Despite that fact that cross-border tourism and recreation in the Baltic Sea Region have been extensively studied, there are still areas, which require further research. The aim of this article is to identify regions having active cross-border tourism and recreation in the adjacent territories of Finland and the Republic of Karelia. The authors propose to use an indicator characterizing the volume of incoming tourist flows. The number of tourists is not only indicative of the development of cross-border tourism and recreation; it is also one of the main criteria for determining the degree of the formation of cross-border regions. Using the statistics for Finland, the authors analyzed the geography of tourism in Finland’s border areas and identified the degree of intensity of cross-border tourism exchange between the neighbouring administrative units of the two countries. The article also examines other tendencies indicative of the formation and development of cross-border tourism and recreation regions along the Russian-Finnish border. The authors identified three cross-border tourism and recreation regions of different development levels: South Karelia, Middle Karelia and North Karelia. South Karelia is a mesoregion with the average annual tourist exchange of about 100 thousand people, which is the average level of tourism development. The total volume of cross-border tourist flows from and to other cross-border tourist and recreation regions is about 30 thousand people per year. Middle Karelia microregion ranks second and is followed by the North Karelian microregion. The authors conclude that these two microregions are at the initial stage of their formation and, therefore, can be regarded as parts of one microregion — Russian-Finnish Northern microregion.

The systems of traditional intercommunal interaction, the peculiarities of settlement and the features of the ethno-territorial economic specialization of Setos that have developed over the centuries allow highlighting the most significant factors that are important for the preservation of their cultural identity. Currently, the territorial specificity of ethnocultural unity was strongly influenced by three factors: firstly, this is the division of the traditional territory of residence of the ethnic group by state borders, and the difficulties of cross-border interaction have significantly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and secondly, these are trends in demographic processes — depopulation and migration outflow from rural areas, thirdly, determined by changes in the economic and technological structure of the craft traditions of the ethnos to the needs of the tourism sector. The purpose of the study is to identify, systemize and substantiate modern forms of transmission from generation to generation of the traditions of Seto trades and crafts in conditions of territorial and partly social disunity of the ethnic group. The methods of socio-economic and cultural interaction within and outside the traditional territory of settlement of this ethnic group were also studied. It is important to identify the elements of the traditional culture of Seto that have retained their relevance in the modern way of life, and along with them — meaningfully new types of economic activity of local and network Seto ethnocultural communities.

—International tourism was among the sectors of the global economy most affected by the COVID‑19 pandemic. The aim of the study is to identify the differences in the dynamics of the tourist flow in Finland and Estonia during the first eight months of 2020 compared to 2019, as well as changes in the structure of the inbound tourist flow to these countries. The particular interest in studying tourist flows in Finland and Estonia stems from the fact that over the past two decades, they were among the top ten countries in the world in terms of the volume of outbound tourism by Russians, as well as among the leaders in this indicator among European Union countries, which is directly related to their neighboring position with Russia. Tourism in Estonia and Finland went through a rather difficult period of spring quarantine, and its recovery in the summer began with domestic tourism. There has also been an increase in the inbound tourist flow. At the same time, the best dynamics was demonstrated by the flow of tourists from neighboring countries that are EU members, the border with which for tourists was already partially open in summer 2020. The adjacent territories of neighboring countries are part of cross-border tourist and recreational regions, within which tourist flows have been recovering faster than tourist exchange with other, geographically more remote states. This conclusion gives hope for a fairly quick recovery of cross-border tourist exchange between Russia and neighboring countries after the postpandemic opening of borders.

No abstract

Nowadays international tourism is among the sectors of the world economy most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the study is to identify differences in the dynamics of tourist flow in Finland and Estonia during the first eight months of 2020 compared to 2019, as well as changes in the structure of incoming tourist flow to these countries. Particular interest in studying the tourist flows of Finland and Estonia is due to the fact that over the past two decades they have been among the top ten countries in the world in terms of outbound tourism of Russians, as well as among the leaders in this indicator among the EU States, which is directly related to their neighboring position with Russia. Tourism in Estonia and Finland experienced a rather difficult period of spring quarantine, and its recovery in the summer began with domestic tourism. There has also been an increase in the incoming tourist flow. At the same time, the best dynamics were demonstrated by the tourist flow from neighboring countries of the European Union, the border with which was partially opened for tourists in the summer of 2020. Adjacent territories of neighboring countries are the part of the cross-border tourist and recreational regions, within which tourist flows were restored faster than tourist exchange with other, geographically more remote States. This conclusion gives hope for a fairly rapid recovery of cross-border tourist exchange between Russia and neighboring countries after the “opening” of borders at the end of the pandemic.