




































Georgian Geographical Journal 

62 
 

 

Svaneti at a Crossroads: Socio-Economic 

Challenges and Opportunities for Regional 

Development 
Nana kvirkvelia1,* , Mariam Tsitsagi1 , Elene Salukvadze1 , 

Tamila Chaladze1  
1 TSU, Vakhushti Bagrationi Institute of Geography, Tbilisi, Georgia 
* Corresponding author: nana.kvirkvelia@tsu.ge  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Mountain regions occupy approximately 27% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface and support more than 

1.1 billion people, while providing vital ecosystem services—such as freshwater resources, biodiversity 

protection, and cultural landscapes—to billions more living in adjacent lowlands (FAO, 2015). 

Georgian Geographical Journal, 2025, 5(3) 62-78 

© The Author(s) 2025 

 
This article is an open access article distributed under 

the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 

DOI: 

https://journals.4science.ge/index.php/GGJ 

Abstract 

Svaneti, the most mountainous historical-geographical region of Georgia, is 

characterized by its exceptional natural conditions and culturally rich 

anthropogenic landscape. The region encompasses the municipalities of 

Mestia and Lentekhi, whose distinct physical environments, historical 

heritage, and socio-cultural traditions shape divergent trajectories of socio-

economic development. In the summers of 2023–2024, a sociological survey 

was conducted within the framework of the Vakhushti Bagrationi Institute of 

Geography’s field expedition to evaluate contemporary socio-economic 

dynamics in the region through active engagement with local residents. A 

total of 35 respondents participated, enabling a comparative assessment 

between Mestia and Lentekhi and facilitating the identification of key 

development constraints and emerging opportunities. The survey was 

complemented by cartographic materials, statistical diagrams, and 

photographic documentation. The results reveal severe challenges related to 

depopulation, limited employment opportunities, and pronounced out-

migration—issues particularly acute in Lentekhi, where sustained emigration 

has resulted in the closure of kindergartens and schools in several villages. 

Although livestock breeding continues to represent a traditional economic 

activity, tourism has become an increasingly important sector, with a majority 

of respondents expressing interest in acquiring the skills necessary to 

participate more effectively in tourism-related services. Nevertheless, 

infrastructure remains unevenly developed: while major transportation 

corridors have been improved, rural road networks require substantial 

reconstruction, and deficiencies persist in telecommunications, healthcare 

provision, and commercial services. Tourism infrastructure, including 

accommodation facilities and visitor information centres, also remains 

insufficient and requires systematic, state-supported development. The 

analysis further indicates that migration pressures are more pronounced in 

Lentekhi than in Mestia, driven by a complex interplay of economic, 

infrastructural, and demographic factors. Addressing these challenges will 

require integrated regional policies aimed at strengthening population 

retention, diversifying employment, and balancing tourism-driven growth 

with the needs of agriculture and traditional livelihoods. Given the limited 

availability of arable land and other natural constraints, sustainable 

development in Svaneti cannot rely solely on agriculture; instead, it must be 

underpinned by targeted job creation, improved infrastructure, and enhanced 

state involvement across multiple sectors. 

Keywords: highland developments, socio-economic vulnerability, 

Mountainous Region, Svaneti, Agriculture, Migration, Tourism. 

Citation: Kvirkvelia, N.; Tsitsagi, M.; 

Salukvadze, E.; Chaladze, T. Svaneti at a 

Crossroads: Socio-Economic Challenges 

and Opportunities for Regional 

Development. Georgian Geographical 
Journal 2025, 5(3), 62-78. 
https://doi.org/10.52340/ggj.2025.05.03.08 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6722-4453
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2874-3749
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1583-9525
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0373-6135


Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

63 
 

Extending from the Alps and Himalayas to the Andes and the Caucasus, these regions are marked by 
highly diverse geographies, distinctive cultural systems, and rich biocultural heritage. Despite their 

global ecological and strategic significance, mountain territories remain among the most vulnerable and 

socio-economically marginalized environments worldwide (Jodha, 2005; Price, 2013; Messerli & Ives, 
1997). In Europe alone, mountains cover approximately 36% of the continent and host 16% of its 

population, reflecting the considerable demographic and territorial importance of upland regions across 

the continent (Moretti et al., 2023). Yet chronic environmental fragility, geographic isolation, 
infrastructure deficits, and the accelerating impacts of climate change continue to undermine pathways 

toward sustainable development (Beniston, 2003; UNEP, 2012). Understanding the future of mountain 

communities requires context-sensitive, place-based strategies that acknowledge local socio-ecological 

systems, settlement histories, and cultural identities. 
The socio-economic challenges facing mountain regions are rooted in both physical constraints and 

long-standing structural marginalization. Rugged terrain and seasonal climatic barriers hinder mobility, 

complicating access to education, healthcare, and national markets. Many highland regions—including 
those in Nepal, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia—continue to experience seasonal isolation, with roads closed 

for months during winter, reinforcing patterns of social exclusion and limiting engagement in broader 

political and economic processes (Price, 2013; Debarbieux & Rudaz, 2015). Mountain communities 

also frequently contain ethnic and linguistic minorities whose representation remains limited within 
centralized governance frameworks. Outmigration, particularly among younger cohorts, is widespread 

and contributes to demographic ageing, cultural erosion, and the weakening of traditional knowledge 

systems essential for sustainable land management. 
Economically, mountain regions face multiple structural disadvantages, including limited agricultural 

potential, ecological fragility, and underdeveloped infrastructure. Steep slopes, shallow soils, and short 

growing seasons constrain agricultural productivity and render mechanization difficult or economically 
unviable (UNECE, 2019). Consequently, subsistence farming, pastoralism, seasonal labour migration, 

and remittances remain central livelihood strategies in many upland communities. Persistent deficits in 

transport, telecommunications, education, and healthcare infrastructure further entrench 

marginalization and restrict access to markets and services (Jodha, 2005). Tourism has emerged as a 
significant economic alternative in numerous mountain destinations such as the Alps, the Andes, and 

parts of the Caucasus; however, its benefits are often unevenly distributed, weakly regulated, and 

vulnerable to seasonality and external shocks. Moreover, unplanned tourism development may intensify 
environmental pressures and cultural commodification if not embedded within integrated regional 

planning (Khartishvili et al., 2019). 

Georgia and the wider Caucasus region exemplify many of these challenges and dynamics. Svaneti—
one of Georgia’s most mountainous, remote, and culturally distinct regions—offers a compelling case 

for examining the interaction between natural-geographical conditions, demographic processes, and 

socio-economic development. Situated along the northwestern flank of the Greater Caucasus, Svaneti 

consists of two municipalities, Mestia (Upper Svaneti) and Lentekhi (Lower Svaneti), each shaped by 
contrasting topographies, altitudinal gradients, and economic specializations. While Mestia is 

dominated by high alpine landscapes, with over 96% of its territory situated above 1,000 meters and 

nearly two-thirds above 2,000 meters, Lentekhi features more moderately elevated terrain that supports 
a more diverse range of agricultural activities, including fruit cultivation and viticulture. These 

differences significantly influence settlement patterns, agricultural potential, and diversified livelihood 

strategies. 

The region’s development prospects are further influenced by its peripheral location and limited 
transport connectivity. Svaneti is accessed primarily through the Enguri and Tskhenistskali river 

valleys, with additional routes constrained by natural barriers. Scarcity of arable land, steep slopes, and 

challenging soil–climatic conditions limit agricultural productivity and mechanization, while extensive 
natural hayfields, pastures, and forests dominate the regional land fund. Demographic decline, persistent 

emigration, and the underutilization of local labour resources exacerbate socio-economic pressures, 

especially in Lentekhi, where depopulation is more acute and widespread. 
Nonetheless, Svaneti possesses considerable potential for sustainable tourism development. Its unique 

combination of high mountain landscapes, UNESCO-recognized cultural heritage, and distinctive 

ethnographic traditions has increasingly positioned the region as a key destination for adventure and 

cultural tourism. Mestia has emerged as a regional tourism hub, benefiting from recent infrastructural 
investments, while Lentekhi is beginning to promote its natural attractions—including the Kheledura 

and Mananauri gorges and the Ailama peak and glacier. Ongoing projects, such as road reconstruction 



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

64 
 

and resort rehabilitation, illustrate expanding state and private-sector interest in the region. However, 
socio-economic surveys reveal significant remaining challenges, including limited employment 

opportunities, insufficient healthcare access, uneven tourism development, and the need for more 

sustainable land-use planning. 
This study examines the socio-economic processes shaping contemporary development trajectories in 

Svaneti, with particular emphasis on the interrelations between physical geography, demographic 

trends, and local livelihood strategies. Through a comparative analysis of Mestia and Lentekhi 
municipalities, the research identifies convergent and divergent patterns in economic activity, 

population dynamics, infrastructure, and development priorities. Drawing on sociological field surveys 

conducted in 2023–2024 by the Vakhushti Bagrationi Institute of Geography, the study integrates local 

perspectives to assess both the opportunities and the structural constraints shaping sustainable 
development in the region. By situating the findings within broader debates on mountain development, 

the research contributes to a deeper understanding of the pathways and policy mechanisms necessary 

to support resilient, inclusive, and sustainable futures for highland regions of the Caucasus. 

Study area 

Svaneti is located on the southern slope of the Central Caucasus in the upper part of the Enguri and 
Tskhenistskali basins. It occupies 4388.9 sq. km (6.2% of the country's territory). The most 

characteristic feature of Svaneti's location is its isolation. It is bordered on all sides by high ridges: to 

the north rises the Main Caucasus Range, which reaches the highest hypsometric level in the territory 

of Svaneti. Here is located the highest peak of Svaneti and at the same time Georgia, Shkhara - 5203 
m. To the west, Svaneti is bordered by the Kodori (highest peak Moguashirkha 3847 m) and Akibi 

(lowest peak Akibi 2811 m) ranges, to the south by the Egrisi range (lowest peak Tsekuri 3486 m), to 

the southeast and east by the Lechkhumi range (lowest peak Samertskhle 3584 m).  

 
Figure 1. Study area (created by authors) 

The geographical feature of Svaneti lies in its division into two parts: Lower Svaneti (Lentekhi 
Municipality) (fig. 2) and Upper (Mestia Municipality) (fig. 3) Svaneti. They are separated by the 

Svaneti range (lowest peak Lahili or Laila, 4008 m). Which is a watershed between the Enguri River 

(Upper Svaneti) and the Tskhenistskali River (Lower Svaneti). The Svaneti ridge is difficult to cross 

and represents a kind of barrier between the two parts of Svaneti, there are passes on it, through which 
Upper and Lower Svaneti are connected to each other. In the Svaneti section, all the passes of the 

Caucasus are located above 3000 meters (Khazaradze &. Salukvadze, 2024). 

Upper Svaneti has difficult natural conditions, is very remote from other regions of Georgia and is 
connected by the only, difficult transport route, which follows the Enguri River valley through the Jvari 

Kldekari. 

Lower Svaneti is somewhat better located. It is hypsometrically lower, due to which its natural 

conditions are less severe, secondly, the distance from the plain regions is not so great, but the 



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

65 
 

fragmentation of the relief here is almost the same as in Upper Svaneti, due to which the scarcity of 
land resources is sharply expressed. In Svaneti, agricultural lands occupy 31% of the entire territory, 

with a large abundance of natural forage. Cultivated lands occupy only 1% (Salukvadze & Chaladze, 

2025). 

 
Figure 2. Lentekhi (Photo: M.Tsitsagi) 

 
Figure 3. Mestia (Photo: M. Tsitsagi) 

Methods and Materials 

This study was conducted in the mountainous region of Svaneti, focusing on the municipalities of 

Mestia and Lentekhi and their respective settlements, including Tekali, Khacheshi, Melura, Leksura, 

Paki, Bavari, Kakhura, Gulida, Panaga, Chikhareshi, Chvelieri, Tvibi, Kveda Chvelieri, Sasashi, Mele, 
Kheledi, Chazhashi, Heshkili, Iskari, and Cholashi. These localities were selected through purposive 

sampling to ensure representation of both Upper and Lower Svaneti and to capture the geographical, 

socio-economic, and cultural variability across the region’s highland landscapes. The selection strategy 
aimed to reflect differences in altitude, accessibility, demographic dynamics, and livelihood structures. 

A qualitative research design was employed to achieve a comprehensive and reliable understanding 

of socio-economic conditions in Svaneti. Following Creswell (2014) and Bryman (2016), the 
integration of qualitative and quantitative components allowed for methodological triangulation, 

enhancing validity and reducing bias. The primary instrument of data collection was structured personal 

interviewing, supported by standardized questionnaires commonly used in sociological and human-

geographical field research (Bernard, 2017). In total, 35 respondents participated in the survey, 
representing diverse age groups, occupations, and settlement types across the region. 



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

66 
 

Fieldwork included systematic photographic and video documentation to support qualitative 
interpretation and to generate a visual archive of settlement morphology, infrastructure, and landscape 

features. These materials provided contextual depth and aided the verification of observational data. All 

collected information was organized in a digital database to facilitate subsequent coding, categorization, 
and comparison. 

Geospatial analysis constituted a central component of the methodology. The study utilized 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to produce thematic maps illustrating settlement patterns, 
infrastructure distribution, accessibility, and land-use characteristics. Mapping procedures followed 

established cartographic and geospatial analysis standards (Longley et al., 2015). The integration of 

social survey data with spatial datasets aligns with contemporary approaches in socio-environmental 

research, which emphasize the value of GIS for linking human perceptions, demographic indicators, 
and environmental conditions (Pfeffer et al., 2005). 

Quantitative results were visualized through statistical diagrams, while qualitative findings were 

analysed thematically. The convergence of multiple data sources—including interviews, 
questionnaires, visual documentation, and geospatial mapping—strengthened the robustness of the 

findings and allowed for a nuanced interpretation of regional socio-economic processes. This 

methodological framework ensured a realistic depiction of the conditions shaping development in 

Svaneti and supported the formulation of context-specific recommendations for enhancing regional 
sustainability. 

Results 

The sociological survey conducted in the municipalities of Mestia and Lentekhi provides insights into 

the demographic, economic, and infrastructural conditions shaping contemporary socio-economic 

development in Svaneti. A total of 35 respondents participated in the study, allowing for an indicative, 
community-level assessment of trends characteristic of Upper and Lower Svaneti.  

Demographic Structure and Migration Trends 

The age composition of respondents reveals pronounced demographic ageing (fig. 4). Elderly 

residents (65+) constitute 35% of respondents, nearly equalling the middle-aged working population 

(32%). In contrast, young adults (18–29) represent only 3% of the sample, reflecting significant youth 

outmigration. This pattern aligns with broader demographic trends in mountain regions globally, where 
young people frequently migrate to urban centres in search of education and employment, resulting in 

aging rural communities (Ives & Messerli, 1989; MacDonald et al., 2000). 

 

 
Figure 4. Percentage distribution of respondents by age 

Gender composition shows a strong predominance of women (77%) over men (23%) (fig. 5). This 

imbalance is consistent with established migration dynamics in the Caucasus and other mountainous 

areas, where men migrate seasonally or permanently for work, leaving women and elderly residents as 
the primary population remaining in rural settlements (UNEP, 2012; Debarbieux & Rudaz, 2015). 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

18-29

30-45

46-65

65+

%

Age



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

67 
 

Daytime data collection likely also contributed to the overrepresentation of women, as men were more 
likely to be engaged in agricultural, construction, or tourism-related activities. 

 

 
Figure 5. Percentage distribution of respondents by gender 

Permanent residents constitute 66% of the sample, while 34% are seasonal residents (Appendix A) 

who spend most of the year in urban centres or abroad. Temporal means that They spend most of the 

year in Tbilisi or Kutaisi, working or studying there, and only return in the summer. This category also 
includes eco-migrants who live in other regions of Georgia but return to Svaneti in the summer. 

Migration remains a major socio-economic issue: 26% of respondents (Appendix A) reported having 

at least one family member living abroad, with Spain representing the most common destination. These 
findings reflect the broader Georgian context, where labour migration plays a major role in household 

income strategies, particularly in peripheral mountainous regions (Salukvadze, 2022). 

Comparative evidence from other mountain regions shows that youth departure is not universal: in 

parts of the European Alps and Carpathians, young people express greater willingness to remain in 
highland communities when local economic prospects improve (Ivasciuc & Ispas, 2023). This contrast 

underscores the importance of targeted policies for youth retention in Svaneti. 

Similar studies have been conducted in several mountainous regions. A study conducted across 
Europe has shown promising results, in particular the surveys covered Italy, France, Norway, Poland, 

Romania, and Spain revealed that young people want to stay in the mountains because they enjoy both 

the quality of life and the natural environment. Young generation respondents also mentioned that they 
want to be entrepreneurs and act against climate change. In Romania, the mountain area is particularly 

attractive to young people (Ivasciuc & Ispas, 2023). 

Educational Attainment and Human Capital 

In our study area, most respondents (61%) have higher education, which clearly reflects the positive 

attitude of the region's population towards education; this fact indicates that there is a significant 

intellectual resource for the development of the region. The educated population plays an important role 
both in the process of rural development and in the introduction of innovations and improving decision-

making. Their involvement is especially important, as higher education helps them to consciously direct 

their efforts towards the social, economic and cultural development of the region. In addition, the 
educated population can effectively engage in initiatives aimed at identifying and solving the problems 

of rural settlements. Accordingly, this group is an important asset for the further development of the 

region. However, the second question is how much educated people want to return to their usual 

environment and realise themselves where they see no prospects. As illustrated by fig. 6, respondents 
with secondary education (33%) are a large group. Their involvement in the activities of the region, 

through continuing education or retraining programmes, will potentially increase their work capacity. 

Persons with incomplete secondary and basic education make up 6% of the surveyed population. This 

77.1

22.9

Female Male



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

68 
 

group is relatively small, although their presence may be associated with barriers to access to education 
in the past. For most respondents (61%), having higher education and a significant number of persons 

with secondary education (33%) indicate the educational potential of the region's population.  

 

 
Figure 6. Education level among respondents (percentage distribution) 

Data in Appendix B suggest Foreign-language knowledge also reflects the region’s socio-economic 

history and emerging needs. Russian remains the most widely spoken foreign language (46%), 

reflecting Soviet-era educational legacies. Meanwhile, knowledge of English (24%) and German (10%) 
is rising, likely due to increased tourism and international exposure. However, 20% of respondents do 

not speak any foreign language, highlighting a need for targeted language training to support tourism 

development and strengthen economic diversification.  

Employment Patterns and Land Ownership 

As we can see in Appendix C, a significant part of the respondents (39%) is employed in the private 
sector, and 25% in the public sector. The low rate of leaving their place of residence for employment 

(3%) indicates the desire for stability among the local population, despite the existing difficulties.  

More than 88% of property is privatized as detailed in Table 1. The fact that 88% of respondents have 

privatised their land indicates stable land ownership, which is a good basis for long-term investments 
and development. However, the unpayment of land tax by 67% may indicate a certain financial burden 

for the population and require a review by local governments. As a result of land privatization after the 

collapse of the Soviet Union, landowners do not pay taxes on agricultural land. Given that (especially) 
in Lower Svaneti, there is less resale of agricultural land, it is logical that the number of lands taxpayers 

is also lower. Similar patterns of smallholder land ownership but limited commercial use are found 

across the Caucasus (UNECE, 2019). 

Table 1. Percentage of privatized property and population paying taxes 
 

Housing has been privatized (%) Pays land tax (%) 

Yes 88.6 33.3 

No 5.7 66.7 

Do not know 5.7 - 

 
At the same time the high rate of negative attitude towards the alienation of land to foreigners (88%) 

indicates the sensitivity of the local population to this issue and the importance of land as a cultural and 

economic resource (Appendix D). The negative attitude of the Svaneti population (88%) towards the 
alienation of land to foreigners is due to several deep-rooted factors. Their attitude is likely based on 

historical, cultural and economic considerations. In Svaneti, as in the mountainous regions of Georgia, 

land is not simply an economic resource. It is the heritage of ancestors, a spiritual and cultural value 

that is closely linked to the identity of the family, clan and region. Its alienation is perceived as a betrayal 
of cultural heritage and roots; due to the mountainous terrain of Svaneti, the area of land for agricultural 

61%

33%

6%

Higher Secondary non-complit secondary



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

69 
 

purposes is limited (as in mountainous regions in general). The loss of this limited resource poses a 
direct threat to the economic future and existence of the local population; there is a fear that the land 

transferred to the ownership of foreigners will lead to a change or loss of the traditional appearance, 

architecture and way of life of the region. Svan towers and unique villages are part of their cultural 
identity; the local population, often dependent on agriculture and tourism, fears that foreign investment 

and large landowners will reduce their competitiveness and ultimately take away their livelihoods; 

increased demand for land by foreigners may lead to a disproportionate increase in land prices, making 
it completely unaffordable for local youth and the population. This, in turn, will contribute to increased 

migration from Svaneti. In addition, it is doubtful that foreign owners will use the land effectively and 

rationally, considering local interests. Also, land, especially in border regions, is often perceived as an 

integral part of the country's sovereignty and security. The transfer of a large part of it into foreign hands 
may be considered a threat to national interests. It is important that the development of the area and the 

management of resources remain under the control of local government and the community, and not 

external actors. 

Tourism: Perceptions, Participation, and Uneven Development 

The priority given to future tourism development (Table 2) by most respondents (60%) demonstrates 
the potential of this sector in the region. This may be related to the opportunities for increasing income, 

creating new jobs and promoting the region. The response received confirms the situation not only in 

Svaneti but also in the mountainous regions of Georgia. In recent years, tourism has become one of the 

main sources of transformation of the population's economic activities, and the strongest competitor to 
agriculture in the mountainous regions of Georgia (Salukvadze, 2022). In a pre-pandemic survey, 

respondents generally had positive attitudes towards the impacts of tourism development. Regarding 

economic impacts 96.8% believed that tourism development would provide more jobs for local people, 
85.5% noted that the tourism industry would play a major economic role in the community. The 

pandemic has reduced these numbers and locals have clearly seen the need for economic diversification. 

Table 2. Percentage of the respondents according to the priority sectors and future training 
 

Priority sectors for the future Would like training in 

Livestock  27.5 % 5.6 % 

Horticulture  5 % - 

Industry  5 % - 

Tourism 60 % 55.6 % 

Greenhouse farming 19.4 % 

All the above 2.5 % - 

None of the above 19.4 % 

 

The high percentage of those willing to undergo training in the field of tourism (56%) once again 

emphasises the great interest in the development of this sector. The presence of those interested in 
greenhouse farming (19%) and livestock farming (6%) also indicates the potential for development of 

various branches of agriculture. The presence of respondents (19%) who do not believe that they need 

training in any field may be related to their existing knowledge and experience. 

Some of the studies carried out (studies conducted by the NDI organization) show that examples of 
successful cooperation between citizens and municipalities are very rare. The main reason for the 

passivity of the population, along with the lack of information, is the feeling of community members 

that they cannot influence decisions, and, as a result, citizens are indifferent to cooperation (Public 
Attitudes…) (Gogorishvili & Zarandia, 2021). 

Agriculture: Scale, Practices, and Constraints 

Table 3 reveals that, 80% of respondents do not use fertilizers in agriculture, 14% do, and 6% refrained 
from answering. The high rate of use of machinery in agriculture (60%) indicates a certain 

modernisation of this sector, although the high rate of non-use of fertilisers (80%) may be related to 

financial difficulties or traditional approaches.  

Table 3. Use of machinery and fertilizers in the study area 
 

Use of machinery in agriculture (%) Use of fertilizers in agriculture (%) 



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

70 
 

Yes 60.0 14.3 

No 37.1 80.0 

Seldom 2.9 
 

No answer 
 

5.7 

 

Table 4 summarises that, 61% do not sell products grown on site. They use them themselves. The 
main sales markets are Kutisi (17%), Mestia (8%), Lentekhi (5%), and Tskaltubo (3%). The low rate of 

sales of local products indicates a problem with the market, or the harvest is so small that the population 

refrains from selling it, consuming it themselves.   Respondents use trade facilities in different cities. 
Among them: Lentekhi (37%), Kutaisi (30%), Mestia (24%), and Tsageri (9%). The geography of use 

of trade facilities indicates the importance of regional centres (Lentekhi, Mestia) and larger cities 

(Kutaisi) for the local population.  

Table 4. Main marketplaces for the respondents 
 

Buy Goods (%) Sell Goods (%) 

Kutaisi 30.3 16.7 

Lentekhi 36.4 5.6 

Mestia 24.2 8.3 

Tsageri 9.1 
 

Tskaltubo 
 

2.8 

Do not Sell 
 

61.1 

other 
 

5.6 

According to the given statistics, the difficulties of the agricultural sector of Svaneti were identified: 

the fact that 61% of the respondents do not sell their products and only consume them for their own 

consumption indicates that the agricultural sector of Svaneti has problems with scale and effective 
access to the market; The low sales rate of local products may be due either to the small harvest, which 

does not allow for the creation of sales stocks, or to the infrastructural and logistical difficulties of the 

sales market; For the sale of products, the population of Svaneti is forced to rely on relatively distant 
markets, such as Kutaisi (17%) and Tskaltubo (3%), which increases transportation costs and logistical 

challenges, which is especially difficult for a mountainous region; Respondents mainly use shopping 

facilities in Lentekhi (37%), Kutaisi (30%), and Mestia (24%), which emphasizes the vital importance 
of these regional centers for the local population, but at the same time indicates internal economic 

weakness in the area (village). 

 
Figure 7. Offer for tourists 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

%



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

71 
 

Appendix E displays that, 86% of respondents express a positive attitude towards the development of 
tourism in the region. 8% express a negative attitude, while 6% do not know whether it is good or bad. 

8% of respondents are precisely those people who, during the pandemic, clearly saw the negative 

consequences of switching completely to tourism, when A boom in tourism resulted in abandoned 
agricultural lands and reduced products (Sharia, 2019). 31% do not benefit from tourism, while 69% 

do. The high rate of positive attitude towards tourism development (86%) indicates the great potential 

for the development of this sector and the willingness of the local population to engage in this process. 
However, a significant number of people who do not benefit from tourism (31%) indicate that the 

benefits are not distributed equally and more inclusive approaches are needed. The diversity of tourist 

services (fig. 7) offered by the local population (hotel, meals, horse riding, guides, souvenirs) reflects 

the diversity of the region's tourist potential. When it comes to the benefits derived from tourism, it is 
imperative to highlight the stark difference between the two municipalities in this regard. It is no secret 

that Mestia Municipality (Lower Svaneti) far exceeds Lentekhi Municipality (Lower Svaneti) in terms 

of the number of tourists and the corresponding services. Appendix F shows that 4 hotels operate in this 
municipality, while in Mestia Municipality this number is 178. 

This is mainly due to the greater development and popularity of Mestia as a tourist center. Mestia is 

the administrative center of Upper Svaneti and has been developing intensively over the years as a 

major hub for mountain-skiing and adventure tourism (e.g. Hatsvali, Tetnuldi, museums). This has led 
to significant investments in tourism infrastructure (hotels, family houses, catering facilities) and a 

sharp increase in their number, due to the large influx of tourists. Lentekhi (Lower Svaneti) is less 

developed on the tourist map and, accordingly, the number of hotels and accommodation facilities is 
much smaller at present. 

 
Figure 8. Socio-economic challenges  

Infrastructure, Services, and Quality of Life 

As listed in fig. 8, mountainous regions are characterised by many socio-economic problems. The 

surveyed population is concerned about the lack of roads (15%), lack of electricity (10%), lack of gas 

(22%), lack of water (1%), lack of cleaning services (4%), unregulated sewage system (12%), lack of 
internet (14%), lack of telephone connection (5%), lack of satellite dishes (3%), inadequate medical 

services (9%), and lack of access to education (4%). Surprisingly, 1% stated that they are not concerned 

1

0 5 10 15 20

Non

Education

Medical services

TV broadcasting

Cellular communication

Internet

sewage system

Cleaning service

Water supply

Gas

Elecrisity

Roads



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

72 
 

about any of the above socio-economic problems. The list of socio-economic problems identified by 
the respondents (no roads, no electricity, no gas, no water, no cleaning service, unregulated sewage 

system, no internet, problems with telephone connection, access to medical services, access to 

education) clearly reflects the infrastructural and service problems in the region. 
As mentioned above, the population of the study area is elderly, and therefore their medical needs are 

diverse. It is logical that the respondents 94% use medical services, while 6% do not use these services. 

They mainly use them in Lentekhi (44%), Kutaisi (2%), Mestia (32%), and the local medical station 
(16%). From table 5 43 per cent of the respondents consider the number of medical stations and doctors 

sufficient. The high rate of use of medical services (94%) and access mainly to regional centres and 

local stations indicate the challenges in this area. 

Table 5. Use and satisfactory rate of medical services 

 Use medical services Are there enough medical facilities and doctors? 

Yes 94.3 43.2 

No 5.7 56.8 

 

Most respondents (80%) consider the number of schools and kindergartens sufficient to be a positive 
factor; against the backdrop of acute migration and depopulation, schools and kindergartens are indeed 

sufficient. However, the dissatisfaction of 20% requires study. In this case, we can assume that these 

respondents are not permanent residents and did not fully understand the question asked. 

Energy Perceptions and Environmental Concerns 

Rational use of natural resources is important in mountainous regions. Our respondents noted that the 

construction of hydroelectric power plants in the region is important, although dangerous; therefore, 
they consider the construction of hydroelectric power plants wrong (54%). However, 54% believe that 

it is necessary. Some (20%) do not know and cannot understand this issue. It would be good to raise 

awareness among the local population in this direction. 83% of respondents support the use of 
renewable energy, while 17% do not.  

Table 6. Percentage distribution of population by use of new hydropower plants and renewable energies 
 

Build new HPPs in the region (%) Is the use of renewable energy acceptable? (%) 

Yes 28.6 82.9 

No 51.4 17.1 

Do not know 20.0 
 

 

The mixed attitude towards the construction of hydroelectric power plants (54% in favour, 54% 

against) and the lack of awareness of 20% of the population on this issue indicate the need to improve 
communication with the public. Support for the use of renewable energy (83%) creates a perspective 

for the ecological sustainability of the region. The local population considers the natural conditions and 

resources (nature, fresh water, mineral springs, forests, wood), ecologically clean environment and 

products, historical past and cultural heritage to be the region's strengths. According to the local 
population, the following factors hinder development: harsh geographical environment, poorly 

maintained internal rural roads, low population, employment problems, unresolved social problems, no 

gasification, no Internet, unregulated sewage system, and lack of sports fields. In their opinion, for the 
development of tourism, it is necessary to arrange ski slopes and cottages and improve winter resorts. 

It is necessary to improve the resort of Muashi (fig. 9) with an entertainment area for children and 

swings. Creation of a rafting infrastructure on the river. Improvement of public gathering places, 

promotion of education, promotion of a healthy lifestyle, construction of a ritual hall. Development of 
farming, gardening, greenhouse farming, production of wild fruits, and potato growing. Factors 

identified by the local population as the strengths of the region (historical past and cultural heritage, 

ecologically clean environment, water resources, and potential for tourism development) create a solid 
foundation for the sustainable development of the region. The identified negative factors (unmaintained 

roads, harsh winters, low population, employment problems, social problems, lack of internet) require 

a systematic and consistent solution. Initiatives considered as development prospects (creation of ski 
slopes, improvement of resorts, development of farming, improvement of tourism infrastructure, 

arrangement of public spaces, promotion of education) reflect the local population's vision of the future 

of the region. 



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

73 
 

 

Figure 9. Resort Muashi (Photo: M. Tsitsagi) 

Local Perceptions of Strengths, Weaknesses, and Development Priorities 

Residents identify the following as the region’s key strengths: 

 pristine natural landscapes and clean environment 

 abundant water and forest resources 

 cultural heritage, including Svan towers and unique architecture 

 untapped tourism potential 

This mirror widely recognized attributes of mountain cultural landscapes (Debarbieux & Rudaz, 2015; 

Price, 2013). 

Key constraints include: 

 poor internal roads and winter isolation 

 depopulation and outmigration 

 limited employment opportunities 

 insufficient social and public services 

 lack of gasification and inadequate internet 

 underdeveloped tourism infrastructure in Lentekhi 

 Residents prioritize several development directions, including: 

 improved tourism infrastructure (ski slopes, resorts, cottages) 

 rehabilitation of Muashi resort 

 development of rafting and other adventure activities 

 enhancement of education and public spaces 

 expansion of farming, gardening, greenhouse production 

Such locally grounded priorities align closely with contemporary concepts of place-based rural 

development, which emphasize integrating local knowledge, cultural identity, and environmental 

sustainability (Ray, 1998; OECD, 2020). 

Conclusion 



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

74 
 

The findings of this study demonstrate that Svaneti is undergoing significant demographic 
transformations, characterized by population ageing, youth outmigration, and a gender imbalance 

driven largely by male-dominated labor migration. These trends pose substantial risks to the region’s 

long-term demographic sustainability and social cohesion. Seasonal mobility and the fragmentation of 
family structures reflect broader socio-economic vulnerabilities that are typical of peripheral mountain 

regions. 

Despite these challenges, Svaneti retains considerable human capital. The high proportion of residents 
with higher education indicates an important resource for future development, although the mismatch 

between educational attainment and local employment opportunities continues to contribute to 

outmigration. Foreign language proficiency—particularly in English—remains insufficient for the 

effective expansion of the tourism sector, underscoring the need for targeted capacity-building 
programs. 

Tourism is widely viewed by the local population as the primary avenue for economic development, 

and its growth has already reshaped livelihood strategies in parts of the region. However, the benefits 
of tourism remain unevenly distributed, especially between Mestia and Lentekhi, and more inclusive 

development models are required to avoid deepening intra-regional disparities. Agriculture is 

undergoing gradual modernization, yet structural constraints—including limited market access, small-

scale production, and infrastructural shortcomings—continue to limit its economic potential. Enhancing 
market linkages for local products could play a significant role in improving household incomes. 

The land question emerged as a particularly sensitive issue, reflecting the cultural, historical, and 

economic significance of land ownership in Svaneti. Strong opposition to land alienation to foreigners 
highlights concern regarding cultural preservation, long-term security, and equitable development. 

Similarly, attitudes toward hydropower projects reveal ambivalence and a need for improved 

communication, transparency, and community engagement. In contrast, strong support for renewable 
energy indicates an opportunity to advance environmentally sustainable development pathways. 

Svaneti’s unique natural landscapes, cultural heritage, and traditional knowledge systems constitute 

major assets for its future development. However, realizing this potential requires addressing persistent 

infrastructural deficits—such as inadequate roads, limited telecommunication networks, and 
insufficient healthcare services—that constrain mobility, economic diversification, and quality of life. 

A comprehensive regional development strategy should therefore integrate local perspectives, support 

community-driven initiatives, and ensure that development interventions align with the needs, values, 
and aspirations of the population. 

Overall, the study underscores the critical importance of place-based, participatory, and multi-sectoral 

approaches for promoting sustainable development in Svaneti. Strengthening human capital, improving 
infrastructure, diversifying economic opportunities, and ensuring equitable distribution of tourism 

benefits will be essential for fostering resilience and enhancing the socio-economic well-being of this 

distinctive mountain region. 

Competing interests 

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 

Authors’ contribution 

All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis, and manuscript. 

Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank all the respondents for participating in the survey and in-depth interviews. We 

are grateful to Tbilisi State University, Institute of Geography, for funding the field trip to the Kakheti 

region, which was critical for gaining a proper understanding of the “situation on the ground”. 

ORCID iD 

Nana kvirkvelia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6722-4453 

Mariam Tsitsagi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2874-3749 

Elene Salukvadze https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1583-9525 

Tamila Chaladze https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0373-6135 

 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6722-4453
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2874-3749
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1583-9525
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0373-6135


Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

75 
 

Reference 

Bernard, H. R. (2017). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). 

Rowman & Littlefield. 

Beniston, M. (2003). Climate change in mountain regions: A review of possible impacts. Climatic Change, 

59(1–2), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024458411589 

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. 

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage 

Publications. 

Debarbieux, B., & Rudaz, G. (2015). The mountain: A political history from the Enlightenment to the present. 

University of Chicago Press. 

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2015). Mapping the vulnerability of mountain peoples to food insecurity. 

FAO. 

Gogorishvili, I., & Zarandia, E. (2021). Expansion of capacity development of local self-government in Georgia. 

Estonian Discussions on Economic Policy, 29(12). https://doi.org/10.33422/iarmea.2018.09.22 

Ivasciuc, I. S., & Ispas, A. (2023). Exploring the motivations, abilities and opportunities of young entrepreneurs 

to engage in sustainable tourism business in the mountain area. Sustainability, 15(3). 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031956 

Jodha, N. S. (2005). Adaptation strategies against growing environmental and social vulnerabilities in mountain 
areas. Mountain Research and Development, 25(1), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-

4741(2005)025[0014:ASAGEA]2.0.CO;2 

Khazaradze, R., & Salukvadze, E. (2024). The potential of the Central Caucasus passes for the development of 

mountain tourism and alpinism. Science and Technologies, 1(741), 21–30. (In Georgian). 

Khartishvili, L., Muhar, A., Dax, T., & Khelashvili, I. (2019). Rural tourism in Georgia in transition: Challenges 

for regional sustainability. Sustainability, 11(2), 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020410 

Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F., Maguire, D. J., & Rhind, D. W. (2015). Geographic information systems and 

science. John Wiley & Sons. 

MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Gutierrez Lazpita, J., & Gibon, 

A. (2000). Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and 

policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(1), 47–69. 

https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0335 

Messerli, B., & Ives, J. D. (1997). Mountains of the world: A global priority. Parthenon Publishing. 

Moretti, M., Belliggiano, A., Grando, S., Felici, F., Scotti, I., Ievoli, C., Blackstock, K., Delgado-Serrano, M. 

M., & Brunori, G. (2023). Characterizing value chains’ contribution to resilient and sustainable 

development in European mountain areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 100. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103022 

Salukvadze, E., & Chaladze, T. (2025). Main geographical factors of settlement patterns and natural resource 

use in mountain regions: The Kvemo (Lower) Svaneti (Lentekhi Municipality) case. Georgian 

Geographical Journal, 5(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.52340/ggj.2025.05.01.04 

Salukvadze, G. (2022). Geographical and sectoral aspects of the interrelationship between tourism and other 

economic sectors: The example of the mountainous regions of Georgia (Doctoral dissertation, TSU). 

NPLG Repository. 

https://dspace.nplg.gov.ge/bitstream/1234/541818/1/Saluqvadze_Gvantsa_Disertacia.pdf 

Sharia, M. (2019). Analyzing tourism influence on agricultural products’ market: A case study of the Mestia 

Municipality, Georgia. Ankara Üniversitesi Çevrebilimleri Dergisi, 7(2), 98–105. 

https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aucevrebilim/issue/51058/618269 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). A territorial approach to the 

Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis report. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en 

Pfeffer, K., Baud, I., Denis, E., Scott, D., & Sydenstricker-Neto, J. (2005). Participatory spatial knowledge 

management tools. Information, Communication & Society, 8(1), 72–100. 

Price, M. F. (2013). Mountain geography: Physical and human dimensions. University of California Press. 

Ray, C. (1998). Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 3–20. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00061 

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024458411589
https://doi.org/10.33422/iarmea.2018.09.22
https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025%5b0014:ASAGEA%5d2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2005)025%5b0014:ASAGEA%5d2.0.CO;2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103022
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aucevrebilim/issue/51058/618269


Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

76 
 

Vasadze, M., & Ositashvili, N. (2021). Socio-economic impact on sustainable mountain tourism of Georgia. 

World Science, 4(65). https://doi.org/10.31435/rsglobal_ws/30042021/7542 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2012). Mountain ecosystems. UNEP. 

https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/8693. (official UNEP publication link) 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (2019). Sustainable development in mountain regions of the 

Caucasus. UNECE. 

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications. 

 

https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/8693


Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

77 
 

Appendix A: Residential status (left), Percentage distribution of respondents who have a family 

member in emigration (right) 

  

Appendix B: Knowledge of foreign language 

 

Appendix C: Employment 

 

Appendix D: Privatized residential area 

66%

34%
Permanent

Seasonal

26%

74%

Yes

No

24%

10%

46%

20%

English

German

Russian

non

39%

18%

25%

11%

3% 4%

Public Sector

Private Sector

Farmer

Housewife

Unemployed

Student



Kvirkvelia et al. 2025 5(3) 

78 
 

 

Appendix E: Attitude towards tourism development in the region (left); Benefits from the tourist 

(right) 

  

Appendix F: Number of hotels 

Municipality Number of hotels 

Lentekhi 4 

Mestia 178 

sum 182 

 

3%

88%

3%
6%

Positive

Negative

Do not know

Refrain from answering

86%

8%6% Positive

Negative

Do not know

31%

69%

Yes

No


