Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 330 Georgian Scientists Vol. 6 Issue 4, 2024 https://doi.org/10.52340/gs.2024.06.04.28 ( ) 1; 2; 3 1 , Nargiza.karkashadze@atsu.edu.ge; 2 , Jambul.bitsadze@atsu.edu.ge; 3 , Shura.ukleba@atsu.edu.ge , , . , . , , 73,7% , . 66,7% , , 26,3% , . , 68,4% , 21,1% , . , , , , . , , , : ( , ) ; Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 331 , ; ; ; ; . , , , , , . : , , . . , , . , , . , , , , . , , , . . . . , , Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 332 , , [1]. . , , . , [2]. 17 169 , . 17 11 , [3]. 4 , : N – : , , , , , , , , , . E - : , , , , , . S- : , , , , , . W- : , , , , , , [4]. , , , ( ) . – , , . . : • ; • ; • ; • ; • [5]. , . Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 333 [ . 1]. 1. 15 ( ) ( ) – 2015 217,1 87,4 84,0 1034,1 11,7 24,3 33,7 2016 223,0 84,1 81,5 1085,9 2045 29,5 43,1 2017 196,0 73,3 77, 1057,9 28,4 41,95 60,6 2018 198, 9 83,4 76,5 1100,9 28,8 49,5 47,0 2019 208,0 90,2 89,2 1192,7 30,4 40,8 41,5 2020 180,2 90,6 70,3 1040,5 12,8 13,5 19,1 2021 241,9 119,4 93,3 1415,5 – – – 2022 230,9 126,1 92,8 1364,3 28,9 22,3 29,4 2023 342,6 132,8 106,3 1608,5 39,1 28,2 40,9 : https://www.geostat.ge/ka/modules/categories/93/regionuli-statistik [ . 2] ). 2. ( ) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 259092, 57806,8 25616,4 45442,3 – 2999,9 2419,6 19934,2 20739,6 553,8 1084,5 301,6 1649,4 168,9 900,4 17,3 894,5 Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 334 17542,5 3421,7 12437,3 –8237,7 2290,7 – 4795,2 1246,2 869,9 9681,5 , , , , . . , [ . 3]. 3. 2023 10 , : : Kutaisi Inn 5 : Best Western Kutaisi : Grand Opera Hotel : Hotel Terrace Kutaisi : Newport Hotel Kutaisi : Hotel Memoire Kutaisi : Solomon : Hotel Green Town : Sanapiro Hotel : Belona Hotel [5]. , , . [ . 4] ( ). 4. ( ) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 146,4 154,7 169,9 203,4 266,1 73,8 144,1 225,9 96,1 148,3 162,0 184 209,8 143,6 473,2 402,3 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 115 127 134 148 172 105 185 215 101 115 120 120 122 77 176 402,3 Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 335 , , . , : • ; • ( , ); • ; • . , , , , , , . . ( ) ( . 5) ) 6- 2015-2019 , , , , . 5. ( ) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 11,7 20,45 28,4 28,8 30,4 12,8 – 28,9 39,1 24,3 29,5 41,95 49,5 40,8 13,5 – 22,3 28,2 – 33,7 43,1 43,1 47,0 41,5 19,1 – 29,4 40,9 6. 15 , 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 36,8 35,8 38,0 39,7 40,7 11,7 12,6 24,6 30,5 99,3 96,0 107,3 105,7 113,8 21,7 13,7 61,9 80,2 Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 336 96,3 89,7 108,5 118,7 127,2 24,6 6,9 12,7 16,7 63,6 70,8 94,6 117,1 122,6 17,4 17,7 90,6 118,2 89,5 82,4 83,9 91,5 96,4 28,0 27,2 77,1 116,4 10,6 12,6 14,2 14,8 17,3 3,5 12,1 14,1 12,2 1,8 10,8 23,5 24,3 11,8 1,4 1,5 8,6 10,5 4,6 7,1 9,6 13,1 17,1 2,1 8,4 17,5 18,1 17,8 19,1 23,6 32,1 40,4 5,4 10,9 21,0 32,6 17,6 25,1 37,1 43,3 56,5 10,2 32,3 63,9 78,9 438,0 449,4 540,2 600,3 643,8 126,1 143,4 392,0 514,3 :https://www.geostat.ge/ka/modules/categories/102/utskhoel-vizitorta-statistika , , . , , , , , , . , . 85 , 52,6%, 47,4%. : 20 -26,3%, 20-25 -36,8%, 26- 35 -5,3%, 36-45 -5,3%, 46-55 -10,5%, 56-75 -15,8%. , : -68,4%, -21,1%, -10, 5%. . , Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 337 . -57,9% , 31, 6% . - , , . (94,7%), - 15,8%, 36,8%. 5,3%. . , , 94,4% , 5,6% . , -68,4%, -26,3%, , - 15,8%. -5,3%. , , . , , , , , 42,1% , -26,3%, 31, 6% [ 1}. . , , . , -73,7%- , -15,8%, -10,5%- . Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 338 1. . , , : -66,7%, -22,2%, -11,1%. , , , , . , , , : - 73,7%, -52,6%, -47,4% -42,1% ( 2). 32% 42% 26% , , ? 29% 21% 16% 18% 16% , , ? Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 339 2. . , , : , , . . , , : ( , ) ; , ; ; ; ; . : ; , , , . , . , , , , , . Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 340 1. https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%9B%E1%83%93%E1%83%92%E1%83%A0%E1% 83%90%E1%83%93%E1%83%98_%E1%83%92%E1%83%90%E1%83%9C%E1%83%95% E1%83%98%E1%83%97%E1%83%90%E1%83%A0%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83% 90 2. https://georgia.un.org/ka/sdgs/1 3. https://www.unicef.org/georgia/ka/%E1%83%9B%E1%83%93%E1%83%92%E1%83%A0 %E1%83%90%E1%83%93%E1%83%98- %E1%83%92%E1%83%90%E1%83%9C%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%97%E1%83 %90%E1%83%A0%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83%98%E1%83%A1- %E1%83%9B%E1%83%98%E1%83%96%E1%83%9C%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83 %98 4. https://www.slideshare.net/MarikaRekhviashvili1/pdf-255821819 5. https://www.ipovesastumro.ge/ka/sastumroebi/kutaisi/ 6. https://sendpulse.com/ru/support/glossary/territorial-marketing 7. https://www.geostat.ge/ka/modules/categories/93/regionuli-statistika 8. http://www.concordtravel.ge/portal/alias__concordtravel/lang__ka- ge/tabid__1373/default.aspx 9. https://www.geostat.ge/ka/modules/categories/102/utskhoel-vizitorta-statistika 10. https://www.geostat.ge/ka/modules/categories/93/regionuli-statistik About the use and perspectives of place marketing in the development of Imereti tourism (on the example of the city of Kutaisi) Nargiza Karkashadze1; Jambul Bitsadze2; Shura Ukleba3 1Akaki Tsereteli State University associate professor; 2Akaki of Tsereteli State University associate professor, 3Akaki Tsereteli State University invited specialist Abstract The main purpose of the article was to study the role of territorial marketing in the development of the tourism potential of the Imereti region, namely the city of Kutaisi, which will ultimately contribute to the sustainable development of the city. The article also talks about the importance and goals of sustainable development of the region and the city, in which regional development policy occupies a large place. According to the results of the analysis of the study, the purpose of which was to study the role of territorial marketing in the development of the tourism potential of the city of Kutaisi, 73.7% of respondents believe that the development of cultural tourism will be most beneficial for Kutaisi. At the Georgian Scientists/ . 6 N 3, 2024 341 same time, 66.7% of place respondents believe that the main object of place marketing should be both the domestic and city markets, since 26.3% of the local population have not visited the most interesting and attractive places. so this allows us to increase the number of visitors in the domestic market. It is also important to note the fact that 68.4% of respondents consider the level of development to be average, and 21.1% consider it low, which is reflected in the insufficient activity of information centers. There are also no advertisements for attractions that would allow potential visitors to visit these places. Finally, in the article we focused on the problems that hinder the development of tourism in the Imereti region, namely in Kutaisi, namely: The infrastructure of the Imereti region (roads, hotels, etc.) does not meet international standards in the field of tourism; Sufficient investments have not been made in this area, which will contribute to greater representation and development of tourism sites; The level of guide service is low; Transport is disorderly; Finances are distributed incorrectly; There is no due attention from the leadership of the region and the city. In our opinion, taking into account and adjusting all of the above, it will be possible to further develop the tourism potential of the Imereti region, namely the city of Kutaisi, which will significantly affect the number of visitors and ultimately improve the economic situation of the city. , which will make the city more sustainable. Keywords: sustainable development, place marketing, tourist attraction.