategy to 2035 (approved by
Government Order No. 2129-r, 2019) emphasizes the integrated
development of domestic and inbound tourism, the creation of
competitive products, and improving accessibility for citizens. The vision
balances the economic role of tourism with social objectives such as family
well-being, patriotism, and cultural cohesion (2).
 3.2. Strategic goals & SMART objectives

3.2.1. Vietnam
- By 2025: attract 25–28 million international
visitors, host 130 million domestic trips,
contribute 8–9 % of GDP, provide 1.3 million
rooms, and generate 6.3 million jobs (2.1 million
direct).
 - By 2030: host 35 million international visitors and
160 million domestic trips, contribute 13–14 % of
GDP, expand to 2 million rooms, and create 10.5
million jobs (3.5 million direct).
- By 2045: reach 70 million international visitors
and 17–18 % of GDP contribution (1).
Qualitatively, the strategy stresses green growth, digital adoption,
and destination branding, aligning with global competitiveness
benchmarks such as the World Economic Forum’s Travel & Tourism
Development Index (Vietnam ranked 59th in 2024) (3).
3.2.2. Russia
- By 2035: increase the tourism industry’s gross value
added from 3.2 trillion RUB to 16.3 trillion RUB (2).
- Double domestic trips per capita and triple tourism
investment compared to 2017 levels (2).
- Expand collective accommodation capacity from 2.2
million to 4.3 million places, raise occupancy to 50
%, and grow hospitality enterprises from 78 000 to
150 000 (2).
- Tax revenues from tourism are projected to reach 2.25
trillion RUB annually by 2035, surpassing
government investment within six years (2).
Qualitative priorities include modernizing transport, developing
ecotourism, ski and cruise tourism, and improving service quality while
reducing visa barriers.
3.3. Comparative insights
While both Vietnam and Russia articulate ambitious tourism visions,
their strategic orientations differ. Vietnam’s strategy is outward-looking
—targeting international arrivals and positioning itself as a competitive
global player through green growth, branding, and digital
transformation. Russia’s strategy is more inward-focused, prioritizing
domestic tourism development, infrastructure modernization, and
enhancing accessibility for its citizens. Vietnam sets shorter-term
SMART targets (2025, 2030) with strong emphasis on GDP contribution
and international visitor numbers, while Russia sets longer-term
benchmarks (2035) tied to economic value added, infrastructure capacity,
and service expansion. Both, however, reflect stakeholder aspirations:
Vietnam stresses sustainability and international competitiveness, whereas
Russia highlights tourism’s social role in improving citizens’ quality of life
and cultural cohesion.
4. Competitive & Development strategies
4.1. Infrastructure investment
4.1.1. Vietnam
Infrastructure investment is arguably the single most important
implementation tool for Vietnam’s tourism development strategy to 2030.
The government explicitly acknowledges in its national strategy that
“synchronous and modern infrastructure” is a prerequisite for becoming a
top regional destination. Implementation has therefore focused on four
pillars: Expressways, airports, utilities and public amenities, and tourism
facilities.
In terms of road development, Vietnam expects to complete more
than 1,100 km of new expressways by 2025, expanding the national
highway network to nearly 3,000 km. This expansion is transformative: the
Hanoi - Ha Long expressway now reduces travel time from four hours to
less than two, enabling short-stay and circuit tourism, while the Da Nang -
Quang Ngai expressway links coastal cities with cultural hinterland sites
such as My Son. In the Mekong Delta, new roads improve access to Can
Tho and connect riverine ecotourism clusters to Ho Chi Minh City.
Airports are another cornerstone of infrastructure planning, given
that the majority of international arrivals come by air. The flagship project
is Long Thành International Airport near Ho Chi Minh City, designed with
an ultimate capacity of 100 million passengers per year and an initial phase
of 25 million passengers by 2026. With an estimated cost of over US$16
billion, Long Thành is intended to rival Bangkok and Singapore as a
regional hub. Simultaneously, expansions at Da Nang, Cam Ranh, Phu
Quoc, and Dong Hoi airports increase regional capacity and relieve
pressure on overloaded hubs such as Noi Bai and Tan Son Nhat.
Vietnam has also directed public resources to upgrading utilities and
amenities in key tourist zones. Electricity, clean water, and waste treatment
systems have been extended to islands such as Phu Quoc and Cat Ba, while
“smart tourism” pilots with free Wi-Fi and digital kiosks have been
launched in cities like Hue and Da Nang. These improvements directly
enhance visitor satisfaction while supporting the long-term sustainability of
tourism zones.
Another crucial element is the mobilization of private and foreign
investment in high-value projects. A notable case is the US$1.5 billion
luxury resort complex near Hanoi, built with foreign capital. Convention
centers, marinas in destinations like Ha Long and Nha Trang, and cruise
terminals have also been constructed. Public-private partnerships and
preferential credit policies are widely used to crowd in investment. By
2030, the goal is to provide 900,000 rooms nationwide, supported by both
public funds and substantial private/FDI contributions.
4.1.2. Russia
Russia’s tourism strategy to 2035 identifies infrastructure weakness
as the single greatest barrier to competitiveness, particularly the over-
centralization of air traffic through Moscow and poor facilities in regional
areas. Implementation has therefore concentrated on backbone transport
networks, regional hub development, and cluster infrastructure within
special zones.
On roads and highways, a federal master plan directs large-scale
construction and modernization projects. Key efforts include upgrades to
the Moscow–Golden Ring network, improving access to historic cities
such as Vladimir and Yaroslavl, and the development of the Europe–
Western China international highway, which also facilitates overland
tourism from Kazakhstan and China. In the North Caucasus, new roads are
being built to connect ski resort clusters such as Arkhyz and Elbrus,
overcoming past accessibility barriers.
Airports are another central focus. Russia has prioritized diversifying
air access by modernizing airports in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky in the Far
East and Mineralnye Vody in the Caucasus, while also expanding major
hubs in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The strategy explicitly calls for
reducing dependence on Moscow by introducing more direct international
routes to regional centers such as Kazan, Sochi, Vladivostok, and
Yekaterinburg. This shift is vital because nearly 70 percent of international
arrivals currently pass through Moscow.
Cluster infrastructure is being delivered through Special Economic
Zones (SEZs) and recreational clusters, which offer tax breaks and co-
financing to attract investors. Examples include the ski resort SEZ in
Kemerovo, the “Golden City” theme park in Vladivostok, and new hotel
and entertainment complexes around Lake Baikal. These zones ensure that
supporting infrastructure - roads, utilities, marinas - is pre-built to reduce
investor risk.
Russia has also prioritized marina development on the Volga and
Black Sea to expand cruise tourism and has invested in modernizing
utilities and visitor centers in national parks and historic towns, such as
those in Karelia. These projects not only increase comfort and capacity but
also align with the country’s strategy of promoting domestic tourism and
activating remote destinations.
What distinguishes Russia’s approach is its macro-regional
orientation. The strategy identifies broad zones such as the North-West, Far
East, Caucasus, and Siberia as priority areas and directs federal investment
to build access and anchor projects there. The goal is not just to expand
capacity but also to redistribute flows, diversify beyond Moscow and St.
Petersburg, and unlock the potential of remote but spectacular destinations
like Kamchatka and Altai. Challenges remain, including high costs and
limited private interest in remote regions, but the state’s strong role in
infrastructure investment is steadily laying the foundation for long-term
tourism growth.
4.2. Zoning and Spatial planning
4.2.1. Vietnam
Vietnam’s zoning and spatial planning for tourism is a tightly
coordinated, top-down system that converts national strategy into regional
development blueprints, tourism corridors and protected-use rules. The
national framework divides the country into seven tourism macro-regions
(Northeast, Northwest, Red River Delta, North Central, South Central,
Southeast, and the Mekong Delta), each assigned flagship destinations and
thematic roles - for example, coastal and island leisure in the South Central
and Southeast, cultural-heritage routes in the Red River Delta and North
Central, and nature/eco products in the Northwest and Mekong Delta.
Within those macro-regions, the government designates “National Tourism
Areas” (priority zones) and develops master-plans for each priority
territory; these master-plans locate attraction nodes, accommodation
clusters, transport links, and utility corridors so that private investment and
public works align spatially rather than appearing piecemeal.
The spatial logic emphasizes corridor development and circuit
tourism: planners deliberately create and promote linked routes (Hanoi -
Ninh Binh - Ha Long; Da Nang - Hoi An - Hue; Ho Chi Minh City -
Mekong - Phu Quoc) so tourists can move between complementary
products and so revenue disperses to secondary towns. Coastal zoning is
tightly managed: resort strips are clustered into planned stretches and
setback rules are applied to limit uncontrolled beachfront construction; this
clustering concentrates hotel density in planned nodes while protecting
sensitive stretches and local communities. Protected areas and national
parks use zonation to balance access and conservation - core conservation
zones restrict high-impact activities, buffer zones allow low-impact
community lodges and regulated eco-trails, and transition zones
accommodate supporting services and lower-intensity tourism enterprises.
Urban and cultural precincts receive separate zoning treatment: ancient
towns and heritage districts (for instance Hoi An and Hue) are designated
cultural quarters with strict controls on alterations, signage, and building
scale to preserve authenticity while allowing tourism services in adjacent
buffer streets.
At the provincial and municipal levels, master plans and land-use
plans are synchronized with the national tourism system so local
infrastructure investment, permitting and licensing favor designated
tourism clusters. The result is a spatial pattern that supports product
diversification (beach, cultural, adventure, riverine) while using zoning
rules to reduce environmental stress and prevent single-site over-
concentration. Implementation challenges remain - enforcement of zoning
at small municipal levels, informal development pressures in some coastal
communes, and retrofitting infrastructure in older heritage cores - but the
overall approach is to guide growth into planned, serviceable, and
sustainable clusters and corridors.
4.2.2. Russia
Russia’s zoning and spatial planning approach applies a cluster-and-
macro-region model tailored to the country’s immense geography and wide
variation in tourism resources. The national strategy identifies priority
macro-regions (North-West, Central/Golden Ring, North Caucasus, Volga,
Siberia/Altai, Kamchatka/Far East) and prescribes the creation of tourism
territories with special regimes - master-plans, preferential fiscal measures,
and simplified permitting - to attract investment. Rather than spreading
resources evenly, Russia concentrates public support in targeted tourism
SEZs and recreational clusters where anchor projects can generate spillover
demand: Ski clusters in the North Caucasus (Arkhyz, Elbrus, Veduchi),
lake and forest clusters in Karelia and Lake Baikal, and expedition/cruise
gateways in the Far East and Arctic.
Implementation uses several spatial tools simultaneously. First,
regional master-plans for priority territories map nodes of attractions,
accommodation zones, transport access points and utility corridors;
approval of these master-plans unlocks fiscal incentives and reserved land
parcels for investors. Second, Tourist Special Economic Zones are created
to concentrate hotel, resort and leisure investments in designated plots with
coordinated supporting infrastructure already planned and partly financed,
minimizing investor risk. Third, thematic national routes (for example the
Golden Ring cultural circuit and newer northern/western itineraries) are
actively promoted to tie multiple regional assets into coherent multi-day
itineraries that can be serviced by package operators and independent
travelers alike.
Environmental zoning is integral to the Russian model because many
priority destinations are within or adjacent to protected natural areas. Parks
and reserves are zoned into mass-access recreation zones (with visitor
centers and hardened trails), controlled eco-tourism zones (limited
numbers, certified routes and guides), and strict conservation cores closed
to tourism. This three-tier approach is used to direct higher-impact facilities
- hotels, visitor hubs, marinas - away from fragile cores while still allowing
sustainable revenue streams to support conservation. Urban heritage zoning
is also applied: Historic towns included on national itineraries are given
protected precincts for cultural assets while adjacent service zones absorb
hotels, restaurants and visitor facilities.
Russia’s spatial implementation strongly emphasizes governance
integration: federal, regional and municipal authorities, utility monopolies
and development banks coordinate to ensure that master-planned territories
have the required intermodal access, energy and telecom links before major
project construction proceeds. This reduces the familiar “stranded asset”
problem where a resort opens without adequate roads or power. The
approach accelerates the development of remote but high-value territories,
yet it requires large public capital and faces obstacles such as difficult
terrain, seasonality, and limited private appetite for projects with long
payback periods.
4.3. Human resource development
4.3.1. Vietnam
 Human resource development is treated as a cornerstone of
Vietnam’s tourism strategy because service quality is ultimately
determined by people rather than infrastructure. The national plan sets the
goal of building a workforce that is not only quantitatively sufficient but
also professionally trained to international standards. Implementation
therefore proceeds along three main fronts: expanding educational
capacity, upgrading skill quality, and improving governance
professionalism.
In education, Vietnam has expanded universities and vocational
colleges with dedicated hospitality and tourism faculties. Institutions such
as the Hanoi University of Culture, National Economics University, and
several regional tourism colleges now offer specialized programs in hotel
management, tour operations, culinary arts, and travel business
management. The government has also promoted the opening of vocational
schools in smaller provinces to ensure that local communities in tourism
regions (for example, the Northwest and Mekong Delta) can benefit
directly from training opportunities rather than being excluded due to
geography.
In terms of skills, Vietnam places strong emphasis on foreign
language proficiency and customer service. English remains the primary
focus, but there is a major push to train guides and hospitality staff in
Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Russian - reflecting the country’s key
source markets. Tour guide licensing now requires formal language exams,
and many provinces host short-term courses for freelance guides to
upgrade their skills. Large hotel groups such as Accor, Marriott, and
Vinpearl have set up training programs and internships, giving students
exposure to international service culture. The Vietnam National
Administration of Tourism (VNAT) also organizes short in-service courses
for tour guides, local destination managers, and hotel staff covering topics
such as crisis management, digital marketing, and sustainable tourism
practices.
 Governance capacity is another component of human resource
development. The government invests in training officials at provincial
tourism departments on destination management, zoning enforcement, and
crisis response, recognizing that state agencies play a critical role in service
consistency. International cooperation programs with ASEAN, UNWTO,
and NGOs provide training on community-based tourism and ecotourism,
equipping local leaders with modern management approaches.
Challenges remain in soft skills and in bridging the gap between
theory and practice. Many graduates lack hands-on experience or struggle
with intercultural communication. To address this, Vietnam is increasingly
promoting dual training models where students split time between school
and internships, and is encouraging international partnerships for
curriculum development. The overall trajectory is clear: Vietnam is scaling
up its workforce and gradually raising quality, ensuring that human
resources keep pace with rapid growth in arrivals and infrastructure.
4.3.2. Russia
Russia’s tourism strategy to 2035 emphasizes human capital as one
of the weakest but most critical pillars for competitiveness. The service
culture in Russian tourism has long lagged behind global standards, and the
strategy explicitly aims to professionalize the workforce, modernize
training systems, and align qualifications with international frameworks.
Educational reform is central. Russia has expanded hospitality and
tourism programs in universities and vocational schools, introducing
specialized degrees in hotel administration, event management, and tour
operations. New institutions, such as the Moscow Tourism and Hospitality
College, have been designed with updated facilities and curricula co-
developed with industry players. Regional initiatives are also important:
the Altai Republic, for instance, has established tourism schools that train
multilingual guides to support growing demand in adventure and eco-
tourism.
Certification and professional standards represent another key
element. Tour guides and tourism managers are now required to undergo
standardized examinations and certification to ensure baseline competence.
This is particularly important given the loss of many foreign-language
guides in the wake of geopolitical shifts, which left a gap in servicing
Asian and Middle Eastern tourists. Certification ensures that new recruits
meet quality benchmarks while reassuring inbound markets of service
reliability.
Skill upgrading is pursued through workshops and retraining
programs organized jointly by government agencies and private sector
operators. These cover customer service, hospitality English, Chinese and
Arabic language training, and increasingly digital competencies such as
online booking systems, digital marketing, and e-commerce for small
tourism enterprises. The strategy also calls for dual education systems
where students alternate between classroom study and on-the-job training,
reflecting models used in Germany and Switzerland.
Russia also uses incentives to address geographic imbalances.
Because many of the new tourism clusters are in remote or less-developed
areas, graduates are reluctant to work there. To attract talent, regional
governments offer housing, subsidies, or salary bonuses for graduates who
take jobs in tourism in these zones.
Finally, the government is attempting to reshape the broader service
culture, encouraging not only hospitality workers but also related
professions (taxi drivers, customs officers, local officials) to adopt more
visitor-friendly attitudes. This broadens the scope of human resource
development to the wider tourism ecosystem.
While service quality still lags in many regions, the systematic
introduction of professional standards, digital skills, and international
alignment represents a major shift in Russia’s approach to human capital in
tourism.
4.4. Branding and Marketing
4.4.1. Vietnam
 Vietnam’s branding implementation demonstrates a deliberate use of
differentiation and focus strategies. The country anchors its brand on
cultural richness and striking natural beauty. These are framed as both
unique selling propositions (USPs) and unique experience propositions
(UEPs), distinguishing Vietnam from regional rivals like Thailand. Its
long-standing slogan, “Vietnam - Timeless Charm,” reinforced themes of
tradition and authenticity, while the post-pandemic campaign “Live Fully
in Vietnam” was crafted to convey a vibrant, modern, and safe destination
for global travelers. Differentiation is also reflected in world-record
attractions often used in promotion (e.g., the Golden Bridge in Da Nang,
Son Doong as the world’s largest cave).
Focus strategies are applied through market segmentation. For
Northeast Asia, Vietnam promotes high-value products such as golf
tourism, luxury resorts, and island vacations in Phu Quoc or Nha Trang.
For Western millennials, campaigns highlight adventure trekking in the
north, motorbike loops in Ha Giang, and urban street-food culture in Hanoi
and Ho Chi Minh City. ASEAN families are targeted with messaging
around safety, affordability, and child-friendly destinations, while domestic
campaigns such as “Vietnamese People Travel in Vietnam” encourage
residents to explore lesser-known provinces. By tailoring brand stories to
these different segments, Vietnam ensures that its USP/UEP resonates with
diverse audiences.
Vietnam’s implementation programs are increasingly
professionalized. The government stresses the need to “promote tourism in
association with the national image,” aligning tourism branding with the
broader Vietnam nation brand. Marketing budgets have grown steadily; for
example, the government increased funding for overseas promotion by
over 30% between 2019 and 2023. Programs include regular participation
in international fairs and annual National Tourism Year events highlighting
regions such as Ninh Binh (2021) or Quang Nam (2022). Partnerships with
airlines like Vietnam Airlines and VietJet, as well as hotel chains, integrate
tourism promotions with transport and hospitality offers.
 A digital-first approach is now at the heart of Vietnam’s strategy.
VNAT’s multilingual website features virtual tours, booking links, and
curated itineraries. Campaigns on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and
TikTok reach younger demographics, also providing indirect but impactful
promotion.
These targeted, multi-channel campaigns have produced tangible
results. International arrivals rebounded sharply in 2023 - 2024, with
Vietnam recording over 12 million foreign visitors - surpassing its own
targets, while its ranking in the World Economic Forum Travel & Tourism
Development Index improved, particularly in marketing and cultural
resources. Vietnam’s branding efforts therefore go beyond slogans: they
combine USP/UEP-based positioning, segmented targeting,
professionalized programming, and measurable outcomes.
4.4.2. Russia
Russia’s branding is also guided by differentiation and focus
strategies, but implemented within a very different context. Its unique
selling propositions are rooted in cultural grandeur and vast natural
diversity: from Red Square and the Hermitage to the Trans-Siberian
Railway, Arctic cruises, and ski resorts in the Caucasus. Seasonal
experiences form part of its unique experience propositions, offering
visitors journeys unavailable elsewhere - from watching the Northern
Lights in Murmansk to glacier hiking in Kamchatka. The launch of the new
umbrella brand “Discover Russia” represents a shift toward presenting
these assets in a unified, accessible identity that communicates both
cultural heritage and natural adventure.
Focus strategies are reflected in the pivot toward selected markets.
With arrivals from Western countries reduced, Russia now prioritizes
China, India, the Gulf states, and Southeast Asia. Campaigns in China
emphasize group-friendly heritage and railway tours; in the Middle East,
branding stresses Muslim-friendly services such as halal dining and prayer
facilities; while domestically, campaigns under “Discover Your Russia”
encourage citizens to travel within the country, rediscovering its regions
and reducing outbound leakage. These targeted strategies align branding
with geopolitical realities and growing outbound flows from non-Western
markets.
Russia’s implementation programs combine federal leadership with
regional identity-building. Authorities stress the need to develop
“recognizable tourism brands” at both national and sub-national levels.
Sub-brands such as Karelia (“land of lakes and forests”), Yakutia
(“Kingdom of Permafrost”), and the North Caucasus (“ski and spa cluster”)
showcase regional distinctiveness while reinforcing the national umbrella.
The government funds large-scale advertising across TV, print, and digital
channels, and runs promotional campaigns under the “Discover Russia”
brand abroad, aiming to double inbound arrivals from 8 million to 16
million within six years.
A major innovation is the relaunch of [Link], now integrated
with Moscow’s “Russpass” system, which has evolved into a digital
tourism ecosystem. The portal not only provides marketing and
information but also allows for trip planning, hotel and excursion booking,
and event integration - a professional, tech-enabled approach comparable
to advanced tourism boards. Mega-events remain central: the 2018 FIFA
World Cup showcased Russia’s capacity as a host, and new forums such as
the “Let’s Travel!” serves as a platform to promote Russia’s destinations
and build partnerships. Simplified electronic visa regimes are also
marketed as part of the branding, signaling greater accessibility.
While budgetary and perception challenges persist, Russia’s
branding is becoming more structured, professional, and digitally
advanced. With the “Discover Russia” platform, integrated digital tools,
and expanded event-based promotion, the country is positioning itself to
strengthen both domestic tourism and diversified inbound flows.
5. Governance & Stakeholder collaboration
5.1. Institutional structure
5.1.1. Vietnam
- National Authority: Managed primarily by the
Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism (MCST)
through the Vietnam National Administration of
Tourism (VNAT).
- Multiple Levels: Coordination occurs across
national, provincial, and municipal levels. Each
province develops its own tourism strategy in line with
national goals.
- Destination Management Organizations (DMOs):
+ Not always formalized, but regional tourism
promotion centers act as DMOs (e.g., Da Nang Tourism
Promotion Center, Sa Pa Tourism Office).
+ Their roles include destination branding, tourism
marketing, data collection, and supporting small
enterprises.
5.1.2. Russia
- National Authority: Managed by the Federal
Agency for Tourism (Rostourism) under the
Ministry of Economic Development.
- Decentralized Model: Regional and municipal
authorities have significant autonomy over tourism
planning and policy.
- Destination Management Organizations (DMOs):
+ More formalized in major destinations (e.g.,
Moscow City Tourism Committee, St. Petersburg
Committee for Tourism Development).
+ Roles include strategic planning, public-private
coordination, event promotion, and international
marketing.
5.2. Public – Private partnerships (PPPs)
5.2.1. Vietnam
- PPPs are actively encouraged to develop infrastructure
and tourism services.
- Examples:
+ Van Don International Airport (Quang
Ninh): Developed through a PPP involving Sun Group.
+ Large-scale resorts and entertainment zones
by private conglomerates (e.g., Vingroup, FLC, Sun
Group) often built on public land with government
facilitation.
- Co-Management: In heritage sites like Trang An
Landscape Complex, partnerships between local
authorities and tour companies help manage visitor
flow and conservation.
5.2.2. Russia
- PPPs play a critical role in large tourism and sports
infrastructure projects.
- Examples:
+ Sochi Winter Olympics (2014): Massive PPP-
driven development in hotels, transport, and venues.
+ Krasnaya Polyana ski resorts were co-
developed by private firms with federal and regional
support.
- Special Economic Zones for Tourism: These zones
attract private investors through tax breaks and
infrastructure support (e.g., in the North Caucasus).
5.3. Community involvement
5.3.1. Vietnam
- Community-Based Tourism (CBT) is strongly supported,
particularly in rural and ethnic minority areas:
+ Sapa, Mai Chau, Mekong Delta: Locals
operate homestays, guided treks, and craft workshops.
 + Revenue-sharing models and training
programs provided by NGOs and local governments.
- Community tourism is often included in provincial
tourism plans to reduce poverty and preserve cultural
heritage.
5.3.2. Russia
- Community involvement is less institutionalized but
increasing:
+ Ethno-tourism and eco-tourism initiatives
are growing in regions like Siberia, Altai, and the
Caucasus.
+ Projects often supported by non-profits,
cultural preservation groups, or municipal
authorities.
- Challenges include lack of capacity, infrastructure, and
formal revenue-sharing mechanisms.
5.4. Coordination merchanisms
5.4.1. Vietnam
- Tourism Advisory Board (TAB): A key platform
bringing together government, private sector, and
NGOs to shape national tourism policy.
- Inter-ministerial coordination: Involves ministries
of Transport, Environment, and Culture in tourism
development.
- Stakeholder Forums: Held at national and provincial
levels for consultation and consensus building (e.g.,
forums during national tourism year celebrations).
5.4.2. Russia
- Inter-agency councils under Rostourism coordinate
tourism policy with ministries like Transport, Culture,
and Foreign Affairs.
 - Russian Union of Travel Industry (RUTI):
Represents private sector interests, often consulted in
policy planning.
- Regional Coordination Bodies: Local tourism
councils in cities like Kazan or Sochi facilitate
stakeholder discussions.
- Digital Platforms: Used to engage stakeholders in
consultation on new tourism laws or strategy updates.
6. Monitoring & Evaluation
6.1. Tracking progress through KPIs
6.1.1. Vietnam
Vietnam employs a multi-layered system of quantitative, qualitative,
and global benchmarking KPIs:
- Quantitative KPIs (2023 – 2024):
+ International arrivals: 12.6 million visitors in
2023, recovering to about 70% of 2019 levels (VNAT,
2024).
+ Domestic tourism: over 108 million domestic
trips in 2023.
+ Tourism revenue: approx. USD 32.3 billion
(VNAT, 2024).
+ GDP contribution: Travel & Tourism
contributed 7.6% of GDP in 2022 (WTTC, 2023).
+ Average length of stay: ~7.6 days for
international tourists (VNAT survey, 2023).
- Qualitative KPIs:
+ Visitor satisfaction surveys conducted by
VNAT and provincial DMOs indicate >85% satisfaction
with safety and hospitality (VNAT annual report, 2023).
 + Sustainable tourism pilot projects in Ha
Long, Da Nang, and Phu Quoc measure uptake of
green certification and renewable energy use.
- Global benchmarking (TTCI 2019)
In the 2019 edition of the Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Index
(TTCI), Vietnam achieved a noteworthy ranking, placing 63rd among 140
countries evaluated. This represented a modest but meaningful rise
compared to its standing in the 2017 report. The country demonstrated
particular strengths in price competitiveness, where it ranked 22nd,
climbing 13 places relative to the previous edition. Additionally, it showed
marked improvement in air transport infrastructure, ascending 11 ranks to
secure 50th place in that category (Vietnam National Administration of
Tourism, 2019) Vietnam TourismVietnam+ (VietnamPlus). These
gains reflect the impact of strategic investments in aviation connectivity
and competitive tourism pricing policies. Nevertheless, Vietnam still faces
challenges in international openness, institutional support for tourism, and
service infrastructure—areas that require continued strategic focus to
further enhance its global ranking.
6.1.2. Russia
Russia uses a similarly integrated framework combining macro-
economic measures, event-based performance, and international
benchmarking:
- Quantitative KPIs (2023 – 2024)
+ Inbound tourism: 8.1 million foreign visitors
in 2023 (Federal State Statistics Service, 2024).
+ Domestic tourism: over 73 million trips in
2023, reflecting strong reliance on internal markets
(Rostourism, 2024).
+ Tourism revenue: approx. USD 12.6 billion in
inbound receipts (UN Tourism, 2024).
+ GDP contribution: 3.8% of GDP in 2022
(WTTC, 2023).
 + Average length of stay: ~6.5 days for
international visitors (Federal Tourism Strategy Report,
2023).
- Qualitative KPIs:
+ Evaluation of national campaigns such as
Visit Russia (measured by brand awareness surveys in
target markets, notably China and Middle East).
+ Event success metrics: hosting of major
MICE and sports events (e.g., St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum) used to benchmark
service quality and destination image.
+ Infrastructure expansion: annual reporting
on new airports, hotels, and certified cultural routes
(e.g., Golden Ring, Arctic tourism).
- Global benchmarking (TTCI 2019):
Russia secured a stronger competitive position in the TTCI 2019,
ranking 39th among the 140 economies assessed Invest in Regions.
This impressive position was underpinned by several sub-index
performances: the country ranked 20th in the Natural and Cultural
Resources category, reinforcing its strong appeal based on heritage and
scenic assets; 6th in Health & Hygiene, indicative of robust public health
and safety measures; and 27th in Price Competitiveness HSE
IIMSInvest in Regions. Notably, Russia’s Air Transport
Infrastructure was ranked 23rd, reflecting the extensive capacity and
reach of its aviation network across the Eurasian continent Invest in
Regions. On the other hand, Russia’s performance in policy-oriented and
regulatory domains was significantly weaker: it scored 105th in Travel &
Tourism Policy and Enabling Conditions, and 123rd in International
Openness, highlighting substantial structural and institutional barriers to
tourism development HSE IIMSInvest in Regions.
6.2. Mechanisms for Monitoring
6.2.1. Vietnam
 - The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the
General Department of Tourism monitor progress
through regular reports and market surveys.
- Tourism development and management partnerships
- Join destination management planning and
coordinated implementation in key hubs such as: Phu
Quoc, Ha Long, Da Nang
- Integration of digital tools: dash boards, national
tourism data portals
6.2.2. Russia
- The Federal Agency for Tourism (Rostourism) works
with regional governments to monitor strategies via a
federal system of development indicators.
- Integrated product development and promotion
projects: Golden Ring route, Arctic tourism,...
- Inter-ministerial councils and working groups with
private sector partners
- Standardized KPI reporting system from regions for
comparison and consolidation
6.3. Stakeholder involvement in the Evaluation
process
In Vietnam, the stakeholder network in tourism development is
broad and diverse, encompassing local authorities, tour operators,
accommodation providers, professional associations, and local
communities. These actors play an active role in shaping the destination
management process by providing feedback through tourism workshops,
consultation forums, and collaborative platforms. In addition, they
contribute valuable customer data and market insights that inform decision-
making and help identify emerging opportunities. Importantly, the
evaluation process in Vietnam is generally conducted in a constructive and
objective manner. Rather than focusing on criticism, stakeholders
emphasize encouragement and continuous improvement, fostering a
cooperative atmosphere that supports both policy innovation and service
quality enhancement.
In the Russian context, the stakeholder landscape is more centralized
and institutionalized. Key participants include government agencies, large
tourism corporations, hotel and restaurant associations, as well as event
organizers. These groups are actively involved in the joint development of
tourism strategies, contributing to policy formulation and investment
planning. Stakeholders in Russia also take part in on-site monitoring of
destinations, offering direct feedback that allows authorities to adjust
promotional campaigns and refine implementation measures. The
evaluation process is strongly oriented towards transparency and
constructive criticism. This approach is designed to ensure accountability
and to safeguard the long-term feasibility of tourism development projects,
reflecting a governance model that prioritizes systematic oversight and
sustainability.
7. Comparative insights & Lessons learned
Vietnam and Russia share things when it comes to tourism. Both
countries focus on similar products like cultural trips, heritage tourism and
ecotourism. Their infrastructure, though, is uneven; some bustling areas
(i.e: Hà Nội, Hồ Chí Minh City, Moscow, St. Peterbourgh,…) are modern
and well-developed, while others are still catching up. Both nations are
also trying to apply more technology into tourism, with apps and AI tools
to help travelers plan their journeys. On top of that, there’s growing
attention to green movements, cultural diversity and heritage preservation
in both countries. In general, both Việt Nam and Russia aim to build a
stronger, more connected network of tourism facilities and infrastructure.
When it comes to people, Vietnam benefits from a young workforce
and expanding education programs, though skill gaps remain. Russia’s
tourism workforce is slightly weaker and older, but its government is
slowly pushing policies to improve the situation.
On the other hand, there are some clear differences between the two.
Vietnam is usually cheaper for visitors, while Russia tends to be more
expensive. Vietnam treats tourism as a key part of its economy and has
introduced friendly visa policies, like longer stays and exemptions for
many countries, along with quick government actions to support tourism
growth. Russia, by contrast, does not place tourism at the very top of its
economic priorities. While Việt Nam leans heavily on coastal tourism and a
potential for forest tourism, Russia shows an available coastal potential but
has not been developed enough. Russia is now giving more attention to
domestic travel, since the international market is heavily affected by
sanctions.
Vietnam also stands out for strong cooperation between the public
and private sectors, active international partnerships and strong
promotional campaigns. Russia does view tourism as a priority, yet
international cooperation is more limited. The Russian tourism industry is
dominated by large or state-affiliated companies, though smaller ones are
gradually being supported. Vietnam markets itself well with ecotourism
and heritage tourism, frequently appearing at international tourism fairs,
while Russia focuses more on developing new destinations and attracting
major international events.
Finally, Vietnam has proven quick to adapt to changes, with timely
policies to recover its tourism sector after challenges. Russia faces bigger
obstacles due to pandemic and political tensions. While Russia is trying to
restructure and reinvest in tourism, these efforts are often held back by
those outside factors.
Both countries can learn from each other’s practices to carry out the
best development strategies, benefiting their land and people. For Việt
Nam, Việt Nam could learn how to attract and organize large-scale events
to bring in more international visitors. The region-by-region approach
creating strategies tailored to each area could also be used to avoid
overcrowding in coastal hotspots and instead spread visitors across its
mountains, forests, countryside,… Another thing from Russia is that Việt
Nam may expand into more niche markets to gain more visitors.
 For Russia, they could benefit tourism by simplifying its visa
process to pull in more international visitors. Việt Nam’s flexibility is one
way to execute quick actions regarding sudden changes. This flexibility
also gives them the strong partnership of stakeholders; making the ties of
Russian businesses strengthened and well connected.