Perspectives for the Development of Sustainable Cultural Tourism

Abstract

The study involves a comparative analysis of cultural tourism in Bucharest and Paris to identify the main aspects of sustainable cultural tourism. A set of six characteristics (civil monuments and architectural assemblies, religious monuments and architectural assemblies, festivals, personalities, digitization of tourism, and cultural and educational institutions) was analyzed for both cities. For this purpose, the Benchmarking analysis, the SWOT analysis, and the Pareto analysis were used. The research results highlight the importance of a careful analysis of the categories and sub-categories identified for cultural tourism in the two cities, focusing on the situation in Bucharest to identify ways to improve the promotion and capitalization of cultural tourism and increase sustainability. The obtained results showed that cultural tourism in Bucharest is deficient in aspects such as Monuments and civil architecture and religious, and architectural monuments.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, tourism has become an important vector of sustainable economic development [1,2]. In the long run, it is necessary to ensure sustainable use of the environment, improve the reliability of tourist destinations, as well as improve the quality of tourist services [3,4]. The practice of sustainable cultural tourism involves aspects related to over-glomerulation and loss of authenticity which are affecting the daily life of the local population, as well as the culture and heritage of the respective areas. The development of sustainable cultural tourism ensures good conservation practices, along with an authentic interpretation in support of local economies [5,6,7,8,9]. Cultural tourist heritage can be characterized by various elements, such as [10,11,12] hospitality, regional and local gastronomy, specific architecture, handicrafts specific to the area, traditional shows, and other elements that define the life of that nation. At the same time, local cultural factors are important in determining the actions to be taken to promote tourist traffic (libraries, museums, music events, exhibitions, theater events, educational excursions, scientific, and archaeological expeditions) and allow the creation of unique experiences for tourists [5,13,14].

In the context of increased digitalization of society, an important element in promoting various tourist destinations worldwide is digital tourism, the Internet becoming the main source of access to information and for travel planning [15]. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic has produced a series of changes in the structure of the global tourism sector. Thus, with the decrease in tourist mobility, the development of virtual tours of the different tourist objectives in general, and of cultural tourist objectives in particular was accentuated by the use of multimedia elements [16,17,18,19]. The new conditions require both the adaptation of consumers to the changed pandemic scenario as well as changes in tourist package offers, especially to the various stakeholders interested in tourism policies for comparative analysis [20,21,22].

To answer the research question “Does the comparative analysis of two tourist destinations contribute to the development of a sustainable cultural tourism by identifying and transforming deficient characteristics into successful ones?”, the study aims to make a comparison between two European tourist cities where cultural tourism is developed to, in which population density is high per square kilometer and the architecture of buildings is similar: Bucharest (the capital city of Romania, also known as “Little Paris”), and Paris (the capital of France, also called the “The City of Lights”). The choice of the two cities is motivated by the presence in both of various elements of tourist activity, infrastructure, and potential. Tourist activities in the two capitals are related to cultural and historical tourism, based on the multitude of cultural, traditional, and historical objectives. Therefore, diversification and intensification of sustainable cultural tourism are crucial factors in increasing their competitiveness and sustainable development as European tourist destinations [23,24,25]. Bucharest is a preferred urban holiday destination in Romania [26], but although it has a special urban architecture, with special heritage buildings and a multitude of tourist spots and cultural landmarks, it is better known as a destination for business and professional tourism [27].

After studying the specialized literature, it was found that there are some studies on cultural tourism in Romania [28,29,30] as well as comparative ones including other European destinations [31,32,33,34]. Sharma et al. [35], Pickens and Sengupta [36], and Orenes et al. [37] used benchmarking analysis from a theoretical point of view. Diagnosing the situation of the tourist destination and assessing the issues that need attention to improve the level of sustainability of tourism activities requires the establishment of relevant sets of indicators [38,39]. Through the comparative analysis performed on two cultural tourist destinations, Bucharest and Paris, the study completes a gap in the literature on the one hand and, at the same time, contributes to the identification of perspectives for the development of sustainable cultural tourism by identifying the secondary characteristics. Therefore, through the benchmarking analysis of cultural tourism in the two cities, the study identifies the indicators that must be improved and establish the main causes leading to the total score obtained. For better observation of the results obtained from the benchmarking analysis, they were correlated with the SWOT as well as the Pareto analyses. Additionally, in order to establish the most accurate rating for each indicator, an opinion poll was conducted online in May 2021 in which the sample was represented by tourists who visited the two cities. As a result, positive aspects were identified, represented by characteristics for which Bucharest received a higher rating, as well as negative aspects or which require improvements.

Section 2 of the present study includes a description of the methods and materials used. Section 3 presents the results obtained for the proposed study. The study continues with sections of discussions and conclusions following the results.

2. Materials and Methods

Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used in conducting this study, the quantitative information being very important in the correct evaluation of rating of analyzed characteristics [40]. The qualitative analysis methods used in this study are Benchmarking, SWOT, and Pareto. Benchmarking analysis [41] is used as a method of comparative analysis in order to establish the performance indices between the groups of characteristics of cultural tourism in Bucharest and Paris, and to make the Pareto diagram. The first stage of the Benchmarking analysis involves identifying the characteristics of cultural tourism in general and arranging them into six groups. The analysis continues with the granting of weights for all the analyzed groups, specifying that their choice is subjective, remaining at the attitude of the group of specialists. This weight is the equivalent of an importance coefficient, only the expression is made in points, and the groups are ranked according to the importance that the analyst gives to them. The weighting given to the characteristic groups is based on the same reasoning and is the basis for determining the analytical weight obtained by multiplying the weight of the group by the weight of the characteristic, compared to 100. From this stage on, the analysis is objective, the granting of the maturity level of each characteristic being made based on concrete situations, collected from the survey on tourist opinions. The rating is given as a percentage, which represents the degree of achievement of each characteristic. Based on this and the analytical weight, the weighted score for the two analyzed capitals is determined. Weighted scores can be determined both by groups and by total, based on which performance indices are calculated.

The study establishes the level of performance achieved by cultural tourism in Bucharest, compared to that in Paris, using the scorecard and obtaining the information necessary to identify the 20% of causes that determine 80% of the result obtained. It is proposed to identify the deficient characteristics of cultural tourism in Bucharest compared to the one in Paris, in order to formulate improvement measures, to transform from a deficient characteristic into a successful one in order to develop sustainable cultural tourism in Bucharest. The data and information needed for the research were obtained from the literature [42,43,44,45,46,47,48] on the one hand, and from the data collected following the application of the opinion poll and on various sites that provide information on cultural tourism [4,6,7,8,49,50] on the other hand, the collection instruments being observation, survey, and analysis of information. The tools used in the analysis are descriptive statistics used to assess the level of maturity, with the Benchmarking model aiming to determine the performance indices of cultural tourism [40] and the SWOT analysis [51], and the Pareto analysis looking to establish the main causes leading to the performance index obtained. The methods used allowed us to analyze comparatively the capital of Romania with a tourist city considered a standard for cultural tourism in the world, to determine the weighted scores based on analytical weights and ratings.

ScPB = PA × R,(1)

where ScPB = weighted benchmarking score (which can be total or partial), PA = analytical weight of the characteristic, and R = Rating or maturity level, which is expressed as a percentage (10%, 20%, 30%, …, 100%).

The study starts with the SWOT analysis, which has a strong qualitative character, allowing the formulation of a diagnosis regarding the current and future situation of cultural tourism [52]. For the SWOT analysis, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of cultural tourism in the two cities, Bucharest (Table 1) and Paris (Table 2) were identified and evaluated, continuing with the assessment of the internal and external environment through the elaboration of EFE and EFI matrices, and by calculating the weighted score as a product between rating and importance coefficient. The SWOT analysis was performed by the authors based on the gathered information.

ScPS = K_i × R,(2)

where ScPS = weighted SWOT analysis score, Ki = importance coefficient whose value must be subunit, R = rating (1.2 = weaknesses/threats; 3.4 = strengths/opportunities).

The mathematical algorithm which is proposed to establish the level of performance in tourism is based on the comparative analysis of a set of performance indicators. Several indicators related to tourism in Bucharest and Paris are analyzed, with an emphasis on cultural tourism and the use of the benchmarking method. According to this method, a high level of importance is attributed to each group of features and to each individual feature [52]. The ranking analytical weight is obtained by multiplying the ranking of the group by the ranking of each characteristic, by using the following formula:

(3)$\mathrm{RAC}=\frac{\mathrm{RG} \times \mathrm{RCG}}{1000},$

where RAC = Ranking analytical characteristics; RG = Group of characteristics ranking; RCG = Characteristics ranking inside the group.

To achieve a fully correct assessment, a level of maturity between 10 and 100% is assigned to each characteristic, while the weighted average is obtained following the formula:

(4)$\mathrm{WA}=\mathrm{RAC} \times \mathrm{ML},$

where WA = Weighted average; RAC = Ranking analytical characteristics; ML = Maturity level.

The reading of the final results is made according to the partial and total values of the partial results. After establishing the partial weighted scores (in groups), the performance indicators are obtained by following the formula:

(5)${\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{WA}}=\frac{\mathrm{WAB}}{\mathrm{WAP}} \times 100,$

(6)${\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{TWA}}=\frac{{\mathrm{WAB}}_{\mathrm{total}}}{{\mathrm{WAP}}_{\mathrm{total}}} \times 100,$

where I_WA = Ranking weighted average; WAB = Weighted average Bucharest; WAP = Weighted average Paris; I_TWA = Total weighted average; WAB_total = Total weighted average Bucharest; WAP_total = Total weighted average Paris.

The performance index for Bucharest has been obtained through the division of scores obtained through analysis. If IWA > 1, the situation in Bucharest is a favorable one. If IWA < 1, the situation is favorable for Paris, but unfavorable for Bucharest. After using the benchmarking method, the Pareto chart is determined, setting the 20% of the characteristics which establish 80% of the level of performance of cultural tourism in Bucharest. The Pareto chart is created in descending order of the analytical weight of the characteristics, the relative frequency, and the ascending cumulative one.

(7)$ʋ (\mathrm{selective} \mathrm{frequency})=\frac{\mathrm{analytical} \mathrm{weight}}{10},$

(8)

(9)${\mathrm{RAC}}_1=\frac{\mathrm{RG} \times \mathrm{RCG}}{1000},$

The Pareto analysis (20/80 rule) is performed by following three steps: Step 1: The analytical weight is put in descending order; Step 2: The relative frequency is determined (each weight is divided by 10 (Equation (10))); Step 3: The increasing cumulative frequency is determined.

(10)${ʋ}_{\mathrm{r}}=\frac{\mathrm{Ar}}{10},$

where ʋ_r = Relative frequency; Ar = Analytic frequency.

The increasing cumulative frequency is calculated:

(11)

where = increasing relative frequency.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the most significant aspects of cultural tourism in Bucharest, grouped into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, to be analyzed. Similarly, the main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats regarding Paris were highlighted (Table 2).

To perform a complete SWOT analysis, it is considered appropriate to calculate the evaluation matrix of internal (Table 3), and external (Table 4) factors for Bucharest and Paris (Table 5 and Table 6). The importance coefficient (Ki) prioritizes the analyzed aspects according to the importance that the analyst attaches to each attribute. Its choice is subjective, and its value is always sub-unitary. The maturity level (Nm) given to each attribute represents the rating identified by the analyst, his choice being made based on the concrete situation identified. The weighted score (Scp) was obtained based on the importance coefficient and maturity level.

Following the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses, the cultural tourism in Bucharest has an internal power above average, obtaining a weighted score of 2.85. This analysis is a basis for formulating strategies for the development and promotion of cultural tourism in Bucharest.

The score obtained for the external environment (2.54) shows that in the promotion and development of cultural tourism in Bucharest, even educating people to respect and preserve green areas of the city is a required element. By comparing the results obtained from the analysis of internal and external factors, it was found that cultural tourism in Bucharest is developing an offensive strategy. Cultural tourism also has many advantages and could capitalize on the opportunities identified. In this case, it is recommended that the authorities involved in promoting and developing cultural tourism approach an aggressive development strategy.

Following the analysis of the internal environment, cultural tourism in Paris has a domestic power above average, obtaining a weighted score of 2.89. This analysis can be the basis for formulating strategies toward the development and promotion of cultural tourism in Paris.

The score obtained through analysis of opportunities and threats (2.08) shows that the promotion and development of cultural tourism in Paris requires maximum safety for residents and tourists visiting the city. Additionally, green spaces should be preserved and protected. Following the analysis and comparison of the results obtained, it was found that cultural tourism in Paris is also based on an offensive strategy. Thus, by highlighting the strengths and capitalizing on the opportunities identified, Paris authorities can approach an aggressive development strategy. This work continues with the benchmarking analysis of cultural tourism in the two capitals. The choice of this method of comparative analysis is justified as it highlights the deficient aspects with a view to identifying possible development strategies in tourism.

3.1. Civil Monuments and Architectural Assemblies

The first category analyzed is Civil Monuments and Architectural Ensembles, which are represented by science museums, history museums, ethnographic museums, art museums, castles, and palaces. The scores obtained for Bucharest reflect the lower position of the city compared to Paris in the characteristic of “Castles and Palaces” and “Art Museums”. History museums obtained the same score, while in ethnographic and science museums Bucharest ranks higher. In this category, the city of Paris obtained 338 points, 31 points more than Bucharest (Table 7).

3.2. Religious Monuments and Architectural Assemblies

The second category under analysis is represented by religious monuments and architectural ensembles. The characteristics for which Bucharest obtained a lower score than Paris are: historical places, parks and gardens and buildings, monuments, and memorial ensembles. For architecture and urbanism, the two cities obtained the same score. For places of worship, Bucharest ranked ahead of Paris. Overall, Paris ranks first in this category with a score of 304.50 points, 30.27 points higher than the Romanian capital (Table 8).

3.3. Festivals

In terms of organizing festivals, Bucharest has some advantages over Paris due to the multitude of music festivals and medieval art festivals. For unconventional art festivals and art museums, the score obtained by Bucharest was lower. Overall, in this category, Bucharest (69 points) is positioned slightly ahead of the French capital (68 points) (Table 9).

3.4. Personalities

Within the fourth analyzed group, under the heading “Personalities”, Bucharest has attained a score of 38.3 points, meaning approximately 9 points less than Paris. It can also be noticed that Bucharest is ranked second after Paris within each subgroup of this category (Table 10).

3.5. Digialisation of Tourism

Paris is ranked first as well within the fifth group, „Digitalization of tourism”, reaching a score of 47.23 points, meaning 8.93 points more than Bucharest (Table 11). This group of characteristics, following the evaluation made by this method, is not performing for any of the two capitals analyzed.

3.6. Cultural and Educational Institutions

With regard to the last analyzed group, “Cultural and educational institutions”, Bucharest is ranked first, in contrast with Paris. The score attained by the capital of Romania is 43.38 points, meaning 9 points more than Paris. It can also be noticed that high percentages of 90% have been reached by Bucharest within two subgroups, meaning “Theatres” with a score of 12.38 points, and “Houses of culture” with 25.88 points (Table 12).

Following the conducted analysis (Table 13), it has been concluded that Paris is ranked first with a score of 835.35 points, while Bucharest is ranked second with a score of 769.03 points, which creates a difference of 66.32 points between the two cities.

Once the weighted scores have been determined, the performance indicator for each city can be established (Table 14).

According to the scores attained through the calculi, it has been concluded that the performance indicator for the capital of Romania suggests an unfavorable situation for Bucharest. The performance indicator for Bucharest measures 92.06%. This value results from the four main groups of analyzed characteristics: “Civil monuments and architectural assemblies”, “Religious monuments and architectural assemblies”, “Personalities” and “Digitization of tourism” (Table 15, Figure 1).

Mathematic calculations according to the Pareto diagram are calculated in Table 16.

The 20/80 rule is followed. Six characteristics result in a frequency of 76.25%. As it can be noticed, 6 out of the 30 identified and analyzed characteristics are noticeably more important to visit, signifying a hierarchy of 76.25% (Table 16, Figure 2). These six features are: “Castles and palaces”, “Worship places”, “Historical places”, “Art museums”, “Music festivals” and “History museums”.

4. Discussion

Analyzed in an objective manner, the two capitals present all the necessary features required for comparison. The need to develop effective partnerships can be noticed, not necessarily with a competitive purpose, but for each city to make use of its existent resources. Cultural tourism signifies the fundamental elements required for the development of a certain region. It also contributes in a significant manner to the local prosperity, and it represents the way in which inherited or borrowed heritage items are presented and preserved. With regard to the first analyzed group, “Civil monuments and architectural assemblies”, it has been concluded that Bucharest owns a weighted score of 307 points, meaning 31 points less than Paris. This difference is connected to the “Castles and palaces” and “Art museums” criteria, as these own a noticeably more significant role in Paris. These features have attained a score of 216 and 80 points. Within the first analyzed subgroup, “Castles and palaces”, Bucharest has been ranked with a percentage of 80% and with a score of 192 points, meaning 24 points less than Paris. Regarding the subgroup entitled “Art museums”, Bucharest has attained a score of 70 points, in contrast with Paris with 80 points. The capital of Romania has reached a higher number of points than Paris for the other two subgroups, “Ethnographic museums” and “Museums of natural sciences”. There is only one subgroup within this main group of characteristics, “Civil monuments and architectural assemblies”, for which both Bucharest and Paris have attained a score of 32 points.

Within the second main analyzed group, “Religious monuments and architectural assemblies”, Bucharest has attained 274.23 points, meaning 30.27 points less than Paris. The difference is connected to the three subgroups for which Bucharest has attained a lower score than Paris: “Historical places”, “Buildings, monuments, and memorial assemblies” and “Parks and Gardens”. Paris has reached the maximum percentage (100%) and a score of 122.5 points for the “Historical places” subgroup, while Bucharest has reached a percentage almost twice as low (60%) and only 73.5 points. “Parks and Gardens” are ranked with the maximum percentage in Paris, achieving a score of 8.75 points, meaning 1.75 points more than Bucharest. Regarding the low scores attained by Bucharest for most of the characteristics, a thorough evaluation of all the goals which are part of the “Religious monuments and architectural assemblies” group is required. Therefore, by assessing these features, it has to get as close as possible to the score attained by Paris or to even surpass it.

The “Festivals” group owns a higher level of importance in Bucharest in contrast with Paris. Bucharest has attained a score of 69 points, meaning one point more than Paris. “Music festivals” have reached a percentage of 70% in Bucharest and a score of 35 points, while the percentage in Paris is 10% lower than the one in the capital of Romania. “Theatre festivals” are better ranked in Paris, with a score of 32 points. Paris has reached a score of 43.25 points for the fourth analyzed group, entitled “Personalities”, meaning 6.12 points more than Bucharest. The difference can be noticed within all the criteria which have been analyzed. It seems that all the individuals who have given these scores have been truly impressed with the various types of personalities in Paris. The “Digitization of tourism” group places Bucharest after Paris. Bucharest has attained a score that is 8.93 points lower than Paris. The criteria which have been analyzed within this main group indicate that Paris is the more popular of the two. The score attained by the capital of Romania is 43.38 points, meaning 9 points more than Paris. It can also be noticed that high percentages of 90% have been reached by Bucharest within two subgroups, meaning “Theatres” (with a score of 12.38 points) and “Houses of culture” (25.88 points).

Within the benchmarking analysis, the best score has been attained by Paris (835.35 points), meaning 66.32 more than Bucharest. Paris is also the city which has reached the maximum percentage (100%) for the largest number of subgroups within the main analyzed groups: “Historical places” (122.5 points), “Parks and Gardens” (8.75 points), “Nature personalities” (12.5 points), and „The baroque architecture of the city” (27.25 points). It can be noticed that “Ethnographic museums” and “Museums of natural sciences” are among the tourists’ favorites in Bucharest. Tourist attractions in Paris are a considerably larger number than the ones in Bucharest. Both Bucharest and Paris are two well-known cities in the world and each of them possesses its particular charm. Even though Paris owns a higher score than the capital of Romania, we Romanians are fully aware that Bucharest has great potential to attract a larger number of tourists, which unfortunately is currently not valued enough.

5. Conclusions

Continuous development of tourism involves increasingly complex economic, social and environmental challenges. Therefore, the authorities’ interest in areas with tourism potential must be to develop strategies for the organization, promotion, and sustainable development of cultural tourism. In general, local authorities have taken steps to develop and promote the tourism industry in their areas, but some have stopped at the planning stage. Improvements need to be made to the general activity of conservation, maintenance, and promotion of monuments, museums, and all cultural tourism objectives in order to develop long-term sustainable cultural tourism.

For Bucharest, there are no existing management and marketing strategies for the sustainable development of cultural tourism. It is recommended to establish, in agreement with the City Hall and the Prefecture, clear, well-defined directions of activity so that local organizations can more effectively support efforts to develop cultural tourism. Today, managerial strategies for sustainable tourism development aim to orient the sector towards tourism that correlates respect for the environment with attractive jobs and holidays accessible to all. Strategies should aim to promote spatial planning based on quality, attractiveness, and concertation: from protection to rational development. In this regard, sustainable tourism services, which include preservation of cultural tourism objectives, maintenance of local services, and optimal management of organizations in the field, need to be implemented. Therefore, in Bucharest, the development policy of cultural tourism must integrate the principles of sustainable development. The future of the cultural tourism sector also lies in establishing high-performance and attractive training systems (for example, by recognizing qualifications obtained through professional experience), and responding to the new competency requirements (environmental management, landscaping, ecology, etc.). Moreover, digitalization of tourism, by including and ranking tourist attractions in interactive maps/internet search engines, accessible to tourists from anywhere in the world, who want to visit a country/region/city, to plan trips in different forms of tourism or by categories of tourist attractions, is an essential basis in increasing competitiveness in the tourism sector [53,54]. At the level of national policy, digital cultural tourism is considered a priority in Romanian tourism and an important factor in sustainable development. The legislation that regulates tourism in Romania is extensive and corresponds to the regulations of the European Union. Unfortunately, there is a lack of resources needed to implement and enforce the law.

Following the analyses, some deficient aspects of cultural tourism in Bucharest compared to the one in Paris were identified. Twenty-nine characteristics of cultural tourism were analyzed and grouped into six groups. Bucharest obtained a score of 769, while Paris scored 835. Thus, for the transformation of the aspects with a lower score, it is proposed to improve infrastructure so as to expand cultural tourism according to European standards, to organize cultural events with annual continuity and also festivals, which include a series of artistic performances with different themes, as they are known to attract tourists from the country as well as from abroad.

In order to support the perspective of sustainable development of cultural tourism in Bucharest, it is considered necessary to find financing sources and develop future projects to refurbish cultural monuments and buildings. Moreover, the modernization of green spaces and parks in Bucharest must be considered an element of sustainable tourist attraction. Highlighting tourist landmarks through artistic lighting and the development of organized tourist circuits aimed at attracting tourists are also proposals aiming to improve cultural tourism in Bucharest. Organization of virtual tours, as well as creation interactive digital tourist maps, should be considered among the priorities for decision-makers in tourism. Promotion of classic and online cultural tourism in Bucharest should be a permanent concern for the local authorities of Bucharest, along with keeping young people up to date on everything of interest to them that the city has to offer.

Sometimes, even with an effective management strategy, cultural tourism alone may not solve sustainability issues, but with time it can become a dominant activity. Cultural tourism strategies must aim to promote a balanced development of the analyzed city and not to convert it into a holiday resort dependent exclusively on cultural tourism.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.S. and V.-A.A.; methodology, G.D.S. and M.D.C.; software, M.C.D. and D.I.; validation, M.C.D. and M.-C.S. and I.O.S.; formal analysis, G.D.S., V.-A.A. and D.I.; investigation, V.-A.A., I.O.S. and D.I.; resources, M.D.C. and D.I.; data curation, M.C.D. and M.-C.S.; writing—original draft preparation, G.D.S., V.-A.A. and D.I.; writing—review and editing, M.D.C.; visualization G.D.S., V.-A.A., M.-C.S., M.D.C. and D.I.; supervision, M.C.D., M.-C.S. and I.O.S.; project administration, V.-A.A. and M.C.D.; funding acquisition, I.O.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. RADAR chart of cultural tourism for Bucharest and Paris.

Figure 2. PARETO Diagram.

Table 1

SWOT analysis of cultural tourism in Bucharest.

Strengths	Weaknesses
Existence of tourist objectives in Bucharest;Diversity of forms of tourism practiced: cultural-historical tourism, religious tourism, business tourism, leisure tourism;Lack of tourist seasonality;The most important road, rail, and air transport hub in Romania;Good intra-regional and inter-regional links;Great potential for the development of cultural tourism;Employees working in the field of tourism are very well trained.	Problem infrastructure;Insufficient number of parking lots;Inefficiency of public transport;Poor emphasis on tourist attractions (museums, buildings);Superficial treatment of environmental issues;Poor representation of pedestrian areas;Reduced promotion of cultural and historical identity of the region;Reduced financial resources allocated for promotion.
Opportunities	Threats
Provision of several underground car parks;Arrangement of boulevards in the center of Bucharest;Improving / Restoring museums;Personalized offers for museum visits for tourists;Organization of international festivals in order to attract foreign tourists and increase city income;Inclusion of offer in tourist circuits;Cleaning and refurbishment of old buildings in Bucharest;Organization of music and dance festivals.	The gradual disappearance of green spaces and parks to the advantage of investments of private interest;Insufficient education of the population in respect of the green areas of the city;Increased pollution;Degradation of existing tourist attractions.

Table 2

SWOT analysis of cultural tourism in Paris.

Strengths	Weaknesses
Many tourist attractions to visit;The existence of monuments and the attractions of the city of Paris play an important role in the French economy;High professionalism of workers in tourism ;Very good tourist infrastructure;Many forms of tourism practiced: cultural tourism, recreational tourism, religious tourism, business tourism, gastronomy-small tourism, leisure tourism;Lack of tourist seasonality;Large number of parks and green spaces;The tourist product targets a wide segment of tourists;Paris is one of the most visited cities.	Agglomeration of the city;Degradation of certain monuments;Tourist safety;The inhabitants of the city are not very welcoming to tourists.Air pollution;Noise pollution;High electricity consumption.
Opportunities	Threats
Potential for organizing important annual events;New jobs generated by tourism development;Increased income of Paris inhabitants resulting from tourism;Promoting the use of clean technologies.	Possible terrorist attacks, strikes. Street fights;Potential increase of international competitiveness;Crowding during academic year;Destruction of green spaces due to the construction of new buildings.

Table 3

Internal factors evaluation matrix (EFI matrix) for Bucharest.

Strengths	Ki	Nm	Scp
The existence of many tourist attractions in Bucharest	0.07	4	0.28
Many forms of tourism practiced: cultural-historical tourism, religious tourism, business tourism, leisure tourism	0.05	3	0.15
Lack of tourist seasonality	0.04	3	0.12
The most important road, rail, and air transport hub	0.12	4	0.48
Good intra-regional and inter-regional links	0.06	3	0.18
Great potential for the development of cultural tourism	0.17	4	0.68
Employees working in the field of tourism very well trained	0.05	3	0.15
Subtotal	0.56	–	2.04
Weaknesses	Ki	Nm	Scp
Problem infrastructure	0.05	2	0.1
Insufficient number of parking lots	0.03	2	0.06
Inefficiency of public transport	0.04	1	0.04
Poor emphasis on tourist attractions (museums, buildings)	0.08	2	0.16
Superficial treatment of environmental issues	0.04	2	0.08
Poor representation of pedestrian areas	0.03	1	0.03
Reduced promotion of the cultural and historical identity of the region	0.04	2	0.08
Reduced financial resources allocated for promotion	0.13	2	0.26
Subtotal	0.44	–	0.81
Total	1	–	2.85

Scoring system: Major strong point—4; Strong point—3; Weak point—2; Major weak point—1.

Table 4

External factors evaluation matrix (EFE Matrix) for Bucharest.

Opportunities	Ki	Nm	Scp
Development of several underground car parks	0.08	3	0.24
Development of boulevards in the center of Bucharest	0.06	2	0.12
Arrangement/Restoration of degraded museums	0.07	4	0.28
Annual offers to visit museums for tourists	0.09	3	0.27
Organisation of international festivals to attract foreign tourists and increase city income	0.11	2	0.22
Inclusion of the existing framework in tourist circuits	0.18	2	0.36
Cleaning and refurbishment of old buildings in Bucharest	0.13	4	0.52
Organisation of music and dance festivals	0.05	2	0.1
Subtotal	0.77	–	2.11
Threats	Ki	Nm	Scp
The gradual disappearance of green spaces and parks to the advantage of private interest investments	0.04	2	0.08
Insufficient education of population to respect and preserve the green areas of the city	0.03	1	0.03
Increased pollution	0.04	2	0.08
Degradation of tourist landmarks	0.12	2	0.24
Subtotal	0.23	–	0.43
Total	1	–	2.54

Scoring system: Score 4—appropriate answer; Score 3—above average answer; Score 2—the answer is average; Score 1—the answer is below average.

Table 5

Internal Factors Assessment Matrix (EFI Matrix) for Paris.

Strengths	Ki	Nm	Scp
Many sights to visit	0.11	4	0.44
The existence of monuments and the attractions of Paris play an important role in the French economy	0.1	4	0.4
Employees working in the field of tourism are very well trained	0.07	3	0.21
The tourist infrastructure is very good	0.08	4	0.32
Many forms of tourism practiced: cultural tourism, recreational tourism, religious tourism, business tourism, gastronomic tourism, leisure tourism	0.05	4	0.2
Lack of tourist seasonality	0.04	3	0.12
Large number of parks and green spaces	0.08	4	0.32
The tourist product targets a wide segment of tourists	0.04	4	0.16
Paris is one of the most visited cities	0.05	3	0.15
Subtotal	0.62	–	2.32
Weaknesses	Ki	Nm	Scp
Agglomeration of the city;	0.04	2	0.08
Degradation of certain monuments;	0.06	2	0.12
Tourist safety;	0.04	1	0.04
City residents not very welcoming to tourists	0.05	1	0.05
Air pollution	0.06	2	0.12
Noise pollution	0.03	2	0.06
High electricity consumption	0.1	1	0.1
Subtotal	0.38	–	0.57
Total	1	–	2.89

Scoring system: Major strong point—4; Strong point—3; Weak point—2; Major weak point—1.

Table 6

External Factors Assessment Matrix (EFE Matrix) for Paris.

Opportunities	Ki	Nm	Scp
Potential for organizing important annual events	0.06	3	0.18
New jobs generated by tourism development	0.09	3	0.27
Increased incomes of Paris residents as a result of tourism	0.16	3	0.48
Promoting the use of clean technologies	0.18	2	0.36
Subtotal	0.49	–	1.29
Threats	Ki	Nm	Scp
Possible terrorist attacks, strikes, street fights	0.18	1	0.18
Potential growth of international competitiveness	0.15	2	0.3
Crowding during academic year	0.13	2	0.26
Destruction of green spaces due to construction of new buildings	0.05	1	0.05
Subtotal	0.51	–	0.79
Total	1	–	2.08

Scoring system: Score 4—appropriate answer; Score 3—above average answer; Score 2—the answer is average; Score 1—the answer is below average.

Table 7

Civil monuments and architectural assemblies.

Gc	C	Rg	Cr	Ar	Maturity Level										WAB	WAP
					10%	20%	30%	40%	50%	60%	70%	80%	90%	100%
1. Civil monuments andarchitectural assemblies	Castles and palaces	400	600	240	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	–	192.00	216.00
	Art museums		250	100	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	–	–	70.00	80.00
	Ethnographic museums		25	10	–	–	–	–	P	–	B	–	–	–	7.00	5.00
	History museums		100	40	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	B/P	–	–	32.00	32.00
	Museums of natural sciences		25	10	–	–	–	–	P	B	–	–	–	–	6.00	5.00
	Subtotal1	–	1000	400	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	307.00	338.00

Gc = Groups of characteristics; C = Characteristics; Rg = Ranking group; Cr = Characteristics ranking inside the group; Ar = Analytical ranking.

Table 8

Religious monuments and architectural assemblies.

Gc	C	Rg	Cr	Ar	Maturity Level										WAB	WAP
					10%	20%	30%	40%	50%	60%	70%	80%	90%	100%
2. Religious monuments and architectural assemblies	Worship places (churches, monasteries, cathedrals)	350	600	210	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	P	B	–	189.00	168.00
	Historical places		350	122.5	–	–	–	–	–	B	–	–	–	P	73.50	122.50
	Parks and gardens		25	8.75	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	B		P	7.00	8.75
	Buildings, monuments, and memorial assemblies		15	5.25	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	–	–	3.68	4.20
	Reservations of architecture and urbanism		10	3.5	–	–	B/P	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1.05	1.05
	Subtotal2	–	1000	350	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	274.23	304.50

Table 9

Festivals.

Gc	C	Rg	Cr	Ar	Maturity Level										WAB	WAP
					10%	20%	30%	40%	50%	60%	70%	80%	90%	100%
3. Festivals	Music festivals	100	500	50	–	–	–	–	–	P	B	–	–	–	35.00	30.00
	Theatre festivals		400	40	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	–	–	28.00	32.00
	Medievalart festivals		50	5	–	–	–	–	P	B	–	–	–	–	3.00	2.50
	Unconventional art museums		50	5	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	–	–	–	3.00	3.50
	Subtotal3	–	1000	100	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	69.00	68.00

Table 10

Personalities.

Gc	C	Rg	Cr	Ar	Maturity Level										WAB	WAP
					10%	20%	30%	40%	50%	60%	70%	80%	90%	100%
4. Personalities	Historical and political personalities	50	550	27.5	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	–	–	19.25	22.00
	Personalities from science and technology		25	1.25	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	–	P	–	0.88	1.13
	Sports personalities		25	1.25	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	–	1.00	1.13
	Literature personalities		250	12.5	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	11.25	12.50
	Music personalities		50	2.5	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	–	–	1.75	2.00
	Art personalities		100	5	–	–	–	–	–	B	–	–	P	–	3.00	4.50
	Subtotal4	–	1000	50	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	37.13	43.25

Table 11

Digitalization of tourism.

Gc	C	Rg	Cr	Ar	Maturity Level										WAB	WAP
					10%	20%	30%	40%	50%	60%	70%	80%	90%	100%
5. Digitization of tourism	Promote online	50	545	27.25	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	24.53	27.25
	E-Tourism		25	1.25	–	–	–	–	–	–	B	P	–	–	0.88	1.00
	Tourism portal		25	1.25	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	B/P	–	–	1.00	1.00
	Virtual tours		355	17.75	–	–	–	–	–	B	–	–	P	–	10.65	15.98
	Interactive digital tourist map		50	2.5	–	–	–	–	B	–	–	P	–	–	1.25	2.00
	Subtotal5	–	1000	50	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	38.30	47.23

Table 12

Cultural and educational institutions.

Gc	C	Rg	Cr	Ar	Maturity Level										WAB	WAP
					10%	20%	30%	40%	50%	60%	70%	80%	90%	100%
6. Cultural and educational institutions	Theaters	50	275	13.75	–	–	–	–	–	P	–	–	B	–	12.38	8.25
	Houses of culture		575	28.75	–	–	–	–	–	–	P	–	B	–	25.88	20.13
	Bibliotheca		75	3.75	–	–	–	–	–	–	B		P	–	2.63	3.38
	Universities		50	2.5	–	–	–	–	–	B	–	P	–	–	1.50	2.00
	Show halls		25	1.25	–	–	–	–	P	–	–	B	–	–	1.00	0.63
	Subtotal6	–	1000	50	–										43.38	34.38

Table 13

Centralization of answers.

C	Rg	Cr	Ar	WAB	WAP
Subtotal1	–	1000	400	307.00	338.00
Subtotal2	–	1000	350	274.23	304.50
Subtotal3	–	1000	100	69.00	68.00
Subtotal4	–	1000	50	37.13	43.25
Subtotal5	–	1000	50	38.30	47.23
Subtotal6	–	1000	50	43.38	34.38
Total	1000	–	1000	769.03	835.35

Table 14

The performance indicators.

Characteristics	SCP Bucharest	SCP Paris	Bucharest Performance Indicator(%)	Paris Performance Indicator (%)
1. Civil monuments and architectural assemblies	307	338	90.83	110.10
2. Religious monuments and architectural assemblies	274.23	304.5	90.06	111.04
3. Festivals	69	68	101.47	98.55
4. Personalities	37.13	43.25	85.85	116.48
5. Tourism digitalization	38.30	47.23	81.09	123.32
6. Cultural and educational institutions	43.38	34.38	126.18	79.25
Total	769.03	835.35	92.06	108.62

Table 15

Category groups.

Characteristics	Criteria Points	WABucharest	Radar Reported toBucharest	WAParis	Radar Reported toParis	Ecart
1. Civil monuments and architectural assemblies	400	307	76.75	338	84.50	−7.75
2. Religious monuments and architectural assemblies	350	274.23	78.35	304.5	87.00	−8.65
3. Festivals	100	69	68.99	68	67.99	1.00
4. Personalities	50	37.13	74.26	43.25	86.50	−12.24
5. Digitization of tourism	50	38.3	76.60	47.23	94.46	−17.86
6. Cultural and educational institutions	50	43.38	86.76	34.38	68.76	18.00
Total	1000	769.03	–	835.35	–	–

Table 16

Relative and cumulative ascending frequency.

Characteristics	Analytical Ranking	Relative Frequency	Cumulated Frequency
Castles and palaces	240	24	24
Worship places (churches, monasteries, cathedrals)	210	21	45
Historical places	122.5	12.25	57.25
Art museums	100	10	67.25
Music festivals	50	5	72.25
History museums	40	4	76.25
Theatre and drama festivals	40	4	80.25
Houses of culture	28.75	2.875	83.125
Historical and political personalities	27.5	2.75	85.875
Promote online	27.25	2.725	88.6
Virtual tours	17.75	1.775	90.375
Theatres	13.75	1.375	91.75
Literature personalities	12.5	1.25	93
Ethnographic museums	10	1	94
Museums of natural sciences	10	1	95
Parks and Gardens	8.75	0.875	95.875
Buildings, monuments, and memorial assemblies	5.25	0.525	96.4
Medieval art festivals	5	0.5	96.9
Unconventional art festivals	5	0.5	97.4
Art personalities	5	0.5	97.9
Bibliotheca	3.75	0.375	98.275
Reservations of architecture and urbanism	3.5	0.35	98.625
Music personalities	2.5	0.25	98.875
Interactive digital tourist map	2.5	0.25	99.125
Universities	2.5	0.25	99.375
Personalities from science and technology	1.25	0.125	99.5
Sports personalities	1.25	0.125	99.625
E-Tourism	1.25	0.125	99.75
Tourism portal	1.25	0.125	99.875
Show halls	1.25	0.125	100
Total	1000	100	–

References

1. Kapera, I. Sustainable tourism development efforts by local governments in Poland. Sustain. Cities Soc.; 2018; 40, pp. 581-588. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.05.001]

2. Robu, V.; Sobolevschi, M.I.D.; Petcu, A.M. Tourism-Vector of Sustainable Development. Calitatea; 2019; 20, pp. 530-537.

3. Lee, C.-F.; Huang, H.-I.; Yeh, H.-R. Developing an evaluation model for destination attractiveness: Sustainable forest recreation tourism in Taiwan. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2010; 18, pp. 811-828. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669581003690478]

4. OECD. OECD Tourism Trends and Policies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020; ISBN 978-92-64-70314-8

5. Gao, J.; Shao, C.; Chen, S.; Wei, Z. Evaluation of Sustainable Development of Tourism Cities Based on SDGs and Tourism Competitiveness Index: Analysis of 221 Prefecture-Level Cities in China. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 12338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132212338]

6. World Economic Forum. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2019-Travel and Tourism at Tipping Point; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-travel-tourism-competitiveness-report-2019 (accessed on 4 February 2022).

7. United Nations. SDG Indicators: Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 3-15.

8. Vasile, V.; Login, I. Innovative interpretation of cultural heritage and local sustainable entrepreneurship development. Case study on Romania—In(di)visible Bucharest. European Research Development in Horizon 2020; Hlaciuc, E.; Bostan, I. Lumen Media Publishing: London, UK, 2013; pp. 573-593.

9. Artal-Tur, A.; Kozak, M. Culture and Cultures in Tourism: Exploring New Trends; 1st ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020.

10. Tseng, M.-L.; Wu, K.-J.; Lee, C.-H.; Lim, M.K.; Bui, T.-D.; Chen, C.-C. Assessing sustainable tourism in Vietnam: A hierarchical structure approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 195, pp. 406-417. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.198]

11. Savage, V.R.; Huang, S.; Chang, T.C. The Singapore river thematic zone: Sustainable tourism in an urban context. J. Geogr. Sci.; 2004; 170, pp. 212-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00121.x]

12. Richards, G.; Wilson, J. Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to the serial reproduction of culture?. Tour. Manag.; 2006; 27, pp. 1209-1223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.06.002]

13. Richards, G. Cultural Tourism: Global and Local Perspectives; The Haworth Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.

14. Liu, Y.D. Cultural Events and Cultural Tourism Development: Lessons from the European Capitals of Culture. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2014; 22, pp. 498-514. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.752442]

15. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Nascimento, J. Shaping a View on the Influence of Technologies on Sustainable Tourism. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 12691. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132212691]

16. Akhtar, N.; Khan, N.; Khan, M.M.; Ashraf, S.; Hashmi, M.S.; Khan, M.M.; Hishan, S.S. Post-COVID 19 Tourism: Will Digital Tourism Replace Mass Tourism?. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 5352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13105352]

17. Caciora, T.; Herman, G.V.; Ilies, A.; Baias, S.; Ilies, D.C.; Josan, I.; Hodor, N. The Use of Virtual Reality to Promote Sustainable Tourism: A Case Study of Wooden Churches Historical Monuments from Romania. Remote Sens.; 2021; 13, 1758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs13091758]

18. Hysa, B.; Karasek, A.; Zdonek, I. Social Media Usage by Different Generations as a Tool for Sustainable Tourism Marketing in Society 5.0 Idea. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031018]

19. Wiener, J.B. Information & Communication Technologies in Cultural Heritage & Tourism. World History Encyclopedia. 2018; Available online: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1242/information--communication-technologies-in-cultura/ (accessed on 20 February 2022).

20. Panasiuk, A.; Wszendybył-Skulska, E. Social Aspects of Tourism Policy in the European Union. The Example of Poland and Slovakia. Economies; 2021; 9, 16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/economies9010016]

21. Liao, C.-S.; Chuang, H.-K. Tourist Preferences for Package Tour Attributes in Tourism destination design and development. J. Vacat. Mark.; 2020; 26, pp. 230-246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356766719880250]

22. Panasiuk, A. Marketing Orientation of Entities on the Tourism Market. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 12040. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132112040]

23. Benur, A.M.; Bramwell, B. Tourism product development and product diversification in destinations. Tour. Manag.; 2015; 50, pp. 213-224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.02.005]

24. Yin, F.X. The construction of international tourist cities under the guidance of the concept of sustainable development. Managers; 2009; 17, 358.

25. Richards, G. Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.; 2018; 36, pp. 12-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005]

26. Sorcaru, I.A. Tourism Pressure in the Top Destinations in Romania. International Conference Risk in Contemporary Economy; XXth ed. Cristache, N. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati: Galati, Romania, 2019; pp. 31-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35219/rce206705324]

27. Stancioiu, A.F.; Teodorescu, N.; Pargaru, I.; Vladoi, A.D.; Baltescu, C. Tourism Heritage—An Important Dimension for Assessing/Shaping a City’s Image Study Case: Bucharest. Theor. Appl. Econ.; 2011; 4, pp. 159-170.

28. Tigu, G.; Cristache, S.E.; Mahika, E.C.; Totan, L. Analysis of the cultural tourism trends and perspectives in Romania. ESSACHESS; 2014; 7, pp. 191-207.

29. Briciu, A.; Briciu, V.-A.; Kavoura, A. Evaluating How ‘Smart’ Brașov, Romania Can Be Virtually via a Mobile Application for Cultural Tourism. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 5324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12135324]

30. Morar, C.; Grama, V.; Stupariu, I.M.; Nagy, G.; Boros, L.; Tiba, A.; Gozner, M.; Szabo-Alexi, S. Local perspectives over cultural tourism to heritage sites. The case study of Oradea Fortress (Romania). Geo. J. Tourism Geosites; 2020; 33, pp. 1470-1479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30892/gtg.334spl04-595]

31. Zamfir, A.; Corbos, R.-A. Towards Sustainable Tourism Development in Urban Areas: Case Study on Bucharest as Tourist Destination. Sustainability; 2015; 7, pp. 12709-12722. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su70912709]

32. Bulin, D.; Miru, N.; Roșca, I. Tourism industry in Romania and Japan–a comparative analysis. Rom. Econ. Bus. Rev.; 2014; 9, pp. 172-184.

33. Aluculesei, A.-C. Spa Tourism—A Comparative Analysis on Spain and Romania. Balneo Res. J.; 2015; 6, pp. 199-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12680/balneo.2015.1106]

34. Merciu, F.C.; Merciu, G.L.; Cercleux, A.L. The Role of Museums in the Development of Cultural Tourism. Case Study: Bucharest Municipality. Innovative Business Development—A Global Perspective; IECS, 2018; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics Orăștean, R.; Ogrean, C.; Mărginean, S. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01878-8_15]

35. Sharma, T.; Kaur, K. Benchmarking Deep Learning Methods for Aspect Level Sentiment Classification. Appl. Sci.; 2021; 11, 10542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app112210542]

36. Pickens, A.; Sengupta, S. Benchmarking Studies Aimed at Clustering and Classification Tasks Using K-Means, Fuzzy C-Means and Evolutionary Neural Networks. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extr.; 2021; 3, pp. 695-719. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/make3030035]

37. Orenes, Y.; Rabasa, A.; Rodriguez-Sala, J.J.; Sanchez-Soriano, J. Benchmarking Analysis of the Accuracy of Classification Methods Related to Entropy. Entropy; 2021; 23, 850. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/e23070850]

38. Mendola, D.; Volo, S. Building composite indicators in tourism studies: Measurements and applications in tourism destination competitiveness. Tour. Manag.; 2017; 59, pp. 541-553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.08.011]

39. Lozano-Oyola, M.; Blancas, F.J.; González, M.; Caballero, R. Sustainable tourism indicators as planning tools in cultural destinations. Ecol. Indic.; 2012; 18, pp. 659-675. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.014]

40. Nocca, F. The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development: Multidimensional Indicators as Decision-Making Tool. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1882. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9101882]

41. Martin, L.; TOMÁŠ, K. Tourism destination benchmarking: Evaluation and selection of the benchmarking partners. J. Compet.; 2012; 4, pp. 99-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7441/joc.2012.01.08]

42. Kim, S.; Whitford, M.; Arcodia, C. Development of intangible cultural heritage as a sustainable tourism resource: The intangible cultural heritage practitioners’ perspectives. J. Herit. Tour.; 2019; 14, pp. 422-435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2018.1561703]

43. García-Hernández, M.; De la Calle-Vaquero, M.; Yubero, C. Cultural Heritage and Urban Tourism: Historic City Centres under Pressure. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9081346]

44. Barlett, A.; Clark, N.T.; Merritt, D. The New Political Culture and Local Government in England. The City as an Entertainment Machine; Clark, T.N. Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2003.

45. González, A.; Fosse, J.; Santos Lacueva, R. The Integration of Sustainability in Tourism Policies of Major European Cities; Eco-Union: Barcelona, Spain, 2018.

46. Sangchumnong, A.; Kozak, M. Sustainable cultural heritage tourism at Ban Wangka Village. Thailand. Anatolia; 2018; 29, pp. 183-193. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2017.1414435]

47. World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. 2002; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/wssd/documents/wssd_pol_declaration.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2022).

48. Tian, M.; Cànoves, G.; Chu, Y.; Font-Garolera, J.; Prat Forga, J.M. Influence of Cultural Background on Visitor Segments’ Tourist Destination Image: A Case Study of Barcelona and Chinese Tourists. Land; 2021; 10, 626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10060626]

49. Interreg Europe. Sustainable Tourism: An Opportunity for Regions to Benefit from Their Cultural and Natural Heritage; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.

50. National Institute of Statistics. Tourism Data Series; National Institute of Statistics: Bucharest, Romania, 2020.

51. Puciato, D. Analysis in the Formulation of Tourism Development Strategies for Destinations. Turyzm; 2010; 20, pp. 45-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10106-010-0008-7]

52. Hwang, L.J.J.; Lockwood, A. Understanding the challenges of implementing best practices in hospitality and tourism SMEs. Benchmark. An. Int. J.; 2006; 13, pp. 337-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635770610668820]

53. Rodríguez-Díaz, B.; Pulido-Fernández, J.I. Analysis of the Worth of the Weights in a new Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index. J. Travel Res.; 2021; 60, pp. 267-280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287519899982]

54. Salinas-Fernández, J.A.; Serdeira-Azevedo, P.; Martín-Martín, J.M.; Rodríguez-Martín, J.A. Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in the countries most visited by international tourists: Proposal of a synthetic index. Tour. Manag. Perspect.; 2020; 33, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100582]