Qualitative study identifies business challenges and adaptation strategies in Kazakhstan's tourism sector, suggesting policy reforms.
Purpose This study examines the experiences of local tour operators and travel agencies in Kazakhstan's tourism sector from a practitioner perspective, aiming to identify market constraints, licencing and bureaucratic barriers, shifting customer expectations and enterprise adaptation strategies in an emerging tourism destination. Design/methodology/approach An interpretive qualitative research design with a phenomenological orientation was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten tourism professionals in Astana and Almaty, selected through purposive and snowball sampling. The data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis supported by MAXQDA software. Findings The Kazakhstan tourism market exhibits a “growth/instability paradox”, wherein rapid sectoral expansion coexists with structural vulnerabilities including informality, intense price competition, low profit margins and regulatory uncertainties. Customer behaviour has shifted towards experience-oriented, digitally mediated and personalised demand. Enterprises have responded through digitalisation, product diversification and inter-firm partnerships. Research limitations/implications Regulatory frameworks should be simplified and made more predictable to reduce small and medium-sized enterprises’ (SME) compliance costs, oversight of informal market activities should be strengthened and digital transformation should be incentivised. These recommendations constitute a transferable policy framework for other post-Soviet and developing tourism destinations. Originality/value The study proposes two complementary analytical frameworks –the “growth-instability paradox” and the “fragmented and informalized tourism market” – as conceptual tools for understanding structural transformations in emerging and transition economy destinations, offering a micro-level perspective that extends beyond macro-level indicators.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
YILDIRIM et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: