Rural tourism and livelihood strategies in Romania

Monica Iorio
*
, Andrea Corsale
Department of Economic and Social Research, University of Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
Keywords:
Romania
Rural tourism
Guesthouses
Development
Livelihood strategies
a b s t r a c t
Substantial changes in the Romanian countryside accompanied by the need for more robust economic
activities have caused some families to turn to tourism as an economic diversication strategy. A qual-
itative study of selected rural tourism entrepreneurs indicates positive experiences, both economically
and in other aspects of their lives. However, the development of rural tourism is highly uneven spatially
and the Romanian Government should act more incisively to support families establishing guesthouses.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Romania is still a largely rural country. In 2007 the percentage of
rural population still reached 45% of the total (Institutul Nat xional de
Statistica, 2008), a strikingly high level that clearly differentiates
Romania from the rest of the European Union (24%) and suggests
the survival of a lively system of villages and small towns that
continues to play a major role in the socio-economic and cultural
life of the country.
Romanias rural characteristics consolidated after the end of
Nicolae Ceaus escus regime, in 1989. The difcult transition from
a planned to a market economy caused the decline of the formerly
dominant industrial sector, whose labour force was only partially
absorbed by the services sector. As a result, many unemployed
workers had to return to an agricultural life (Biertel and Turnock,
2007). This phenomenon, in combination with the deep social
changes caused by the ongoing land restitution process, produced
a new agrarisation of society (Benedek, 2000: 42). Hence, agri-
culture is a key sector in Romania, accounting for about 32% of
employment (approximately 70% in rural areas), 12% of GDP and
9% of exports (Institutul Nat xional de Statistic a INS, 2006).
However, in spite of the central role played by this sector in the
economic life of the country, productivity is generally very low, as
indicated by the labour to land ratio of 63 Annual Work Units/
100 ha (UE average 5 AWU/100 ha), and the negative trade balance
in agro-food products that continues to widen (V1.3 billion in
2005).
According to Gertrud et al. (1999), the key characteristic of
Romanian farming is its dual structure, with the coexistence of
a small number of large entities, mostly commercial farms (18,263
averaging 269 ha, accounting for 34.5% of total utilized agricultural
area UAA) and a considerable number of individual farms, mostly
subsistence and semi-subsistence holdings (4,121,247, average size
2.15 ha, accounting for 65.5% of UAA). Less than 0.5% of holdings
account for more than one third of UAA, with the remaining 99.5%
accounting for two thirds of UAA. Around 3 million holdings,
covering approximately 30% of total agricultural land, have clear
subsistence features. In some types of farming, such as vegetable
production, the contribution of subsistence agriculture reaches
90%.
The rural areas of the country are characterized by a highly
dispersed population. Romania has about 13,000 separate villages,
a number that increases when considering smaller hamlets, which
developed over the centuries in relation to local agricultural
potential (Biertel and Turnock, 2007). A traditional socio-economic
structure largely survived through the communist time, when the
government strengthened and emphasised top-down central
planning and introduced a new farming system through large co-
operatives and state farms. During the 1980s, Ceaus escus siste-
matizare plan turned into a highly controversial project aiming at
radically eliminating up to 8000 villages in order to create stronger
district units based on coordinating rural towns, but the fall of the
regime stopped the project at its very early stages.
The quality of life in rural areas is generally poor. Currently, only
33% of rural residents are connected to a water supply network, only
10%toa sewerage systemandonly 10%of rural roads are of adequate
standard (Institutul Nat xional de Statistica, 2008). Basic social
infrastructure (health and education systems, nance and credit
provision, etc.) is also much less developed than in urban areas.
These factors hamper economic development, increase out-migra-
tion and exacerbate sanitary and environmental problems.
A quickly improving economic situation, with GDP growing at
the yearly average rate of 8%, and predominantly optimistic views
on the foreseeable future of the country, are currently not able to
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 70 675 3678; fax: 39 70 675 3670.
E-mail addresses: iorio@unica.it (M. Iorio), acorsale@unica.it (A. Corsale).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Rural Studies
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ j rurst ud
0743-0167/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.10.006
Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162
constrain mass emigration, although the consequences of the
current nancial crisis are difcult to estimate, and Romania is still
struggling to recover from the severe economic crisis of the 1980s
and 1990s. During the late years of Nicolae Ceaus escus rule,
declining standards of living, in a context of dramatic recession and
rampant nationalism, caused an emigration phenomenon that
heavily hit the historically largest ethnic minorities located in
Transylvania (Hungarians and Germans) and further shrank the
rapidly dwindling Jewish communities concentrated in the main
urban areas.
After the re-establishment of democracy and a market economy
in the early 1990s, the loss of population accelerated and is still
going on, currently involving all of the countrys ethnic groups,
notably the Romanian majority, the strong Hungarian minority, the
partially nomadic Roma community and the declining German
population (Axmann, 1998; Bauer and Zimmermann, 1997; Postma,
1995; Sandu, 2005).
The 2002 census showed the extent of the emigration process
that is touching the Romanian people during the current transition
period, causing, for the rst time in the countrys modern history,
a signicant population decrease mainly determined by sponta-
neous labour migration towards Italy, Spain and other Western
countries. Low fertility rates, caused by the economic crisis of the
1980s and 1990s, have been further reduced by emigration of
young families resulting in a serious demographic unbalance.
Emigration and urbanization, both temporary and permanent,
have become widespread survival strategies for a population that is
only starting to savour the long-awaited welfare commonly asso-
ciated with the Western World, and the entrance in the European
Union, in 2007, has created an unprecedented opportunity to move
freely to the other member states. Italy, in particular, has been
chosen as a destination by over 1 million Romanians, according to
the Italian Governments ofcial estimations as of January 2009
(Ministero dellInterno Italia, 2009).
Considering the remarkably high share of subsistence agricul-
ture, rural diversication in Romania has become a political priority
at all administrative levels (Biertel and Turnock, 2007). This aimhas
been pursued through farmland redistribution and creation of
larger, more viable holdings, and also through the European
Unions SAPARD programme (Special Accession Programme for
Agriculture and Rural Development), focusing on rural infrastruc-
ture, farm modernisation, increase in food processing capacity and
development of rural tourism (Biertel and Turnock, 2007; Minis-
terul pentru I

ntreprinderi Mici s i Mijlocii, Comert x, Turisms i Profesii

Liberale, 2006; Turnock, 2002). The development of rural tourism,
in particular, is expected to play an important role in the revitali-
zation of rural areas, in line with common beliefs and practices in
several other European countries (Hall, 2004). High expectations
related to the creation of new local development opportunities,
offering an alternative to emigration and urbanization, embrace job
creation, income growth, productive specialization, infrastructure
development and cultural heritage protection.
In spite of the importance generally accorded to rural tourism as
a major agent of local development, there is still widespread
uncertainty about the economic impacts on rural communities in
terms of livelihood enhancement. From an academic perspective,
while a large number of general studies on Romanian rural tourism
have appeared both in national and international literature (Ben-
edek and Dezsi, 2004; Dezsi, 1999; Cipollari, 2005; Hall, 2004;
Mitrache and Manole, 1996; Turnock, 1990, 1999, 2002; Vaetisi,
2006), the links between tourism and livelihood strategies in local
communities have yet to be investigated thoroughly. Accordingly,
this study explores how rural communities can enhance their
livelihoods by becoming involved in tourism through documenta-
tion of the experiences of some families that host tourists in their
homes. The strategies that they have adopted to achieve a better
standard of living will be highlighted.
2. Rural tourism as a tool for family enterprises and
development of rural areas
Tourism has long been considered as a potential means for
socio-economic development and regeneration of rural areas, in
particular those affected by the decline of traditional agrarian
activities. Peripheral rural areas are also considered to be reposi-
tories of older ways of life and cultures that respond to the post-
modern tourists quest for authenticity (Urry, 2002). Thus, the
encouragement for rural tourism has become a common policy
both in developed countries (Ca` noves et al., 2004; Hall and Jenkins,
1998; Long and Lane, 2000; MacDonald and Jolliffe, 2003; OECD,
1994) and in developing ones (Briedenhann and Wickens, 2004;
Hall, 2004; Kinsley, 2000).
This increasing support for rural tourism is based upon
a number of perceived benets it potentially provides to rural areas.
According to Roberts and Hall (2001) and Hall et al. (2004), benets
can be summarized as follows:
the economic growth, diversication and stabilisation through
employment creation in tourism business;
the provision of supplementary income in farming, craft and
service sector;
the opportunity to realize the economic value of specic,
quality-based production of food products, as well as of unused
and abandoned buildings;
the increment in social contacts, especially in breaking down
the isolation of the most remote areas and social groups;
the opportunity to re-evaluate the heritage and its symbols, the
environment and the identity.
It has been observed that rural tourism offers many opportuni-
ties to family enterprises. Due to the difculties that the agricultural
sector is currently undergoing, many family farms have to look for
newways to survive and one solution is to host tourists in the family
property. According to Barbieri and Mshenga (2008), Nilson (2002),
Ventura and Milone (2000), this kind of enterprises can bring
several economic benets, including increased farm gross income
(when the family owns the farm), the generation of cash ow and
the creation of employment opportunities for family members.
However, there are a number of widespread weaknesses which
can affect the business and reduce the stimulus for rural develop-
ment. Lack of professionalism is a frequent complaint addressed at
family businesses. Lowentry barriers in rural tourism might attract
people with no relevant training or education, which can seriously
limit their potential to grow or prosper (Getz et al., 2004).
Furthermore, many family do not want to increase their business
beyond the subsistence level and therefore will not create signi-
cant job opportunities. Another concern is the relatively wide-
spread lack of innovation spirit.
Following this approach, a number of studies have highlighted
that various factors may hamper the achievement of rural
economic diversication and growth through tourism (Fleischer
and Felsenstein, 2000; Gannon, 1994; Lachov et al., 2006; Roberts
and Hall, 2001; Sharpley and Sharpley, 2002). In particular, it has
been found that:
inward investment, new rm creation and employment
generation may be limited, owing to the small scale and
dispersed nature of the sector which supplies, moreover,
a highly seasonal market. As a result, returns on investments
tend to be low;
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 153
developing and organising rural tourism may require a signi-
cant investment either beyond the means of the business
owner or greater than justied by potential returns;
individual rural tourism enterprises normally possess neither
the skills nor the resources for effective marketing, a prerequi-
site for success;
not all rural areas are equally attractive to rural tourists and
simply providing accommodation facilities does not guarantee
demand.
These challenges are not present always and everywhere.
However, they suggest that the notion that tourism can make an
important contribution to rural incomes must be treated with
caution and that, in order to strengthen the potential benets of
rural tourism, government subsides and policy implementation
may be required.
There are a number of studies revealing that rural tourism
provided economic and social benets in various rural areas in
Europe and elsewhere. In relation to Spain, for instance, Ca` noves
et al. (2004), Paniagua (2002) and Yagu e (2002) pointed out that,
over the last two decades, rural tourism contributed to mitigate
emigration fromrural areas and generated benets diversifying the
economy, through the cultural exchange which developed between
urban and rural areas, and by adding new value to rural life.
Fleischer and Pizam (1997) highlighted that rural tourism
contributed to supplement the declining incomes of kibbutzim
agricultural co-operative settlements in Israel.
Gale (2006) pointed out that rural tourism enterprises provided
new sources of income for families living in a remote rural area of
Chile. Similarly, Petric (2003) reported that rural tourism was as
a source of implementation for agriculture in Croatia.
Of course, the extent to which tourism effectively contributes to
rural development and regeneration can not be generalized, rather,
it has to be evaluated case by case. Moreover, the shape of the
balance will mostly depend on the scale adopted to measure
the results national, regional or local and above all on the
perspective espoused rural tourism as a panacea to solve the
problems of rural areas or, rather, as a simple means to diversify
the sources of livelihood for people living in rural areas.
3. Rural tourism as an emerging sector in Romania
The survival of a culturally diverse and lively rural society is
turning Romania into an attractive destination for the growing
number of tourists interested in cultural and natural heritage
(Light, 2000). As one of the very last surviving remnants of old
Europe, the Romanian countryside has great potential to attract
a consistent ow of visitors that could provide additional incomes
to local people while, at the same time, encouraging them to
maintain their traditional lifestyles and to hold on to their roots,
avoiding the temptations of urbanization and emigration. The
presence of several sites included in the UNESCO World Heritage
List (the Danube Delta, the Fortied Lutheran Churches of Tran-
sylvania, the Brancovenesc Monastery of Horezu, the Painted
Churches of northern Moldavia and Bukovina, the Fortied Historic
Centre of Sighis oara, the Wooden Churches of the Maramures
Region and the Dacian Fortresses of the Or as tie Mountains) and the
establishment of a large network of protected areas (13 national
parks, 13 natural parks, 617 natural reserves, 234 natural monu-
ments, 55 scientic reserves, three biosphere reserves and one
large Ramsar site in the Danube Delta), covering 7.1% of the national
surface, further strengthens the potential attractiveness of the
country.
In spite of its potentialities, Romania as a whole is still a minor
destination in the European context, with 6.7 million domestic
tourists and 6.0 million foreign visitors in 2006, many of which
came from Moldova (24.7%) and Hungary (22.6%), and were former
migrants or people visiting friends and relatives (Ministerul pentru
I

ntreprinderi Mici s i Mijlocii, Comert x, Turism s i Profesii Liberale,

2006).
The geographical distribution of tourist infrastructures and
activities is unbalanced, with clear predomination of seaside
tourism, concentrated on 70 km of beaches between N avodari and
Vama Veche, and mountain tourism, concentrated in south-eastern
Carpathians, particularly in the area of Bran, Predeal and Sinaia
(Dezsi, 1997; Light and Andone, 1996; Light and Dumbraveanu,
1999), in the southern Carpathians. Spa tourism is more widely
scattered in several Transylvanian locations, while most foreign
cultural tourists follow a heavily standardized tour that touches
either the monasteries of Bukovina or a few destinations arbitrarily
connected with the ctional myth of Dracula (Constantin, 2000;
Cosma, 2004; Jamal and T anase, 2005; Light, 2007).
Considerable numbers of German tourists with links to the large
Saxon and Swabian communities that once lived in Transylvania,
Banat and Bukovina, are often hosted by elderly relatives or friends
that chose not to leave the former German villages and towns.
Many of them have even kept ownership of the houses and
apartments that they left hastily in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Ancestry research and pure nostalgia for the once thriving Jewish
communities scattered all over Romania also attract many visitors
from Israel and the United States, with a concentration in Tran-
sylvania, Maramures , Bukovina and Moldavia, where Jews used to
form a large proportion of the population. Similar dynamics can be
observed for Hungarian tourists, whose reason for travelling is
either to visit relatives, friends and properties or the attraction of
the huge Hungarian cultural and ethnographic heritage scattered in
Transylvania and the Banat.
If nostalgia tourism is excluded, rural tourism in Romania is
still weak and far from being an effective alternative to emigration
and urbanization (Benedek and Dezsi, 2004; Biertel and Turnock,
2007). The main reasons for this ongoing unsatisfactory situation
are relatively poor transportation and communication infrastruc-
tures, weakness of effective systemic planning and generally
insufcient collaboration between stakeholders at the national and
local levels, resulting in a highly fragmented offer that does not
seemable to reach international markets, considering the generally
poor level of training of tourist operators and the scarce knowledge
of foreign languages that still affects the tourist sector in Romania.
In several cases, particularly in Maramures , poor planning and
training and scarce knowledge of market trends have led to the
demolition of traditional houses and farms that have been replaced
by modern structures, according to the widespread but arguable
idea that they would more easily meet the high expectations of
foreign visitors. The growing preference for international tourist
destinations rather than domestic ones, among many Romanians, is
another critical factor (M ah ara and Ilies , 2001; Light, 2000, 2001).
Despite these weaknesses, the sector shows growing vitality.
According to the latest data available (2006), provided by the INS,
the rural tourism sector had 1259 registered structures with 14,551
beds (up from240 structures and 3544 beds in 2000). In 2006 these
structures registered 217,000 guests (199,000 nationals and 18,000
foreigners) and 459,000 overnight stays (410,000 from national
guests and 49,000 from foreign guests). These numbers, albeit
relatively modest, show a remarkable increase compared to the
year 2000, when rural structures hosted approximately 26,000
guests (3000 foreigners) and 65,000 overnight stays (11,000 from
foreigners). However, the geographical distribution was extremely
unbalanced, with a clear concentration in mountain areas and near
major cultural attractions. The counties of Harghita (283 struc-
tures), Bras ov (193), Suceava (108), Cluj (91), Maramures (87), Arges
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 154
(65), Neamt x (48) and Sibiu (46) have emerged as the main desti-
nations, while several counties showed none or only one registered
rural accommodation structure (Botos ani, Braila, C alaras i, Dolj,
Galat xi, Ialomit xa, Mehedint xi, Olt and Teleorman), in spite of their
rich ethnographic heritage that is celebrated in many Romanian
songs and poems. The case of the mountainous county of Bistrit xa
Nas aud, where Bram Stokers Dracula novel was set and where
a relevant and diverse natural and cultural heritage can be found,
clearly shows the weakness of the sector, as only two structures
were registered in the whole area (Fig. 1).
In order to encourage rural tourism, the national government
concedes signicant tax reductions to rural accommodation
structures, which are ofcially classied into two categories:
Tourist pensions (pensiuni turistice), with a maximum of 10
rooms and 30 beds, with a comfort classication that ranges
from a minimum of one daisy to a maximum of four daisies;
Agro-tourist pensions (pensiuni agroturistice), with the same
size limit, which are obliged to provide at least a part of meals
from their own production, with a comfort classication that
ranges from a minimum of one daisy to a maximum of three
daisies.
Rural tourism structures are organized in several national
associations, such as ANTREC (Asociat xia Natxional a de Turism Rural,
Ecologic s i Cultural National Association of Rural, Ecological and
Cultural Tourism), Ret xeaua Verde (Green Network) and FRDM
(Federatxia Romana pentru Dezvoltare Mon-tan a Romanian
Federation for Mountain Development), which mostly work as
catalogues of guesthouses but have sometimes had a more active
role, especially within the PHARE, ISPA and SAPARD development
programmes of the European Union (Turnock, 1990, 1999).
Several international co-operation projects (Operation Villages
Roumains, Mihai Eminescu Fund, Arbre de Joie), mainly based in
France, Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom, have produced signicant positive impacts on several
rural communities that have opted for a systemic approach towards
local development.
The largest association, ANTREC, founded in 1994, includes 684
members out of 956 existing structures (2008). The remaining rural
accommodation structures, which are not members of ANTREC,
generally face greater difculties in accessing the national and
international tourist market, although several examples of partic-
ularly active independent guesthouses have been observed in
several counties, such as in Suceava and Maramures , which are
already well-known for their cultural and natural resources (Botez
and Lupu, 1998; Turnock, 1990, 1999, 2002).
The historical regions of Transylvania, Maramures and Bukovina,
together with the greater Carpathian Range, have attracted the rst
and strongest examples of rural tourism development in Romania,
while the southern and eastern regions of Oltenia, Wallachia and
Moldavia still play a very marginal role in this eld, in spite of their
potentials, and Dobruja is currently more oriented towards seaside
tourism (Ambrus, 2007; Benedek and Dezsi, 2004; Biertel and
Turnock, 2007). Within Greater Transylvania, often including the
Maramures , Cris ana and Banat regions, only a fewareas are actually
involved in signicant growth of rural tourism(Biertel and Turnock,
2007; Cipollari, 2005; Gebhard and Ebhard, 2006; Vaetisi, 2006).
These areas are:
the Marginimea Sibiului area, south and south-west of Sibiu;
the Apuseni Mountains area;
the Carpathian Mountains south of Bras ov, notably in the area
of Bran and Moieciu;
the Saxon villages and towns between Medias , Sighis oara and
Bras ov;
the spas of Covasna, Harghita, Mures , Bihor and Caras -Severin
counties;
the wooden villages of Maramures .
Mountains, spas and major cultural sites underpin most of this
new development, while most of the territory, which is mainly
characterized by plateaux and hilly areas, including the vast
Fig. 1. Distribution of rural accommodation structures in Romania by county. Source: authors elaboration on INS data (2006).
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 155
majority of villages and towns, have not become involved in rural
tourism. The rural areas of the Arad, Hunedoara, S alaj, Satu Mare
and Timis counties, together with most of Bihor countys territory,
have seen little such development as well. Even in Bukovina, where
cultural tourism prevails, a similar phenomenon can be observed,
with rural tourism being concentrated in a few villages and towns
located in proximity to the largest monasteries, while the rest of the
territory is still largely undeveloped for tourism.
The regions which have experienced these early stages of rural
tourist development are the ones whose cultural and natural
heritage has reached the international audience, while the areas
that lack any signicant rural tourist activities also lack widespread
recognition of the value of their own heritage. This means that the
best conditions for local development are met when rural tourism
interacts and overlaps cultural and nature tourism, which proves
the importance of integrated marketing and adequate promotion of
heritage, through local, national or international initiatives.
4. Study methodology
As Frochot (2005) pointed out, rural tourism is a versatile and
multi-faceted concept which implies the necessity to dene what is
meant by rural tourism when studies and reections on this topic
are to be made.
In the context of the present study, rural tourism has been
investigated on the supply side, analysing families living in rural
areas who provided accommodation for tourists in their homes.
The aim of the study has been to provide insights on how
families living in Romanian rural villages might enhance their
livelihood through tourism. In order to achieve this goal, the
concept of Tourism as a Sustainable Livelihood Strategy, as it was
proposed and discussed by Wall and Mathieson (2006) and by Tao
and Wall (2009), was partially used. This concept acknowledges
that, particularly in poor communities, people earn their liveli-
hoods through multiple activities rather than one formal job. Thus,
a livelihood includes the capabilities, assets and activities that are
required to make a living. In such a way, the focus is directed
toward the ways in which local people can seek to meet basic and
ongoing needs for food and shelter, as well as security and dignity,
through meaningful work. The approach inherently reveals the
multi-sectoral character of real life, so that development work is
better able to address actual problems as they exist at the village
level. According to Tao and Wall (2009: 91),
tourism may be a new and sustainable activity in a community
[.] it can be incorporated into the existing mix of livelihood
strategies [.], thus providing livelihood diversication and
enriching the means by which people may be sustained. Such
diversication can have many advantages and tourism can
become a tool to enable accumulation of income for consump-
tion and investment [.] and an adaptive response to possible
longer-term declines in incomes or entitlements, due to
economic and environmental changes beyond local control.
Following this approach, the present study assumed that
tourismcould provide Romanian rural families with an income that
was complementary to the agricultural one and could help them to
adjust to the major socio-economic changes caused by the transi-
tion froma planned to a market economy. The research was carried
out as an investigation to understand how rural families that host
tourists in their homes perceive tourism as a means of livelihood
and to identify problems and challenges that may affect the success
of their enterprise.
The greatest attention was devoted to listening to the families
voices. Thus, a qualitative method was adopted and data collection
incorporated all three sources of data recognized in qualitative
research: interviews in Romanian language, observations and
consultation of secondary sources (Merriam, 2002; Patton, 2002).
In particular, in-depth interviews with local families involved in
tourismwere made. For each family, the member in charge of guest
reception was interviewed. Other useful data were collected
through informal interviews with local administrators, village
residents and other national and international guests.
Field research was undertaken over 7 weeks between July and
August 2007 in six different villages in Transylvania, Maramures
and Bukovina. A total of six in-depth interviews was collected (one
interview per village visited). The limited number of case studies
reected the purpose of the research, which aimed at sharing times
and spaces with local families and spending much time listening to
their stories and experiences. The authors stayed about 1 week as
guests of a household in each village. The families were chosen for
their leading role in rural tourismdevelopment in each village. This
approach provided the authors with the opportunity to be, at the
same time, researchers, observers and tourists and to engage with
family members and other tourists hosted at the times and places.
The two authors were able to share and discuss their observations
and interpretations throughout the period of eld investigation and
afterwards.
Interviews were semi-structured and mainly focused on the
following questions, accordingly to the research goals:
1. Why did you decide to host tourists in your home?
2. Do you perceive your experience as successful?
3. Do you think that hosting tourists enriches your life?
4. What do you think about the future development of rural
tourism in your village?
Responses were recorded and noted down. The information
obtained was edited to remove redundancies and organized
beyond its raw state.
Interviews, casual conversations and direct observations
obtained while staying with tourism operators provided greater
insights that would have been possible froma questionnaire survey
and yielded sufcient information to address the research goals.
Although the sample size is small, the same general themes
emerged across widely-separated study sites, suggesting much
commonality in hosts motivations and experiences.
The nal phase of data analysis involved a structured exami-
nation of the original research questions, rst across each family-
case and then across the aggregate group, in order to uncover
patterns and disparities among the six cases.
Prior to entering the eld, a wide range of secondary sources
were consulted. A review of literature on rural tourism, part of
which has been indicated above, was undertaken to provide
a broad academic context for the research, alerting the authors to
the opportunities and experiences with rural tourism that had
occurred elsewhere. Also, literature on rural issues and tourism in
Romania was consulted, some of which has been mentioned above,
in order to better place the study in its geographical setting.
5. Study areas and main ndings
As already mentioned, eld research was undertaken in six
villages which were chosen because of their pioneering role in the
development of rural tourism in Romania. They were (Fig. 2):
Bran (Ger.: To rzburg, Hung.: To rcsva r), a predominantly
Romanian-speaking village in the Carpathians, south-west of
the medieval town of Bras ov, in south-eastern Transylvania
(County: Bras ov), famous for its medieval castle, arbitrarily
connected with the myth of Dracula, for its mountain
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 156
landscapes and for proximity to the Piatra Craiului National Park
and to several major mountain resorts;
Miclos oara (Hung.: Miklo sva r), a predominantly Hungarian-
speaking village in central-eastern Transylvania (County:
Covasna), famous for its quiet atmosphere and for its Renais-
sance manor;
Sibiel (Ger.: Budenbach, Hung.: Szibiel), a predominantly
Romanian-speaking village south-west of the medieval town of
Sibiu, in southern Transylvania (County: Sibiu), famous for its
traditional architecture and for its unique museumof Orthodox
icons painted on glass;
Sucevit xa (Ger.: Furstenthal), a predominantly Romanian-
speaking village in south-western Bukovina (County: Suceava),
famous for its fortied painted Orthodox monastery;
Vadu Izei (Hung.: Farkasre v, Ger.: Wolfsberg), a predominantly
Romanian-speaking village in eastern Maramures (County:
Maramures ), famous for its pristine environment and for its
traditional wooden architecture;
Viscri (Ger.: Deutschweisskirch, Hung.: Sza szfehe regyha za),
a Romanian, Roma and German-speaking village south-east of
Sighis oara, in central Transylvania (County: Bras ov), famous for
its typical Saxon architecture and for its medieval fortied
Lutheran church (UNESCO World Heritage).
All six villages have been heavily affected by emigration over the
past 20 years, having Romanian urban areas and Western European
countries as main destinations. Their sizes ranged from 450
inhabitants in Viscri to 5300 in Bran. These villages have largely
preserved their high-value cultural and natural heritage. They are
all located near UNESCO World Heritage sites (Fortied Churches,
Wooden Churches, Painted Churches, Historic Centre of Sighis oara)
and larger arts towns (Sibiu, Bras ov), which favours their tourist
development as an integrated combination between rural, cultural
and nature tourism.
The vast majority of the households living in these villages are
involved in agriculture (cereals, vegetables, fruits, cattle, honey),
with a signicant share of subsistence activities. Other income
sources include public administration, casual labour and
migrants remittances. Construction, housekeeping and home
care working are some of the most common activities among the
considerable number of local inhabitants who emigrated abroad,
mainly to Italy, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Greece and the United
Kingdom.
The opening of various forms of family-managed guesthouses,
either formal or informal, emerged as a strategy to earn incomes
that can contribute to the family livelihood. The traditional way of
life of the local communities does not seem to be altered by the
tourists who share spaces, times and meals with their hosts. The
old world atmosphere of these settlements, the generally pristine
environment, the search for authentic rurality, the interest in
cultural and natural heritage and the wish to observe and get in
touch with the local people appear to be the main reasons for
visiting these villages. As Cipollari (2005) pointed out, and as the
authors had the opportunity to experience, tourists hosted in local
peoples houses feel like they are part of family life and the village
community and enjoy an atmosphere that is rustic and comfortable
at the same time.
The guests came from various European countries (particularly
France and Germany) and mainly arrived as independent tourists.
In fact, in most cases, families held multilingual websites, or web
pages within larger tourist networks, that provided essential
information. A growing number of families of Romanian,
Hungarian and German ethnicity are thus developing signicant
skills in organising rural accommodation and complementary
activities, often learning from their former work experience in
Western Europe. Families of Roma ethnicity, instead, seemed to
encounter serious difculties in entering rural business, even in
the villages where they form a growing percentage or even the
Fig. 2. Location of case studies. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Physical_map_of_Romania.jpg, modied.
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 157
majority of the population. The socio-economic development gap
between the Roma people and the Romanian, Hungarian and
German communities may widen even further (Braham, 1992;
Clarck, 1998; Culic, 2000).
As previously indicated, the research was accomplished through
the analysis of the experiences of six families living in these villages
(as already explained, one family per village), all of them autono-
mously involved in rural tourism, who were chosen for their
historical pioneering role in their respective communities. The
basic features of the observed families are reported in Table 1.
Among the interviewed people, there were four females and
two males and their ages ranged from 40 to 66 years. Thus, women
appeared to be particularly active in this kind of venture, which
demonstrated, as already observed in related international litera-
ture (Ruspini and DellAgnese, 2005), that tourism can provide
signicant opportunities for their emancipation in domestic and
social spaces.
All of them were married and had children who, in some cases,
were married and lived on their own, mainly in urban areas or
abroad. The analysis of the educational level revealed that four
people have achieved a degree. Widespread high education levels
are a peculiar feature that characterizes all the former communist
countries of Central and Eastern Europe, even in the rural areas, and
this is a clear advantage which provides these families with a more
realistic approach to tourist business and with a faster adaptation to
the tourist market. On the other hand, the generally limited
knowledge of foreign languages, with the notable exception of
Carolinas and Tibors cases, is still a widespread weakness. The
most important sources of livelihood for these families and their
village communities were agriculture, pensions and public work.
Since the combination of their revenues were generally not suf-
cient to satisfy the families needs and goals, the tourist activity was
of crucial importance in their family budgets, as will be explained
later.
Information about the tourist hosting activity is provided in
Table 2.
The families started their tourist activities between 1996 and
2004. The average number of beds was about 15 and the number of
family members involved in the activity varied from two to three,
generally family members, except in one case, Tibors guesthouse,
where they were 15, including local guides. Most of the guests came
from European Union countries, mainly during the summer, and
stayed for two to three nights, with the exception of Tibors (eight
nights).
Carolinas and Tibors cases were relatively different from the
others. Being part of ethnic minorities that have strong ties with the
outer world (Germany in the rst case, Hungary in the second one),
the owners of the two guesthouses could reach a wider audience
and accessed larger private and public funds. Both cases presented
a strong ethical dimension, as the guests were involved in sup-
porting the preservation and restoration of the local cultural heri-
tage. This aspect was particularly well organized in Miclos oara
(Miklo sva r), where the restoration projects for the Renaissance
manor and the water mill usually benet from the strong partici-
pation of the guests. The longer average stay of the guests and the
higher accommodation prices in Miclos oara denote this peculiar
dimension.
The core elements collected through the interviews are now
presented.
Question no. 1 (Why did you decide to host tourists in your home?)
aimed at exploring the reasons why informants decided to start this
new activity. Although each experience contains elements that
make it unique, some common reasons emerged. In fact, in all six
cases, the hope that hosting tourists might enhance the family
income was the main reason to get involved. Farming, pensions and
other income sources were reported as insufcient to guarantee
a satisfactory standard of living for the family, and tourism was
perceived as a viable means to strengthen their livelihood. Veronica
said:
Money is never enough . Life is not easy here, the expenses
are always growing . An old friend of mine emigrated to
Germany and told me that many country people there get good
incomes hosting tourists in their houses . I thought to try
myself ..
Having plenty of space, as traditional Romanian rural houses are
generally big enough, being keen on cooking and dealing with
people, and having enough time to devote to tourists were also
important motivations in taking the decision to begin this experi-
ence. Ioan said:
In our house we have rooms that we rarely use, especially since
our children married and left .I thought that my wife would be
able to offer tourists Romanian traditional dishes, as she has
always loved cooking . .
In all six cases the nancial investment was signicant, as the
families used their personal savings to start the activity and prepare
the house through a long series of improvement, enlargement and
restoration works. Some external private aid contributed to the
starting up only in Carolinas and Tibors cases, particularly through
the Mihai Eminescu Fund, a UK-based cultural organization, and
the Kalnoky Conservation Trust, devoted to the preservation of
Sze kely heritage.
Thus, for the cases presented in this study, tourismwas revealed
as an opportunity to get additional income and to employ families
properties and skills.
Question no. 2 (Do you perceive your experience as successful?)
was used to explore the weaknesses and strengths of their rst
years of tourism experience. In all six cases, strong satisfaction was
expressed. Informants declared that tourismcontributed 2550% of
the household income and that their personal standard of living
was signicantly higher than the average of their respective
villages. As already indicated in Table 2, most earnings were
produced during the summer, when each tourist spent three to four
nights in their houses. For an average price of 1520 Euros per day,
they could obtain half pension treatment (bed, breakfast and
Table 1
Basic features of the interviewed families (mostly referring to the family member who principally runs the activity).
Name Sex Age Ethnicity N. of children Education completed Familys main source of
livelihood besides tourism
Village
Veronica F 58 Romanian 3 Univ. Degree Pension, farming Bran
Tibor M 40 Hungarian 3 Univ. Degree Cultural activities Miclos oara
Ioan M 66 Romanian 3 Univ. Degree Pension, farming Sibiel
Paraschiva F 63 Romanian 4 Gramm. School Farming Sucevit xa
Ileana F 57 Romanian 4 Gramm. School Farming Vadu Izei
Carolina F 45 German 1 Univ. Degree Cultural activities, farming Viscri
Source: Fieldwork.
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 158
dinner). In all the cases, additional activities were offered to the
guests, most notably hiking, visits to cultural sites and handicraft
workshops, sporting activities, etc. Except for the amount of time
devoted to the tourists, their traditional rural lifestyle had not been
altered and their intimate home atmosphere had not been threat-
ened. The interviewees also said that their livelihoods had
improved signicantly since the beginning of the activity, so that
they could better pay their bills, could more easily buy what they
needed, could afford health care expenses and so on. The high
seasonal concentration of tourists in the summer months, partic-
ularly July and August, is a major problem. A more balanced
distribution of the guests over the year would further increase the
benets deriving from tourism. However, weather conditions,
especially in winter and autumn, were a major natural constraint
because of usually harsh climatic conditions, although some of the
guesthouses were experimenting with a widening offer of activities
for the cold season, including skiing and sleigh rides.
Providing money for ordinary expenditures, tourism helped
three of the interviewed families to achieve signicant goals. Par-
aschiva was able to end her migration to Italy, where she was
a home care worker, and could live close to her husband again,
while taking care of tourists in her house:
I spent 3 years in Italy, taking care of an old lady .The money I
earned was helpful for my family .My children where studying
at that time .When the old lady died, I decided to come back to
Romania for a while. Then we started hosting tourists and I
realized that it was not necessary to go back to Italy to work
anymore.
Ioan could more easily fund his two sons studies at university.
He also bought another piece of land to increase his production of
fruits and vegetables, thus believing that tourism and agriculture
can support each other:
I mostly serve food coming from my own farm fruits, vege-
tables, chickens, eggs . There is no tourist who does not buy
a least a pot of my home-made jam. Sometimes tourists want to
help me collect plums or apples, they like doing that . Then I
make a little discount for them.
Ileana was able to help her daughters family and to take care of
her elderly mother.
My daughter, her husband and their children live with me .
They give me a hand to host tourists .My daughter helps me to
cook and to do the housework .Her husband accompanies our
guests to the forests and to the wooden churches. My old
mother, too, lives with me .We can live all together, as in the
old days, and this is a beautiful thing.
Thus, the success of their experiences should be evaluated
within a broad context which takes into account families needs
and goals.
Looking beyond the family experiences collected, not only were
the families that hosted tourists able to improve their economic
status, but also people living in the neighbourhood, sometimes
working together in the guesthouse, could benet from the pres-
ence of tourists. Veronica, for example, did not have cows on her
farm, so she needed to buy milk from a neighbour, who was happy
to sell the milk that exceeded the household consumption. Other
families not personally involved in tourism, therefore, beneted
fromthe presence of tourists in the village other farmers, artisans,
housekeepers, etc.
The positive results that they had obtained so far worked as an
incentive to further invest in the activity, for example, by enlarging
the house or decorating it with traditional handicrafts, showing
their condence in tourism as a source of livelihood.
Question no. 3 (Do you think that hosting tourists enriches your
life?) was directed to understand if the quality of life of the
participants had improved through their involvement in tourism.
The responses revealed that tourism had helped families to
enhance their lives beyond the nancial aspects. For example, in
some cases, tourism provided the opportunity to live in the envi-
ronment they love, the countryside, which seemed to help them to
appreciate the value of their roots and their lifestyle. Ioan said:
More than anything, I like living in this little village. I was born
here, I feel comfortable here, the nature is so beautiful and I
want to spend the rest of my life here, next to the piece of land
that was also the land of my father.
Another interesting element which emerged from the inter-
views was the importance of the cultural exchange that occurs
through the encounter with the guests. Veronica said:
I like the contact with other people. Tourism gives us the
chance to know and learn from other realities.
Ileana said:
Tourists ask me about our life here and I ask them about theirs
.The dialogue is the best side of having tourists in my house.
Other sources of satisfaction expressed by the families included
the pride of seeing tourists enjoying the meals prepared in their
house, the condence and satisfaction in their skills, the additional
income and their increased social status. In the case of the ethnic
minorities, the renewed attention of the outer world is particularly
important.
Tibor said:
We use the money raised from the guesthouse to restore the
old manor and the watermill of the village. It is a way to preserve
the cultural and natural heritage of the Sze kely people.
Carolina said:
Tourism is a very precious way to attract peoples attention to
the Saxon cultural heritage. The memories and traditions of our
Table 2
Basic features of the tourist hosting activities.
Name Year of start N. of beds People working
in the activity
Main countries of origin of their guests Main activity
period
Medium length
of stay (in nights)
Village
Veronica 1996 18 2 Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Romania, Israel JulyAugust 2 Bran
Tibor 1998 20 15 United Kingdom, Germany, Hungary, Romania. MaySeptember 8 Miclos oara
Ioan 2001 9 2 Germany, France, Italy, Poland MayAugust 23 Sibiel
Paraschiva 1998 10 2 France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Switzerland,
Germany
MaySeptember 34 Sucevit xa
Ileana 2004 20 3 France, Belgium, Romania JuneAugust 23 Vadu Izei
Carolina 2004 8 3 France, United Kingdom, Germany,
Hungary, Switzerland, Austria
JulyAugust 2 Viscri
Source: Fieldwork.
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 159
ancestors can become an economic resource to keep the village
alive.
Question no. 4 (What do you think about the future development
of rural tourism in your village?) was used to explore the families
perceptions about the future of rural tourism in their area. The
information revealed that the families were well aware of the
tourist potential of Romanian rural areas and they reported that
the number of guests that they host in their houses is growing
steadily.
Tourists coming from the richest countries of the European
Union found it very affordable to spend a holiday in rural Romania,
as the accommodation costs were much cheaper than in most of
Europe. However, they said that for further development of rural
tourism to be achieved, more government support was needed. As
already stated, none of the six interviewed families received any
nancial help from Romanian Government sources (Carolina and
Tibor did receive some funds from international NGOs or associa-
tions). In their opinion, more families could benet from tourism if
they were supported nancially, at least in the early steps of their
venture. They complained about the weakness of the marketing
actions taken at the national level. Actually, from their point of
view, the already mentioned ANTREC organization was not
providing a real marketing strategy, as it basically lists the guest-
houses in its website without taking any signicant promotional
actions. In spite of this, ANTREC received an annual fee from the
guesthouses that joined the network.
Paraschiva said:
ANTREC does nothing for us, but it wants our money.
This was the reason why some of the interviewed families, as
well as many others, preferred not to join the ANTREC network.
They organized the marketing by themselves through websites,
international guidebooks and word-of-mouth. Actually, as Turnock
pointed out (2002), ANTREC tended to be favoured by the
government in the commercial effort to promote the Romanian
rural tourism product. However, this approach created widespread
resentment, as a growing discontent towards the traditional
centralist policies was emerging at all levels of political life in
Romania. Families also mentioned the urgent need for new public
investments on communication and transportation infrastructures,
as many roads were often in poor conditions and villages were
difcult to reach without private transportation. Moreover, all the
families expressed concern about the difcult adaptation to the
European Union rules on agriculture and tourism. In fact, the recent
entry of Romania into the European Union have implied that rural
guesthouses must adapt to newregulations that include substantial
changes which are difcult to manage at the family level. In
particular, the new regulations are related to hygiene and food
production (Fundat xia ADEPT, 2008). As a result, home-made wine
and spirits or fresh milk, for example, will have to respect
a particular hygiene protocol, if they are to be given to the guests.
This implies that guesthouses have to be furnished with suitable
equipment and room, which, in turn, requires further investments.
This synthetic presentation of family experiences shows the
features that may affect the success of their enterprise. For conve-
nience, some of them can be classied as external factors, while
others as internal. Within the rst group, the nancing difculties
play a mayor role. Most of them are self-nanced because of the
difculties to obtain loans, which can expose the business to
nancial risks and limit their ability to grow and adapt. Further-
more, it acts as a barrier for those families who would like to start
a business but cannot do it because of lack of money. Similarly, the
inadequate provision of public infrastructures, particularly trans-
portation, is another matter of concern.
Marketing provision is a major challenge. There is a clear over-
dependence on word-of-mouth marketing, which is very useful at
a rst stage, but, over the time, needs to be supported by a real
network between suppliers and demanders. Thus, alliances and co-
operative efforts become essential.
A number of features related to families characteristics, which
can be called internal features, namely skills and capabilities, may
also affect the business success. The knowledge of foreign
languages, the ability to use the Internet and to develop contacts
with customers, open-mindedness, good disposition towards the
guests and a general orientation towards innovativeness are among
the most important positive ones. This suggests that training and
technical assistance programmes designed to assist families would
be benecial in order to generate new enterprises and reinforce
those already existing.
6. Conclusion
This study contributes to the understanding of how tourism can
enhance the livelihoods of families living in the Romanian rural
areas. The families experiences have been analysed and the
reasons for deciding to host tourists have been described. This new
activity ts well with the families other livelihood strategies and
other goals and the signicant degree of success reached so far can
be further expanded.
The concept of Tourism as a Sustainable Livelihood Strategy
(Tao and Wall, 2009) provided a particularly useful perspective, for
tourism was not considered to be a panacea for the complex
problems of Romanian rural areas but, rather, as a potential activity
that could diversify the livelihood options, enhancing the liveli-
hoods of the families involved and others linked to them. Tourism
has been rmly integrated into the families existing situations as
a complementary activity, contributing to economic diversication
and forging positive linkages with agriculture. It also added value to
families capabilities and skills, enriching their lives in non-pecu-
niary ways. Thus, so far, tourism is a sustainable activity for these
families.
The study results are encouraging and, since there is a growing
interest in rural tourism and Romania has considerable potential in
this eld, it would be useful if the Romanian Government acted
with a more incisive policy that could guide and support families
establishing guesthouse activities.
Although the research ndings are related to Romania, to some
extent, they also contribute to better know the characteristics and
goals of family enterprises in rural hospitality, as well as to
understand the difculties they have to deal with. Conrming
existent literature, and adding newinformation at the same time, it
has been found that: many people who get involved in rural
tourism do so for lifestyle as well as for economic reasons; the
capital that is required to ready a property for tourists excludes the
poorest rural residents from participating; labour is commonly
provided by family members; and success is helped by proximity to
natural and cultural resources. These observations suggest that, in
order to spread the benets of rural tourism, families starting
accommodation facilities may need to receive Governments
support and that integrating rural tourisminto the broader national
and regional tourism supply may reveal as a successful strategy.
Out of the problematic points that emerged during this research,
three are particularly difcult to manage:
The further development of rural tourism in Romania, if the
same trend continues, will likely exacerbate the already
substantial regional differences, as only some of the countrys
counties and rural areas have been involved so far. The vast
majority of Romanias rural settlements have not experienced
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 160
any tourism development and suffer from serious marginality.
A stronger effort to disseminate good practices, in order to
reduce the widening development gaps among the different
regions of the country, is particularly urgent.
The autonomous management of rural tourism by individual
families is particularly positive in terms of exibility and self-
sufciency, but it is also an indicator of weak attitudes for co-
operation and networking. Moreover, the limited attention
paid by local and national administrations to rural tourismwas
pointed out by all the interviewed families. Thus, greater
cohesion among all government levels is urgently needed in
order to promote training programmes and integrated terri-
torial marketing. As Turnock (2002) pointed out, despite the
already existing stimulative legislation aimed at moderating
tax burdens and simplifying bureaucracy, starting a rural
tourism business is still a challenging prospect in terms of
capital investments and skills.
The encouraging examples of rural tourism that have been
analysed in this study are run by families of Romanian,
Hungarian and German ethnicity. The absence of Roma families
in this survey is not an oversight, nor an omission. The striking
marginalization of the large Roma community, numbering
between 0.5 and 2.5 million people, arose and still arises
through complex phenomena of social exclusion and self-
exclusion and is dramatically evident in the eld of rural
tourism, which means that further and challenging efforts
must be made to involve the countrys poorest social group.
The recent entrance of Romania into the European Union could
play a major role in strengthening the emerging development of
rural tourism, provided that the new initiatives encourage and
support interested households wanting to get involved in tourism
and that they enable them to benet from it according to their
capabilities, needs and desires. The complex changes in the tourism
sector caused by the introduction of European laws and policies
into the Romanian countryside, and the highly debated architec-
tural modications performed on traditional houses during their
transformation to guesthouses, may be interesting topics for
further research.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to Geoffrey Wall for his precious
comments. Special thanks to the families interviewed, who shared
with authors their kindness and perspective on rural tourism.
References
Ambrus, T., 2007. A study of land utilisation and region developmental questions in
Sze kelyfo ld. Journal of Landscape Ecology 5 (1), 4358.
Axmann, A., 1998. Eastern Europe and community of independent states. Interna-
tional Migration 36 (4), 587607.
Barbieri, C., Mshenga, P., 2008. The role of the rm and owner characteristics on the
performance of agriturism farms. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (2), 166183.
Bauer, T., Zimmermann, K., 1997. Network migration of ethnic Germans. Interna-
tional Migration Review 31 (1), 143149.
Benedek, J., 2000. Subsistence agriculture in Romania and the development of rural
space. Wu rzburger Geographische Manuskripte 63, 8997.
Benedek, J., Dezsi S., 2004. The Role of Rural Tourism in the Economic Diversica-
tion of Rural Space in Romania. International Conference Europe at the
Margins: EU Regional Policy, Peripherality and Rurality, 15th16th April 2004,
Angers, France http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk, retrieved in July 2007.
Biertel, M., Turnock, D., 2007. Macro structural changes in Romania and strategies
for local development. Lessons from the Piatra Craiului area. In: Surd, V. (Ed.),
Studies in Rural Geography. Studia Universitatis Babes -Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania.
Botez, G., Lupu, N., 1998. I

ndrumar pentru Turismul Rural. Grupul de Editur a s i

Consultant x a n Afaceri Rentrop & Straton, Bucharest.
Braham, M., 1992. The Untouchables: a Survey of the Roma People from Central and
Eastern Europe. UNHCR, Geneva.
Briedenhann, J., Wickens, E., 2004. Tourism routes as a tool for the economic
development of rural areas vibrant hope or impossible dream? Tourism
Management 25, 7179.
Ca` noves, G., Villarino, M., Priestley, G.K., Blanco, A., 2004. Rural tourism in Spain: an
analysis of recent evolution. Geoforum 35 (6), 755769.
Cipollari, C., 2005. Rural Tourism in Botiza (Romania): Interactions from Tourist
Encounter. International Conference Tourism and Performance: Scripts, Stages,
and Stories, 14th18th July 2005. Shefeld, United Kingdom.
Clarck, C., 1998. Counting backwards: the Roma numbers game in Central and
Eastern Europe. Radical Statistics 69, 3546.
Constantin, D., 2000. Tourism and Environmentally Sustainable Regional Develop-
ment: The Case of Romania. 40th Congress of the European Regional Science
Association, 29th August1st September 2000. Barcelona, Spain http://www.
ersa.org, retrieved in September 2008.
Cosma, S., 2004. Tourist destination marketing. Some aspects related to Romania.
Studia Universitatis Babes -Bolyai. Seria Negotia 2, 6975.
Culic, I., 2000. Social Distance in Interethnic Relations in Post-Communist Romania.
International Conference The Romanian Model of Ethnic Relations. The Last
Ten Years, The Next Ten Years, Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Center, 7th
8th July 2000. Bucharest, Romania.
Dezsi, S., 1997. The Rustic Castles and The Walled Churches from The Tarnava
Plateau. A Characteristic Touristical Component. Noosfera. Centrul Carpato-
Danubian de Geoecologie, Bucharest, pp. 8486.
Dezsi, S ., 1999. The Impact of Tourism Activities on the National Parks and Reser-
vations of the Biosphere in Romania. Principles and Guidelines for Developing
Sustainable Tourism within the Protected Natural Areas. Nordia Tiedonantoja 5,
Oulu. Oulu University Press, pp. 7681.
Fleischer, A., Felsenstein, D., 2000. Support for small-scale rural tourism: does it
make a difference? Annals of Tourism Research 27 (4), 10071024.
Fleischer, A., Pizam, A., 1997. Rural tourism in Israel. Tourism Management 18 (6),
367372.
Frochot, I., 2005. A Benet segmentation of tourists in rural areas: a Scottish
perspective. Tourism Management 26 (3), 335346.
Fundat xia ADEPT, 2008. Minimum Food Hygiene and Food Safety Conditions for
Small Producers. ADEPT, Bucharest.
Gale, T., 2006. Finding Meaning in Sustainability and a Livelihood Based on Tourism:
An Ethnographic Case Study of Rural Citizens in the Ayse n Region of Chile. PhD
Thesis. West Virginia University (Unpublished).
Gannon, A., 1994. Rural tourismas a factor inrural communityeconomic development for
economies in transition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism2 (1/2), 5160.
Gebhard, K., Ebhard, K., 2006. In: Sustainable Tourism Opportunities in the Car-
pathians. Background Document. UNEP. Protection and Sustainable Develop-
ment of the Carpathians in a Transnational Framework Project. http://www.
carpathianconvention.org retrieved in September 2008.
Gertrud, R., Schrieder, G., Munz, J., Jehle, R., 1999. Rural Regional Development in
Transitional Economy: Country Case Romania. In: Research in Development
Economics and Policy Discussion Paper, vol. 7. University of Hohenheim,
Institute of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences in the Tropics, Stuttgart,
Grauer Verlag, pp. 115.
Getz, D., Carlsen, J., Morrison, A., 2004. The Family Business in Tourism and
Hospitality. Cabi Publishing, UK.
Hall, D., 2004. Rural tourism development in South-Eastern Europe: transition and
the search for sustainability. International Journal of Tourism Research 6,
165176.
Hall, C., Jenkins, J., 1998. The Policy Dimensions of rural tourism and recreation.
1998. In: Butler, R., Hall, C., Jenkins, J. (Eds.), Tourism and Recreation in Rural
Areas. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 1942.
Hall, D., Roberts, L., Mitchell, M., 2004. New Directions in Rural Tourism. Ashgate,
UK.
Institutul Nat xional de Statistic a (INS), 2006. Anuarul Statistic 2006. Chapter 20.
http://www.insee.ro/ retrieved in September 2008.
Jamal, T., Tanase, A., 2005. Impacts and conicts surrounding Dracula park,
Romania: the role of sustainable tourism principles. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 13 (5), 440455.
Kinsley, M., 2000. Economic Renewal Guide: A Collaborative Process for Sustainable
Community Development. Rocky Mountain Institute, CO.
Lachov, G., Stoycheva, I., Georgiev, I., 2006. Comparative analysis of rural tourism
development in some selected European countries. Trakia Journal of Sciences 4
(4), 4451.
Light, D., 2000. Gazing on communism: heritage tourism and post-communist
identities in Germany, Hungary and Romania. Tourism Geographies 2 (2),
157176.
Light, D., 2001. Facing the future: tourism and identity-building in post-socialist
Romania. Political Geography 20 (8), 10531074.
Light, D., 2007. Dracula tourism in Romania. Cultural identity and the State. Annals
of Tourism Research 34 (3), 746765.
Light, D., Andone, D., 1996. The changing geography of Romanian tourism. Geog-
raphy 81 (3), 193203.
Light, D., Dumbraveanu, D., 1999. Romanian tourism in the post-communist period.
Annals of Tourism Research 26 (4), 898927.
Long, P., Lane, B., 2000. Rural tourism development. 1999. In: Gartner, W., Lime, D.
(Eds.), Trends in Outdoor Recreation, Leisure and Tourism. CABI, Wallingford,
pp. 299308.
MacDonald, R., Jolliffe, L., 2003. Cultural rural tourism: evidence from Canada.
Annals of Tourism Research 30, 307322.
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 161
M ahara, G., Ilies , A., 2001. Regional geopolitics and the evolution of the interna-
tional tourism in Romania. Geographica Slovenica 34 (1), 177188.
Merriam, S.B. (Ed.), 2002. Qualitative Research in Practice. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Ministerul pentru I

ntreprinderi Mici s i Mijlocii, Comert x, Turism s i Profesii Liberale,

2006. Strategia pentru dezvoltarea turismului n Romania Draft supus dez-
baterii publice. http://www.mturism.ro/ retrieved in September 2008.
Mitrache, S ., Manole, V., 1996. Agroturism s i Turism Rural. Editura Fax Press,
Bucures ti.
Nilson, P.A., 2002. Staying on farms: an ideological background. Annals of Tourism
Research 29 (1), 724.
OECD, 1994. Tourism Strategies and Rural Development. OECD, Paris.
Paniagua, A., 2002. Urbanrural migration, tourism entrepreneurs and rural
restructuring in Spain. Tourism Geographies 4 (4), 349371.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative research and Evaluation Methods, third ed. Sage,
California.
Petric , L., 2003. Constraints and possibilities of the rural tourism development with
the special stress on the case of Croatia. Ersa 2003 Congress. University of
Jyva skyla , Finland http://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa03p105.html,
retrieved in October 2008.
Postma, F., 1995. The nal exodus of Romanias Germans. Plural Societies 21 (1-2),
89107.
Roberts, L., Hall, D., 2001. Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principles to Practice. CABI
Publishing, Wallingford, Oxfordshire.
Ruspini, E., DellAgnese, E. (Eds.), 2005. Turismo al Maschile. Turismo al Femminile.
Cedam, Padova.
Sandu, D., 2005. Dynamics of Romanian emigration after 1989: from a macro to
a micro-level approach. International Journal of Sociology 35 (3), 3656.
Sharpley, R., Sharpley, J., 2002. Rural Tourism: An Introduction. International
Business Press, London.
Tao, T., Wall, G., 2009. Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy. Tourism
Management 30 (1), 9098.
Turnock, D., 1990. Tourism in Romania: rural planning in the Carpathians. Annals of
Tourism Research 17 (1), 79102.
Turnock, D., 1999. Sustainable rural tourism in the Romanian Carpathians.
Geographical Journal 165 (2), 192199.
Turnock, D., 2002. Prospects for sustainable rural cultural tourism in Maramures ,
Romania. Tourism Geographies 4, 6294.
Urry, J., 2002. The Tourist Gaze, second ed. Sage, London.
Vaetisi, S , 2006. Rural tourism in the Apuseni mountains, Romania. An anthropo-
logical research on developing tourism in a poor region. In: Devesh, N., Babu, G.
(Eds.), Tourists and Tourism. Abhijeet Publications, New Delhi, pp. 4052.
Ventura, F., Milone, P., 2000. Theory and practice of multi-product farm: farm
butcheries in Umbria. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4), 452465.
Wall, G., Mathieson, A., 2006. Tourism: Changes, Impacts, and Opportunities.
Pearson Prentice Hall, New York.
Yagu e, R.M., 2002. Rural tourism in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (4),
11011110.
Web sites (2008)
Antrec (Asociat xia Nat xional a de Turism Rural, Ecologic s i Cultural National Asso-
ciation of Rural, Ecological and Cultural Tourism). http://www.antrec.ro/.
Arbre de joie Actions Solidaires Roumanie (Tree of Joy Supportive Actions
Romania). http://www.arbredejoie.org/.
Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/.
Institutul Nat xional de Statistica INS Romania (National Institute of Statistics
Romania). http://www.insse.ro/.
Kalnoky Conservation Trust. http://www.kalnoky.org/.
Mihai Eminescu Trust. http://www.mihaieminescutrust.org/.
Ministero dellInterno Italia (Minister of Interior Italy). http://www.interno.it/.
Ope ration Villages Roumains France (Action Romanian Villages France). http://
ovrf.free.fr/.
Ope ration Villages Roumains Belgique (Action Romanian Villages Belgium).
http://www.villagesroumains.be/.
Ope ration Villages Roumains Pays-Bas (Action Romanian Villages Netherlands).
http://www.hdd.dds.nl/.
Ope ration Villages Roumains Suisse (Action Romanian Villages Switzerland).
http://www.ovr.ch/.
M. Iorio, A. Corsale / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 152162 162