Rural Tourism in Mountain Rural Comunities-Possible Direction/Strategies: Case Study Mountain Area from Bihor County

Abstract

Rural mountain areas and their local communities have been subject to research interest over time due to their large amount of available resources, but also their problems. The strategy for some of the rural mountain communities to simultaneously preserve and capitalize on the local resources sustainably is to combine traditional activities with those related to hospitality and recreation in the form of rural tourism activity. In this context, we have used a case study to examine development in a rural mountain community through tourism activities; the study site is the rural mountain area of Bihor County in the Apuseni Mountains, which has outstanding, but untapped, potential for development. In this paper, we address the centralization of representative resources on each component community of the chosen area, concrete information related to the current stage of the development and performance of the activity directly from those involved in the coordination of the activity (rural tourism entrepreneurs) using a specific questionnaire, and proposals for possible directions/strategies to ensure future development of this communities through rural tourism activities.

1. Introduction

Rural areas and communities, along with their specific characteristics and development disparities, [1] the existence of remarkable resources, a low degree of socio-economic development, and the need for sustainable development, have been subjects of studies over the years [2,3]. This description is perhaps more fitting for mountain areas and communities because they are characterized by great “handicaps” in terms of socio-economic development”, but at the same time, they have great biodiversity and appealing landscapes due to their isolation and limited development. The economy of rural mountain communities is based on forest exploitation (which has taken excessive forms in some locations), mining activities (substantially reduced due to negative consequences), mineral water exploitation, small industries, crafts, handicrafts, and different forms of tourism (leisure, balneo-climatic tourism, rural tourism, and agritourism) [4]. If agriculture can be the “secret key” for safeguarding “rich” rural areas (plains, hills areas) from poverty, in the case of rural mountainous areas, the development of tourist activities increases their popularity. Moreover, a spatial development policy favoring the development of traditional activities, with a balance between human activities and ecological requirements, implies directing the attention of these areas toward rural tourist activities [5,6,7], which are considered as [8]:

• -. possible alternatives for supporting the agricultural sector, which is unable to support the living needs of people from rural mountain areas and has confronted many problems in the last few years, despite having great potential [9], and

• -. the possibility of entrepreneurship for increasing development in these areas as sustainably as possible so that they can be appealing to young people and encourage them to stay in these areas in the long term through the creation of new jobs [10].

Thus, through rural tourism activities, it may be possible to ensure the connection of the economic, social, and environmental aspects of the rural mountain communities [11,12] and allow the holistic capitalization of all resources [13,14,15,16] in an innovative way [17] to ensure its productivity, economic competitiveness, and future profitability [18]. Positive examples where the local mountain community managed to ensure its “smart” development [19,20] through rural tourism or agritourism activities (either agritourism household with individuality or through the smart tourist village) [21,22] are numerous [23,24,25,26,27]. Therefore, rural tourism is a promising strategy for ensuring a holistic approach in terms of sustainability [28] by connecting different fields, resources, and actors.

The rural mountain communities in the Bihor County area, which was chosen for this research, fit the description above perfectly. The study area is part of the Apuseni Mountains, an area spread over the territory of six counties, with great potential for rural/agritourism activities, but also with numerous disparities. The objective of this research is the analysis of the degree of rural tourism activity development in the study area to obtain concrete information directly from rural tourism entrepreneurs, which will allow the development of some possible directions/strategies for sustainable future development. Therefore, the contribution of this study is relevant to research as well as the centralization of representative resources specific to tourism activities in each component commune of this area, information related to the current stage of activity’s development is collected directly from those involved in this particular field, and based on this information, providing concrete directions/proposals to support future smart development. With its practical applications, this paper could be the starting point for more research in this area or for entities interested in certain future actions and proposals for local development.

2. Theoretical Framework

The European mountain area is highly important due to its land area (approximately 40% of the total land area), the size of the residing population (approximately 19% of the European population), and the resources it provides [29]. However, there are also numerous problems in this area. For example, these mountain areas are isolated and have limited development compared to other areas, but perhaps, it is also due to this aspect that they have high biodiversity and special landscapes, with a potential for tourism activities [30].

Through research on mountain areas conducted over time and by combining the information obtained from other studies [31,32,33,34,35], certain features that underline their importance have been identified: 18% of all European agricultural holdings are found in the mountain areas, and of the total cultivated agricultural area in Europe, approximately 15% is found in the mountain areas; 15% of the agricultural workforce in Europe is registered in mountain areas; 29% of dairy cows, 32% of sheep, and 67% of goats are raised for products in mountain areas; labor productivity is, on average, 28% lower in mountainous areas compared to less favored areas and 40% lower compared to lowlands; obtaining agricultural production in mountain areas is challenging to the landscape, but this feature is valuable for tourism activities, whose success depend on the involvement of the local community [36,37].

The dominant element of the mountain areas is represented by the human settlements, and their importance is derived from the traditional life with ancestral roots and a certain uniqueness, the traditional gastronomic products, the specific architecture, and the unique and extremely varied rural landscape. All these aspects can be utilized for the development of suitable activities to provide long-term benefits. Other representative particularities of these communities are an increase in agricultural activities (which are unproductive and unattractive for the younger generations such that many of the farms at high altitudes are being abandoned and are unable to expand or intensify their activity) and a collapse of the extractive industry (Figure 1).

There are several strengths and weaknesses that characterize rural mountain areas. Therefore, the question is: What must be done in the future to ensure the development of this area (Figure 1)? Although there are several options to increase development, possible economic, social, and ecological consequences must be considered to ensure a sustainable and integrated development. One of the integrated development solutions may involve an emphasis on the development of rural tourism activities to safeguard extensive productive activities and services [16,38] due to the existence of relevant resources and the fact that they meet the sustainability requirements [16,39]. Rural tourism activities can be sustainable by supporting the “health” of the rural community economically, socially, and ecologically through the use of its own resources [40] (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Capitalizing on the traditional local resources of mountain communities through rural tourism activities can represent an important “tool” for the revitalization of the local mountain economy, and the optimal direction might involve the combination of the agricultural field with tourism, culture, crafts, and gastronomy [41], assuming a holistic approach encompassing the economy, society, and environment [42,43]. Through its implementation and development of products, rural tourism activities can be one of the most effective ways to capitalize on the resources in rural communities, contributing to the economy in traditional villages. The approach of the local community, considering the valorization of local resources through tourism, must be related to:

• -. the ability to initiate and support collaboration through partnerships between all entities interested in the tourism field in a coordinated manner, and

• -. the stimulation of local initiatives and the co-interest of future rural entrepreneurs to carry out their activities in the network, ensuring the integration of local agricultural products, crafts, and ethno-folkloric resources in future products.

The final effect of this approach [44] will be to create a competitive rural environment [45], whose development is focused on sustainability [46,47], allowing it to be economically viable for a long period through:

• -. the continuation of unique crafts and reiteration of the locals’ interest in this field. This ensures the development and diversification of leisure opportunities, which support the much-desired occupational balance in the rural environment and creation of jobs,

• -. supporting the emergence and development of alternative or parallel activities to predominant agricultural ones, with the possibility of bringing additional income for farmers as well as the community,

• -. stimulating local economies and ensuring a direct access to markets through tourism activities, and

• -. supporting diversified associations in the form of family households, family associations, professional associations, and “public-private” partnerships.

The mountain area in Bihor County has 36 rural mountain communes, with many rural resources suitable for rural tourism. In this context, the aim of the paper assessed the degree of development of rural tourism activities in mountain communities in this particular area. In order to achieve the desired goal, four research objectives were predetermined:

• -. identification of the elements/resources that are unique to the Bihor Mountain area, grouped by component communes,

• -. analysis of the evolution of the number of tourists in the study area through statistical centralization and establishment of the existence of differences between the degree of development,

• -. identification of local entrepreneurs’ “vision” in the field (motivation to carry out the activity, specificity of the tourist product, minuses and development actions, and the ability to adapt to the tourist market), and

• -. development of possible directions/strategies based on the information from local entrepreneurs in order to sustain the development of these communities through tourism.

3. Data and Methodology

A case study methodology was used for this research [48,49,50] because it was considered appropriate for this particular type and area of the research [51,52,53]. In addition, a questionnaire with 15 questions was used to conduct the research, which was based on six directives:

• -. Statistical evaluation by gender and studies in the field

• -. Identification of entrepreneurs’ motivation and contribution status to socio-economic development

• -. Identification of the details of tourist products to establish the entrepreneurs’ “vision” for this field

• -. Highlighting the current minuses and development actions for a “smart” positive impact on the community

• -. Identifying the local entrepreneurs’ ability to adapt to the tourist market, starting with the applied management

• -. The existence of the desire to actively participate in sketching a plan/strategy for the development of rural tourism activity in the future.

The research was conducted in the following stages: (1) collection of theoretical information and similar studies relevant to the direction researched, (2) identification of the characteristics of the studied area, starting with those with potential, followed by those that emphasize the degree of development, (3) delimitating the area in 3 zones (by strictly considering the geographical criteria and existence of units with rural/agritourism profile): the northern area (Bratca, Șuncuiuș, Sinteu, Vadu Crișului, and Varciorog), the central area (Bulz, Budureasa, Curatele, Remetea, and Rosia), and the southern area (Buntesti, Carpinet, Campani, Draganesti, Finis, and Pietroasa), (4) application of the questionnaire (in the study, the units where owners fully answered to the questions were considered), (5) processing information and structuring it according to the research directions and objectives established, and (6) conclusions (Figure 4).

The mountain area in Bihor County was chosen as the study site because it is a component of an important mountain area in Romania, namely the Apuseni Mountains. The total area of the Apuseni Mountain region is about 16,200 km², with 186 UATs [54] (about 7% of the country’s surface) and covers six counties, namely Alba, Arad, Bihor, Cluj, Hunedoara, and Salaj. The highest share, regarding the distribution of the area of the Apuseni Mountains by county, belongs to Alba County (26.7%), followed by Bihor (21.2%), Cluj (20.5%), Hunedoara (14.4%), Arad (11.9%), and Salaj County (5.3%). In terms of surface, Bihor County holds the predominant share in the geographical structure of the Apuseni Mountains, with 36 of the territorial administrative units (Figure 5).

The study area has great potential for tourism; here, there are a large number of caves (8% of the entire number of caves in the country). In addition, it contains some speleological superlatives: the deepest cave—V5 in the Varasoaia-Padis System, the longest cave —Pestera Vantului–Suncuius, the largest underground waterfall in the Campeneasca-Vascau Cave, the deepest submerged cave —Izbucul Izbandis, and the largest landscaped cave in the country —the Bears Cave. In Bihor County, there are 70 nature reserves and 37 European Natura 2000 Network. The relief is also suitable for some common or extreme sports, such as mountain biking, mountaineering, and climbing in Vad-Suncuiuș and Aleului-Bohodei, where almost 100 areas have been developed, canyoning in Galbena Valley, Oșelu Valley, Saritoarea Bohodei, and Padis/Vartop Valley, rafting and kayaking (there is a reliable operator for this water sport on the mountain rivers), paragliding (occasionally practiced in the area of Rosia, Padis, Hidiselul de Sus, and Stana de Vale), and zip lining (Rosia/Pestera Farcau and the crater in Betfia) [55].

4. Results of the Research

4.1. Identification and Brief Highlights of the Individual Elements in the Mountain Area in Bihor County—Synthetic Analysis by Communes

Regarding rural tourism, the local community itself is the main resource, with its unique individual resources. In the study area, there are 32 communes, and four territorial units designated as a city (36 administrative territorial units), each with certain representative elements presented synthetically in Table 1.

The traditional household in the study area is also of special interest for tourism, being specific to the geographical location. Its structure is determined by the direction and field of production. Therefore, the structure of the traditional household reflects the owners’ status and source of income. From a structural point of view, the traditional household in this rural mountain area has a stone base as its foundation and is made of wooden beams that are either hewn or round. The roof is also made of wood. The structure is not only appealing on the exterior, but also on the interior due to its simplicity, functionality, and elegance, which are attractive features to those seeking to “travel back in time” through architecture. The simplistic, but elegant, decor, generally created by the owners, seems to be frozen in time to the modern man, but it is simultaneously stylized with specific details, as follows:

• -. wood carving of window consoles and door frames,

• -. the wood carving of the large gates and the entrances to the stables with specific motifs that are strongly highlighted, and

• -. the use of decoration pieces (hangings, curtains, carpets, and curtains) woven in the war.

The sheepfold is also an “emblematic element” of their unique way of life. The phenomenon of transhumance, which involves the departure of sheep to the sheepfold, to which specific milk products are added, can attract tourists to this area.

A special element that supports the charm of country life in this area is the folk costume, which is not only a unique creation, but in the case of many rural communities locally, it contains elements of authentic craftsmanship and represents a “different kind of architecture”.

Peasant crafts were extremely varied, according to existing needs that could not be satisfied through exchanges with other areas. Important craft centers are listed below:

• -. In the field of pottery, the areas of Beius-Leheceni, Saliste de Vascau, and Cristioru de Jos stand out for red ceramics, and the area of Crisul Repede-Vadu Crisului stands out for white ceramics.

• -. Liming was practiced in the past on a large scale in the area. Currently, the burning of limestone is practiced only to satisfy local needs, with lime kilns in working condition still found in Zece Hotare, Damis, Ponoare, Remeti, and Vadu-Crisului.

• -. Fur-coating is currently practiced only sporadically. The most important centers were in Vadu-Crisului and Suncuius, where chests were made, and the leathers were tanned in Bratca. The most important centers were in Cabesti and Rosia.

• -. In the field of interior textiles, the areas of Chiscau, Pietroasa, Remetea-Beius, Bratca, and Borod are important.

• -. Wooden dowry boxes were made in Budureasa.

• -. Dragoteni, Remetea-Beius was the representative area for poached eggs.

• -. The mills illustrate another occupation specific to the area. In Rosia Valley, there are five mills with superior adduction (two in the Roșia and one each in Cabesti, Josani, and Remetea). In Valea Videi there are three mills with superior adduction (in Sitani, Lucasprie, and Pomezeu), one mill with upper adduction in Suncuius, one mill in Valea Steazelor, and a mill with buckets in Valea Iadului in the town of Bulz.

4.2. Analyzing the Evolution of the Number of Tourist Units and Establishing the Existence of Differences between the Degree of Development

In order to highlight the development level of tourism activities in the study area, a quantitative inventory of existing tourist units from the mountain area localities was generated using the public database of the National Institute of Statistics (Table 2).

Thus, according to the centralized data, in 2022, ten villas, five cottages, two campsites, five tourist guesthouses, and 58 agritourism guesthouses can be found in this area. Table 2 presents an evolutionary record from 1995 until 2022, and the first agritourist guesthouses appeared in 2010 (4 in number), and by 2022, that number was estimated to reach 58. Thus, in 1995, there were 15 tourist units in the study area, and in 2022, there were a total of 80 rural tourist units, representing a significant increase, which underlines the growing interest in tourism activities, especially agritourism.

Furthermore, in order to establish the existence of differences between the groups that indicate the degree of development of rural tourist activities in the Bihor localities analyzed, with regard to tourist guesthouses and agritourist guesthouses for the 2010–2015–2020–2022 period, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. The statistical summary and results for the evolution of tourist guesthouses and agritourist guesthouses are shown in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. In both cases, the differences between years are statistically significant, with p = 0.02 for tourist guesthouses and p < 0.001 for agritourism guesthouses. For tourist guesthouses, the average value increased from 0.45 in 2015 to 2.81 in 2022. The increase was also significant for the evolution of agritourist guesthouses, with an increase in the average value from 0.36 in 2010 to 2.90 in 2022.

4.3. Rural Tourism Development in Rural Mountain Communities in Bihor County—An Analysis of Local Entrepreneurs’ ”Vision” in the Field

Perhaps the most efficient way to identify the degree of development of rural tourism activities is by collecting information directly from those involved in this field, i.e., the local entrepreneurs in the field of rural tourism. The statistical record of entrepreneurs in the field of agritourism participating in the study shows that 53 of the 80 existing units in the area were considered in the study, representing 66.25% of the units. Therefore, the results regarding the units included in the study (b) show a higher number of rural tourist units in the central part of the studied area, equivalent to 45.28% of the number of units in the study, followed by the southern area, with 32.07%. In fact, the central and southern areas were more representative and stood out in terms of resources. Following the statistical evaluation of the respondents by type (a), we can see that rural tourist units included in the study are privately owned and that the female gender predominates. With regard to the studies in agritourism (c), 67.92% of those surveyed do not have specialized degrees in this field, possibly due to the late appearance of agritourism units in the area (which occurred in 2010). However, the growing evolution of rural tourist units (from 22 in 2010 to 80 in 2022) is promising. If this growth is correlated with the percentage of those who have degrees in the field (32.07%), it provides stronger evidence that local entrepreneurs have started to identify opportunities for tourism activities in the area. In addition, they can compensate for the lack of specialized training by gaining experience through the implementation of the activities (Table 5).

Through the following research direction, the identification of agritourism entrepreneurship motivation and contribution status to socio-economic development (Table 6) was performed; in other words, the “vision” of local entrepreneurs was assessed because, depending on the motivation for performing the activities, their long-term evolution can be evaluated.

Regarding the first aspect that was analyzed (agritourism contributing to own socio-economic development (a)), the results showed that 75.46% of the entrepreneurs who performed this activity considered it useful for their own socio-economic development. The remaining 24.53% of entrepreneurs, who did not consider the agritourism activity to contribute to their economic development, stated that it required large investments, and they later failed to prepare/adopt some specific measures to recover the initial investment due to the lack of specialized knowledge, difficulties in creating the package of tourist services due to the lack of experience and specialized knowledge, etc. The second aspect analyzed within this objective (the motivation of agritourism entrepreneurship (b)) had three possible predetermined answers. There was a very small difference between the first two answers: autonomy and additional income (1) and the possibility of capitalization of agricultural products or specific crafts (2), which is a “good starting point” for this activity in the study area, suggesting that it follows the stated purpose: contributing to the support of the agricultural field through direct marketing of own products/resources, with the aim of obtaining additional income to ensure autonomy and generate sustainability of the local community through jobs and profitability.

The third research objective refers to the analysis of the tourist product specifics, consisting of three questions with predetermined answers and following the evaluation of the degree of development of agritourism through the complexity of the products offered (Table 7).

The degree of the development of the agritourism field in the Bihor County Mountain area assumed the identification of the three elements (accommodation, food, and leisure) offered through the agritourism product(a), but the answers collected highlight the early stage of the activity’s development. Only 28.30% of the owners of rural tourist units can offer all three elements of the agritourism product, with the remaining 71.69% offering only one or two elements of the tourism product (usually accommodation and food). Regarding the second aspect, the agritourist product contained specific/local rural resources (b), with the possibility to identify a strong development direction in the field. A total of 43.39% of the entrepreneurs offered their own traditional products (3), strengthening the essence of the agritourism activity, and 32.07% emphasized the capitalization of natural resources specific to the mountain area (1); in other words, they would take advantage of the current position, which is a good strategy in the absence of knowledge and financial possibilities to consolidate the activity. In addition, 24.53% emphasized traditional resources from the local community (2), which is expected considering that original resources are in great demand by tourists. It is certain that, although the entrepreneurs are in the early phase of the agritourism activity’s development, they have succeeded in identifying the representative elements derived from the geographical settlement, the socio-economic benefits, the productivity, and their inclusion in the specific tourism products. The third aspect identifies the extent to which local entrepreneurs can evaluate the complexity of the agritourism product (c). Also, from this point of view, a promising aspect was observed, where 69.80% of the entrepreneurs are aware of the need for necessary improvements to transform agritourism products into a “smart” tool for capitalizing on own/local resources.

We believe that in order to identify the “vision” of local entrepreneurs in the field of agritourism, it is necessary to identify the current minuses and development actions for a “smart” positive impact on the community, directly from those involved in the implementation of the activity (Table 8).

In order to identify the shortcomings of the agritourism activity, four possible answers were designed, starting from the general disadvantages noted in the field. The challenge of offering the three specific elements of the tourist product (i.e., a complete agritourist product (1)) is seen as the main drawback by 39.63% of the entrepreneurs, and based on this aspect, another drawback is observed, in terms of the low visibility of the tourist market (4), indicated by 32.07% of those surveyed. A total of 16.98% of the surveyed entrepreneurs indicated the lack of adequate infrastructure for tourism activities (2), with reference to infrastructure for tourist access and leisure. A total of 11.31% of entrepreneurs indicated the lack of desire for association as a drawback (3), which could contribute to solving some problems that inhibit future development.

We believe that the agritourism activity can support socio-economic development and that this will promote the development of the local rural community in the long term. To achieve this, agritourism entrepreneurs can identify the development actions so that this activity can have a “smart” positive impact on the community (b). Out of the three predetermined answer possibilities, 47.16% of the interviewed entrepreneurs considered the creation of an agritourism product as a local brand (1) and 33.97% would suggest encouraging the local community to become involved in the agritourism activity (3). Another negative aspect was the reluctance towards the association, with only 18.86% of the surveyed entrepreneurs seeing the association as a way to provide “smart” support for future development.

The fifth direction followed the identification of the entrepreneur’s adaptability to the requirements of the tourist market starting from the applied management (Table 9), with the goal of establishing future directions for the development of the field, starting from the existing conditions.

Regarding the first aspect analyzed (the own resource capitalized through the tourism activity (a)), 73.58% of the entrepreneurs put a predominant emphasis on agricultural products (1) and only 26.41% on crafts (2), although all the communities included in the study have many specific resources and traditions in the craft category. This aspect shows the main motivation of the agritourism activity, which is the direct exploitation of the products from their own production. This aspect supports the fragility and lack of “youth” in the agritourism activity in this particular area, with the entrepreneurs lacking the ability to offer services in the leisure category; these may be potential explanations for the motivation for the necessary improvements that must be applied to the agritourism product (Table 7). The next aspect analyzed referred to the way in which business management is achieved (b), and the conclusions drawn reveal a strong foundation for the activity, with 86.79% of entrepreneurs ensuring the management of the unit with the help of their own family (1). However, by correlating this aspect with the fact that 71.69% of the entrepreneurs cannot offer all three elements specific to agritourism products (Table 7), it can be deduced that there is a reduced capacity for the development of agritourism in the area over time. Only 13.20% of the entrepreneurs used specialist advice, and they declared that this happened at the start of the activity. The fragility of the field and lack of success in the “beginner” stage are also observed from the third aspect, i.e., the existence of the ability to adapt to the requirements of the tourist market (c). Only 20.75% of the entrepreneurs indicated that they have this ability. The question was designed with two possible answers and an additional criterion, through which we collected information regarding the following possible development directions directly from those involved in the activity. A total of 79.24% of entrepreneurs do not have the ability to adapt to the requirements of the tourist market (c), lacking certain aspects summarized in the following in those three areas:

• -. The entrepreneurs from the northern part of the area (Bratca, Suncuius, Sinteu, Vadu Crisului, and Varciorog) consider the low level of authorities’ interest in the tourism field to be a drawback, which reduces their ability to adapt to the requirements of the profile market.

• -. In the case of entrepreneurs from the central part of the area (Bulz, Budureasa, Curatele, Remetea, and Rosia), there are missing aspects related to profile infrastructure and there is a reduced emphasis on rural tourism for future development.

• -. Entrepreneurs from the southern part of the area (Buntesti, Carpinet, Campani, Draganesti, Finis, and Pietroasa) mentioned a lack of specialized knowledge, professional associations, consultants in the field, and strategy for the future development of tourism activities.

The development of rural tourism in the mountainous area of Bihor County through a series of appropriate future directions/strategies is not possible without the desire to actively participate in the achievement of a future development plan/strategy by several categories of actors. Therefore, the identification of the desire to participate/realize a development plan and the directions with a “must have” characteristic to ensure the future development of the field in the area (Table 10) is not only opportune, but also mandatory. The purpose is to be able to identify future possible directions/strategies to sustain rural tourism development in these communities. It appears that 86.79% of rural tourism entrepreneurs are willing to actively participate in the implementation of a plan/strategy for the development of rural tourism activities in the future (a). However, there are also 13.20% who do not want to be actively involved; this is not surprising based on the correlation between this information with the “youth” in the rural tourism activity and the fact that entrepreneurs in the area have a low success rate (28.30%, Table 7) for providing a complete tourism product. Even if for 75.46% of the entrepreneurs, the agritourism activity was contributing to their own socio-economic development (Table 6), the ability to achieve a development plan/strategy (b) is quite low, with only 22.64% of them having the ability to realize their own development strategy, as opposed the larger percentage of entrepreneurs (67.92%, Table 3) who do not have degrees in this field. Regarding the motivation for this objective (the future proposals with a “must have” characteristic to ensure the future development of the field in area (c)), the entrepreneurs mentioned improving the ability to lead/coordinate the activity at individual and local levels, improving the ability to create unique tourist products as a “brand” unique to the place, capitalizing on and incorporating specific local resources into the activity so that the rural tourism activity generates a “smart” positive impact on the community, and creating a strategy for local authorities and engaging the whole community.

5. Discussions and Future Proposals

The contributions of this study can be summarized as follows:

• -. Communities from Budureasa, Bulz, Bratca, Campani, Carpinet, Pietroasa, Remetea, Rosia, Suncuius, and Vadu Crisului stand out in terms of specific resources for rural tourism or agritourism activities.

• -. In quantitative terms and variance analysis, it was shown that there is a positive evolution and significant increase in both rural tourism units and agritourism guesthouses, and there is a close connection between the number of units and communities with many resources.

• -. The third important contribution was to obtain concrete information from local entrepreneurs, highlighting the degree of development in the study area (Table 11): the lack of specific training in the field, the main motivation of agritourism entrepreneurship from this area is autonomy and additional income, the agritourism product cannot offer all three elements (accommodation, food, and leisure), but contains specific/local rural resources (either natural or traditional ones from local community), and local entrepreneurs are aware that their agritourism product requires improvements to be a “smart” tool for capitalizing their own/local resources. Several drawbacks were identified by the specialized entrepreneurs: incomplete tourist products, low visibility on the tourist market, inadequate infrastructure for tourist activities, and lack of desire for association, which can influence rural tourism development. Local entrepreneurs in the field consider that creating an agritourism product as a local brand would be a “smart” action with a positive impact on the community; the management of this field can be achieved through one’s own family but lacks the ability to adapt to the requirements of the tourist market.

• -. The fourth important contribution refers to certain proposals issued based on the information from the local communities analyzed (Table 12) to sustain rural tourism development. The consequences and implications of these directions/strategies proposed could be broadly stated as: the preservation of identity and dissemination of cultural values, the promotion of resources for the benefit of these local communities, the preservation of agricultural lands and natural meadows, maintaining and modernizing agricultural activities-in specific forms, the preservation of existing industries and crafts, the establishment of activities based on new technologies, increasing local incomes and the standard of living, implicitly keeping the population within the area and combating the youth exodus, and the development of the tertiary sector.

6. Conclusions

A summary and important contributions of this research are described below:

• -. There are many elements/resources that impart individuality to each component commune in the Bihor Mountain area. The villages in this area reflect the evolution of the area over time and their specific traditions. A beneficial aspect is that, although this area has been exposed to modernization, some of the original elements that can increase the popularity of the local mountain communities are still preserved. So, the study area is particularly original, with the following localities having potential for rural tourism or agritourism activities: Budureasa, Bulz, Bratca, Campani, Carpinet, Pietroasa, Remetea, Rosia, Suncuius, and Vadu Crișului.

• -. The first and second objectives of the research show that there is a close connection between the existing resources and the number of existing structures. Thus, the same localities with a large number of tourist units also have more original resources, local natural endowment, and the ”archaic rural way of life”, namely Budureasa, Bulz, Bratca, Campani, Carpinet, Pietroasa, Remetea, Rosia, Suncuius, and Vadu Crișului. Regarding rural and agritourist guesthouses, there was a positive development through their evolution and a representative increase in the number of guesthouses. In localities with representative resources for this particular type of tourism, the largest number of specialized tourism units were found.

• -. Regarding ”the vision” of local entrepreneurs in this field of activity, the findings revealed both positive and negative aspects. The negative aspects include:

• -. the reduced percentage of those with specialized degrees in the field (only 32.07%)

• -. it is likely that due to this aspect, only 28.30% of them can offer all three elements of the rural tourism product, with the remaining 71.69% of the entrepreneurs in this field only being able to offer one or two elements of the tourist product (usually accommodation and food)

• -. 79.24% of entrepreneurs do not have the ability to adapt to market requirements, underlining the fragility and youth of the field

• -. Only 18.86% of the surveyed entrepreneurs consider the association to be beneficial for the “smart” support of future development, which means that this reluctance toward the association is another challenge

• -. 86.79% of entrepreneurs ensure the management of their business using their own family, but the fact that 71.69% of the entrepreneurs cannot offer all three elements of agritourism product is also a challenge, which can be expected in the absence of specialized training

• -. The positive aspects include:

• -. 75.46% of the entrepreneurs consider that developing rural/agritourism activities were useful to their own socio-economic development

• -. Regarding the motivation of agritourism entrepreneurship in the analyzed area, most of the entrepreneurs are incentivized to develop to increase autonomy, earn additional income, and capitalize on agricultural products or specific crafts

• -. For the creation of particular tourism products, 43.39% of entrepreneurs emphasize traditional products, 32.07% emphasize natural resources specific to the mountain area, and 24.53% emphasize traditional resources from the local community

• -. 86.79% of rural tourism entrepreneurs are willing to actively participate in the achievement of a plan/strategy for the development of rural tourism activities in the future, which shows a desire for involvement and an interest in the field.

Therefore, by combining the positive and negative aspects identified, the development of rural tourism activities in this particular area is well-founded but the development of these communities to adapt to modern needs requires more work. Focusing strictly on the development of the rural environment predominantly through agricultural activities is no longer adapted to the current crucial changes and demands [76,77]. In this context, where the resources allow this, the interest in supporting entrepreneurship in rural areas, especially tourism entrepreneurship, starts with the need to support future initiatives/investments that lead to a long-term increase in local income and support for economic profitability.

In the study area, there are many resources with outstanding tourist values that can be capitalized through tourism activities. Capitalizing on the lifestyle, local identity, specific traditions of great originality, local gastronomic products, and natural resources, or in other words, the “positive aspects” of the studied area, could be used to form a “traditional tourist village” because this form of sustainable development is holistic and innovative, connecting different fields, actors, technologies to support the development of the local community.

There were certain critical points or possible limitations: The study is quite extensive geographically and thus, it was not possible to include all the entrepreneurs in the field in the study. Other challenges included low responsiveness from entrepreneurs and the non-accumulation of a representative number of completed questionnaires, but these were overcome during the research stages.

The current research could be the starting point for other objectives for future research, with a focus on comparisons to similar areas, creating a development plan, the importance of local brands in terms of resources or products to attract tourists, the attitude of locals toward tourism activities in local communities, the benefits and impact of tourism activities for communities, etc.

Author Contributions

All authors have contributed to the study and writing of this research. C.A.P. and R.C., conceived the general idea; T.I. contributed to the design of the research; G.P. and T.A. collected and analyzed the data; I.M.C. synthesized the information and drew the main conclusions and proposals. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

We obtained informed consent from the participants involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study/paper are available upon request from the first corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funding institute had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analyses, and interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, or decision to publish the results.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Features of rural mountain area—possible directions for future smart integrated development.

Figure 2. Rural tourism activity is a tool for making traditional communities profitable by using their own resources.

Figure 3. Rural tourism development in rural mountain communities—a holistic approach.

Figure 4. The main steps of the research.

Figure 5. The contour and distribution by counties and localities on the Apuseni Mountains. Source: processing after Anexa din Legea Muntelui-Grupa Munților Apuseni, https://azm.gov.ro/harta-muntii-apuseni/, consulted on 3 October 2023 [54].

Table 1

Identification of the specific resources that are important for rural tourism in the study area.

No.	Locality	Identification of the Specific Resources That Are Important for Rural Tourism in the Study Area
1.	Astileu	- Includes 4 villages, comprising 5882 ha and 1450 households.   - A significantly low share of agricultural services, indicating the maintenance of a relatively traditionalist model of agriculture. The traditional activities of raising animals and cultivating the land are practiced at a subsistence level [56].   - It stands out for its natural resources: the Igrita Cave and the “Pijniti” Valley from Pestere village, the Miaraie Valley, and the Cuglis Cave from Calatea village.
2.	Auseu	- Includes 6 villages, comprising 7258 ha and 1254 households   - Cultural resources: 2 churches from the 18th century in the villages of Gheghie and Lunsoara, 1 castle, and 1 archaeological site in Luncsoara.   - Natural resources from the Ses Mountain—Natura 2000 site, including 16 types of habitats [57].
3.	Borod	- Includes 6 villages, comprising 10,562 ha and 1769 households.   - Natural reserve “Fossiliferous place from Cornițel” (0.01 ha) and Ses Mountain, which are included in the European Ecological Network Natura 2000.
4.	Baita	The locality is part of the Nucet city administration, along with Baita-Plai and the Vartop holiday village; it was a mining area recognized for the extraction of gold, silver, uranium, and marble.
5.	Bratca	- Includes 6 villages, comprising 13,648 ha and 2213 households.   - Natural resources: [58] Tipleoaia Water Cave, Campu Ciunii Cave, or “Colored Cave”, and Sancuta Cave, occupying the 9th place among the caves from Apuseni Mountains. The fossil reserve at Valea Crisului, locally known as “La Pietrele de Moara”, including the so-called “hippurite limestone” (which was declared a natural monument and protected by law) and Cheile Bratcuta are good candidates for tourism due to its tree cover.
6.	Bunteşti	- Includes 9 villages, comprising 7386 ha and 1219 households.   - The representative resources that can promote tourism are [59] the old wooden churches (from the villages Bradet, Dumbravani, and Stancesti), the center of unpolished ceramics from Lelesti, the “Ferice Plai si Hoanca” nature reserve (0.10 ha.), the water mill in Poienii de Sus, the polygonal streets (from the 17th to the 20th century), Ferice village, and the Saud water mill.
7.	Budureasa	- Includes 5 villages and the Stana de Vale resort, comprising 34,619 ha and 743 households.   - The important resources are the dowry chest made by local artisans and folk sewing.   - An important limestone mine (with an estimated reserve of 20 million tons of brucite limestone) and six underground springs.   - The wooden church from Saca and the protected natural areas (Buteasa (SCI site)—the Karst Complex from Ponor Valley-Radesei-Faneata Izvoarelor and Crisul Pietros-Apuseni Natural Park-Smeilor Cave-Buteasa Peak-Carligati Peak) [60].
8.	Bulz	- Includes 3 villages, comprising 9939 ha and 1019 households.   - Representative resources for tourist activity include the folk art collection from the school in the hamlet of Pusta, the exploitation of bauxite and compact limestone in Remeti village, the Lesu reservoir, the Water Cave in Bulz, the water mill in 1746, and the whirlpool from the 19th century in Bulz village, and natural reserves (Buteasa Peak—2.0 ha and Water Cave from Les Valley—0.1 ha).
9.	Carpinet	- Includes 4 villages, comprising 6919 ha and 816 households.   - Several resources “with visibility”: the intermittent Izbucul from Calugari, the wooden church from Izbuc Monastery, and Vascau Plateau (included in the European Natura 2000 Network)
10.	Cabesti	- Includes 5 villages, comprising 7166 ha.   - The representative resources of the commune are [61] the old wooden churches (from Josani, Sohodol, Goila) and Crisul Repede Gorge—Padurea Craiului (included in the European Natura 2000 Network).
11.	Campani	- Includes 5 villages, comprising 4449 ha and 719 households.   - Its resources include the caves of Sighistel Valey and Fanate village, and the old wooden church in Fanate village.   - The existence of agritourist guesthouses can be used as models.
12.	Cristioru de Jos	- Includes 5 villages, comprising 10,576 ha and 409 households.   - The most important tourist objective is the mountain, with several other particular resources standing out [62], such as Taul Negru, Piatra Graitoare, Tisa Waterfalls, Alpine vegetation and lands remarkable for their simplicity, wildness and naturalness, the sheepfold from Poiana, preserving the old custom of transhumance to this day, Vascau Plateau, and Cepelor Valley (Sites of Community Importance included in the European Natura 2000 Network).
13.	Curatele	- Includes 5 villages, comprising 9110 ha and 764 households.   - Representative tourist resources are [63] Crisul Repede Gorge-Padurea Craiului (included in the European Natura 2000 Network), Ferice—Plai (SCI site), and the water mill in Curatele village.
14.	Draganesti	- Includes 10 villages, comprising 3666 ha and 1125 households.   - Natural resources include [64] ballast, gravel and sand, clay for bricks, wood from the area’s forests, mushrooms and forest fruits, and wooden churches, from Talpe, Sebis, and Belejeni villages.
15.	Dobresti	- Includes 8 villages, comprising 13,235 ha and 1621 households.   - The representative features of the commune are [65] old wooden churches (from Luncasprie and Topa de Jos), Lake Vida, Crisul Repede Gorge—Padurea Craiului (included in the European Natura 2000 Network), and Toplita cave.
16.	Finis	- Includes 4 villages, comprising 10,470 ha.   - The commune has several resources of inestimable tourist value: Finis Fortress [66,67], Huta hermitage, and the Finis Valley tourist area.
17.	Lazuri de Beius	- Includes 4 villages, comprising 5892 ha and 621 households.   - The commune is oriented towards agricultural activity, animal husbandry, rural crafts, and a very good preservation of the traditions and customs specific to life in these lands [68].
18.	Lunca	- Includes 6 villages, comprising 1457 ha and 1090 households.   - Agrarian craft occupations of the inhabitants.   - It is the starting point for tourist routes in the Codru-Moma Mountains, which can be a major element in organized tourism [69].
19.	Lugasu de Jos	- Includes 3 villages, comprising 5420 ha and 974 households.   - Tourist resources of interest are the wooden churches from Lugasu de Sus, the mansion of Count Zichy from Lugașu de Jos, the natural paleontological reserve “Gruiul Pietrii” (0.40 ha), and Ses Mountain (a Site of Community Importance included in the European Natura 2000 Network).
20.	Magesti	- includes 7 villages, comprising 5130 ha and 955 households.   - Representative tourist resources include the old wooden church from Josani village, the brick church from Cacuciu Nou, the “Galaseni Cave” nature reserve (0.10 ha), and the Crisul Repede Gorge-Craiului Forest (included in the European Natura 2000 Network).
21.	Pietroasa	- Includes 7 villages, comprising 16,805 ha.   - The commune hosts many tourist resources: [70] the Bear Cave, the Zapodie Cave-Padiș area, Cheile Galbenei—one of the grandest gorges of Apuseni Mountains (with several tourist attractions: Ponor Citadels, Evantai Waterfall, Caput Cave, and Poiana Florilor), the Padis tourist area with wild valleys, rapid waters, deep gorges, canyons, sinkholes, springs, and caves with ice (Focul Viu Glacier), Oselu Waterfall, and Coliboaia Cave.
22.	Remetea	- Includes 7 villages, comprising 6670 ha and 937 households.   - The commune’s renowned resources include Meziad Cave, the wooden church from Ssoimus-Petreasa, and Crisul Repede Gorge-Padurea Craiului (included in the European Natura 2000 Network).   - The commune can support rural tourist activities thanks to the preservation of the traditional cultural heritage (folk costume), the landscape of the Apuseni Mountains, old traditions involved in the processing of some local resources (e.g., stone extractive industry and lime manufacturing), and financial resources from local economic activities [71].
23.	Rosia	- Includes 2 villages.   - There was intense mining activity in the area for the extraction of bauxite.   - Caves that are especially picturesque include Ciur-Izbuc, Ciur-Ponor (one of the largest caves in Romania), Gruiet Cave, and Farcu Cave.   - Other tourist attractions are the Crisul Repede Gorge-Craiului forest (included in the European Natura 2000 Network), the Rosia water mill, the weaving workshop and the collection of horned violins of the Codoban family from Rosia, and the popular local port [72].
24.	Rieni	- Includes 6 villages, comprising 6711 ha and 1059 households.   - Notable rural tourism resources include the centers of leather and popular white and red ceramics in Valea de Jos village, the 19th century water mill in Rieni village, and the old wooden churches of Rieni, Valea de Jos, and Cucuceni [63].
25.	Soimi	- Includes 8 villages.   - In the category of resources “with visibility”, the following stand out: the ruins of the monastic complex in Sannicolau de Beius, the wooden church “Saints Archangels Michael and Gabriel” in Soimi, the vegetation area with Banat peony in Dealul Borzului, the Dealul Pacau Nature Reserve (15 ha), in which the commune includes part of the Crisului Negru Gorge in the Crisul Negru Gorge Natural Reserve at Borz (12 ha) [73].
26.	Suncuius	- Includes 4 villages, comprising 7204 ha and 1309 households.   - Notable features include agricultural products, tourism, and mining.   - The resources that have increased the popularity of the commune are Suncuius Camp, the longest cave in Romania—Cave of the Wind, Crisul Repede Gorge-Craiului forest (included in the European Natura 2000 network), Izbucul Izbandis, and other caves (Unguru Mare Cave, Old Cave, Cotuna de Sus Cave, and Cotuna de Jos Cave).
27.	Vadu Crisului	- The picturesque karst relief produced by numerous caves, including Vadului Cave, Matulina Cave, Carbunarilor Cave, Humeda Cave, Small Cave, Big Cave, and Deventului Cave [74].   - The tower in “Portus Crisy” (“Salt Customs” or “Dragon House”) in Vadu Crisului village, Crisul Repede Gorge (nature reserve), and Crisul Repede Gorge-Craiului forest (European Natura 2000 Network).
28.	Varciorog	- Includes 4 villages, comprising 8081 ha and 1174 households.   - The commune has potential for tourism thanks to some representative resources, such as the Orthodox Church “Sfinții Archangeli”—one of the most notable works of wooden architecture in the Apuseni Mountains, Osoi Cave, and Crisului Repede Gorge-Padurea Craiului (included in the European Natura 2000 Network).

Table 2

Presentation of the development degree of rural tourist activities in Bihor localities through statistical centralization.

Types of Tourist Reception Structures	Localities	Years
		1995	2000	2005	2010	2015	2020	2022
		UM-Number
Tourist villas	NUCET	-	-	-	-	1	3	3
	BUDUREASA	5	5	7	7	2	-	4
	CURATELE	-	-	-	-	1	1	1
	LUGASU DE JOS	-	-	-	-	-	1	2
Tourist Cottages	NUCET	-	-	-	2	2	3	3
	BUDUREASA	-	-	-	-	1	-	-
	BULZ	1	-	-	-	-	-	-
	BUNTESTI	-	-	1	1	-	-	-
	PIETROASA	2	2	2	2	1	1	1
	REMETEA	-	1	1	1	-	-	-
	ROSIA	1	1	-	-	-	-	-
	VADU CRISULUI	1	1	1	1	-	-	1
Campsites	NUCET	1	1	1	-	-	-	-
	BUDUREASA	1	1	1	1	1	-	-
	BULZ	1	2	2	2	2	1	2
	BUNTESTI	-	-	1	1	-	-	-
	PIETROASA	2	1	-	-	-	-	-
Tourist guesthouses	NUCET	-	-	-	-	-	5	5
Agritourist guesthouses	ALESD	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
	NUCET	-	-	-	-	-	3	4
	STEI	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
	ASTILEU	-	-	-	-	-	-	1
	AUSEU	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
	BRATCA	-	-	-	-	1	3	3
	BUDUREASA	-	-	-	-	1	1	3
	BULZ	-	-	-	-	2	7	9
	BUNTESTI	-	-	-	-	1	1	1
	CAMPANI	-	-	-	-	-	-	2
	CARPINET	-	-	-	-	-	1	2
	CURATELE	-	-	-	1	-	2	1
	DRAGANESTI	-	-	-	-	-	1	1
	FINIS	-	-	-	-	-	3	4
	PIETROASA	-	-	-	1	3	5	7
	REMETEA	-	-	-	1	1	1	2
	ROSIA	-	-	-	-	2	4	4
	SINTEU	-	-	-	-	-	-	4
	SUNCUIUS	-	-	-	1	1	1	3
	VADU CRISULUI	-	-	-	-	2	3	3
	VARCIOROG	-	-	-	-	-	1	1

Source: processing information after NIS, http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table, consulted on 10 October 2023 [75].

Table 3

Evaluation of differences in the degree of rural tourist activity development considering tourist guesthouses for the 2015–2020–2022 period using ANOVA.

SUMMARY
Groups (year)		Sum	Average	Variance
2015		5	0.454545	0.472727
2020		22	2	5.2
2022		31	2.818182	6.163636
ANOVA
Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	p-value	F crit
Between Groups	31.69697	2	15.84848	4.016897	0.028463	3.31583
Within Groups	118.3636	30	3.945455
Total	150.0606	32

Table 4

Evaluation of degree in differences for rural tourist activity development considering agritourist guesthouses for the 2015–2020-2022 period using ANOVA.

SUMMARY
Groups (year)		Sum	Average	Variance
2010		4	0.363636	0.254545
2015		9	0.818182	1.163636
2020		22	2	2.4
2022		32	2.909091	3.290909
ANOVA
Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	p-value	F crit
Between Groups	43.88636	3	14.62879	8.231032	0.00022	2.838745
Within Groups	71.09091	40	1.777273
Total	114.9773	43

Table 5

Statistical record of entrepreneurs in the field of agritourism who participated in the study.

Localities in the Studied Mountain Area	Unit	Statistical Evaluation of the Respondents by Type (a)		Units Included in the Study (b)		Studies in Agritourism Field (c)
		Men	Women	No. of units	% of units	Yes	No
The northern part of the researched area (Bratca, Suncuius, Sinteu, Vadu Crisului, and Varciorog)	No.	5	7	12	22.64	5	7
	%	9.43	13.21			9.43	13.21
The central part of the researched area (Bulz, Budureasa, Curatele, Remetea, and Rosia)	No.	10	14	24	45.28	8	16
	%	18.87	26.41			15.09	30.18
The southern part of the researched area (Buntesti, Carpinet, Campani, Draganesti, Finis, and Pietroasa)	No.	7	10	17	32.07	4	13
	%	13.21	18.87			7.55	24.53
Total	No.	22	31	53	99.99	17	36
	%	41.51	58.49			32.07	67.92

Table 6

Identification of agritourism entrepreneurship motivation and contribution status for socio-economic development.

Localities in the Studied Mountain Area	Unit	Was Agritourism Contributing to Own Socio-Economic Development? (a)		Establishing the Motivation of AGRITOURISM Entrepreneurship (b)
		Yes	No	Autonomy and Additional Income (1)	Capitalization Possibility of Agricultural Product or Specific crafts (2)	Ensuring Own Job (Increasing Self-Esteem) and Supporting Local Development (3)
The northern part of the researched area (Bratca, Suncuius, Sinteu, Vadu Crisului, and Varciorog)	No.	9	3	6	4	2
	%	16.98	5.66	11.32	7.55	3.77
The central part of the researched area(Bulz, Budureasa, Curatele, Remetea, and Rosia)	No.	17	7	8	10	6
	%	32.07	13.21	15.09	18.87	11.32
The southern part of the researched area (Buntesti, Carpinet, Campani, Draganesti, Finis, and Pietroasa)	No.	14	3	6	7	4
	%	26.41	5.66	11.32	13.21	7.55
Total	No.	40	13	20	21	12
	%	75.46	24.53	37.73	39.63	22.64

Table 7

The analysis of local tourist product specifics—a way to establish the “vision” of local entrepreneurs in the field.

Localities in the Studied Mountain Area	Unit	The Agritourism Product Offers All Three Elements (Accommodation, Food, and Leisure) (a)		Agritourist Product Offered Contains Specific/Local Rural Resources (b)			The complexity of the Agritourism Product (c)
		Yes	No	Natural Resources Specific to Mountain Area (1)	Traditional Resources from Local Community (2)	Own Traditional Products (3)	A Successful Product	It Requires Improvements to Be a “Smart” Tool for Capitalizing on Own/Local Resources
The northern part of the researched area (Bratca, Suncuius, Sinteu, Vadu Crisului, and Varciorog)	No.	4	8	2	3	7	3	9
	%	7.55	15.09	3.77	5.66	13.21	5.66	16.98
The central part of the researched Area (Bulz, Budureasa, Curatele, Remetea, and Rosia)	No.	6	18	12	4	8	7	17
	%	11.32	33.96	22.64	7.55	15.09	13.21	32.07
The southern part of the researched area (Buntesti, Carpinet, Campani, Draganesti, Finis, and Pietroasa)	No.	5	12	3	6	8	6	11
	%	9.43	22.64	5.66	11.32	15.09	11.32	20.75
Total	No.	15	38	17	13	23	16	37
	%	28.30	71.69	32.07	24.53	43.39	30.19	69.80

Table 8

Highlighting the current minuses and development actions for a “smart” positive impact on the community.

Localities in the Studied Mountain Area	Unit	The Minuses Identified by the Specialized Entrepreneurs (a)				Development Actionsfora”Smart”Positive Impact on the Community  (b)
		Incomplete Agritourist Product (1)	Inadequate Infrastructure for Tourist Activity (2)	Lack of Desire for Association (3)	Low Visibility on the Tourist Market (4)	Create Agritourism Product as Local Brand (1)	Partnerships (2)	Attract Local Community to Involve in Agritourist Activity (3)
The northern part of the researched area (Bratca, Suncuius, Sinteu, Vadu Crisului, and Varciorog)	No.	4	2	2	4	6	2	4
	%	7.55	3.77	3.77	7.55	11.31	3.77	7.55
The central part of the researched area (Bulz, Budureasa, Curatele, Remetea, and Rosia)	No.	10	4	2	8	12	5	7
	%	18.87	7.55	3.77	15.09	22.64	9.43	13.21
The southern part of the researched area (Buntesti, Carpinet, Campani, Draganesti, Finis, and Pietroasa)	No.	7	3	2	5	7	3	7
	%	13.21	5.66	3.77	9.43	13.21	5.66	13.21
Total	No.	21	9	6	17	25	10	18
	%	39.63	16.98	11.31	32.07	47.16	18.86	33.97

Table 9

Identifying the adaptability of entrepreneurs to the demands of the tourist market, starting with applied management.

Localities in the Studied Mountain Area	Unit	Own Resource Capitalized through Tourism Activity (a)		Business Management Is Achievedthrough (b)		The Existence of the Ability to Adapt to the Requirements of the Tourist Market (c)
		Agricultural Products (1)	Crafts (2)	Own Family (1)	Specialist Consultants(2)	Yes	No	What Is Missing?
The northern part of the researched area (Bratca, Suncuius, Sinteu, Vadu Crisului, and Varciorog)	No.	10	2	11	1	4	8	- Low interest in the tourism field from the authorities and entrepreneurs   - Lack of future directions for the development of tourism activities
	%	18.87	3.77	20.75	1.88	7.55	15.09
The central part of the researched area (Bulz, Budureasa, Curatele, Remetea, and Rosia)	No.	15	9	21	3	5	19	- Profile infrastructure still deficient   - Reduced emphasis on rural tourism as a way of future development
	%	28.30	16.98	39.63	5.66	9.43	35.85
The southern part of the researched area (Buntesti, Carpinet, Campani, Draganesti, Finis, and Pietroasa)	No.	14	3	14	3	2	15	- Lack of specialized knowledge   - Lack of professional associations   - Lack of consultants in the field   - Lack of a strategy for the future development of the tourist activity
	%	26.41	5.66	26.41	5.66	3.77	28.30
Total	No.	39	14	46	7	11	42
	%	73.58	26.41	86.79	13.20	20.75	79.24

Table 10

The existence of the desire to actively participate in the achievement of a plan/strategy for the development of rural tourism activity in the future.

Localities in the Studied Mountain Area	Unit	The Existence of the Desire to Actively Participate in the Achievement of a Plan/Strategy for the Development of Rural Tourism Activity in the Future (a)		The Ability to Carry Out a Development Plan/Strategies (b)			What Would Be the “Must Have” Direction to Ensure the Future Development of the Field in the Area? (c)
		Yes	No	Yes	No	- Improving the ability to lead/coordinate the activity at individual and local levels   - Improving the ability to create unique tourist products, the “brand” of the place   - The engagement and inclusion of specific local resources in the tourist circuit so that the rural tourism activity generates a “smart” positive impact on the community   - Creating a strategy by local authorities and engaging the entire community
The northern part of the researched area (Bratca, Suncuius, Sinteu, Vadu Crisului, and Varciorog)	No.	10	2	3	9
	%	18.87	3.77	5.66	16.98
The central part of the researched area (Bulz, Budureasa, Curatele, Remetea, and Rosia)	No.	22	2	4	20
	%	41.51	3.77	7.55	22.64
The southern part of the researched area (Buntesti, Carpinet, Campani, Draganesti, Finis, and Pietroasa)	No.	14	3	5	12
	%	26.41	5.66	9.43	37.73
Total	No.	46	7	12	41
	%	86.79	13.20	22.64	77.35

Table 11

Tourism develpment in rural mountain communities of Bihor County—a statistical overview.

Statistical record of entrepreneurs in the field of agritourism participating in the study	The existence of training in the field (c)	yes	32.07%
		no	67.92%
	Statistical evaluation of the respondents by type (a)	men	41.51%
		women	58.49%
Identification of agritourism entrepreneurship motivation and contribution status to socio-economic development	Agritourism contributing to own socio-economic development (a)	yes	75.46%
		no	24.53%
	Establishing the motivation of agritourism entrepreneurship (b)	autonomy and additional income (1)	37.73%
		capitalization possibility of agricultural products or specific crafts(2)	39.63%
		ensuring own job (increasing self-esteem) and supporting local development (3)	22.64%
The analysis of local tourist product specifics—a way to establish the “vision” of local entrepreneurs in the field	The agritourism product offers all three elements (accommodation, food, and leisure) (a)	yes	28.30%
		no	71.69%
	Agritourist product offered contains specific/local rural resources (b)	natural resources specific to mountain area (1)	32.07%
		traditional resources from the local community (2)	24.53%
		own traditional products (3)	43.39
	The complexity of the agritourism product (c)	a successful product	30.19%
		it requires improvements to be a “smart” tool for capitalizing on own/local resources	69.80%
Highlighting the current minuses and some development actions for a “smart” positive impact on the community	The minuses identified by the specialized entrepreneurs (a)	incomplete agritourist product (1)	39.63%
		inadequate infrastructure for tourist activity (2)	16.98%
		lack of desire for association (3)	11.31%
		low visibility on the tourist market (4)	32.07%
	Development actions for a ”smart” positive impact on the community (b)	create agritourism products as a local brand (1)	47.16%
		partnerships (2)	18.86%
		attract the local community to be involved in agritourism activities (3)	33.97
Identifying the adaptability of entrepreneurs to the demands of the tourist market, starting with applied management	Own resources capitalized through tourism activities (a)	agricultural products (1)	73.58%
		crafts (2)	26.41%
	Business management is achieved through (b)	own family (1)	86.79%
		specialist consultants(2)	13.20%
	The existence of the ability to adapt to the requirements of the tourist market (c)	yes	20.75%
		no	79.24%

Table 12

Possible directions/strategies to sustain rural tourism development in rural mountain communities in Bihor County.

Pursued Objective	Directions with a “Must Have” Character to Ensure Future Development	Possible Actions/Strategies
Possible directions/strategies to sustain rural tourism development in rural mountain communities in Bihor County	Improving the ability to lead/coordinate activity at individual and local levels	- Identifying some possibilities for providing specialized training - Encouraging the local community to become involved in rural tourism or agritourism activities by creating a market for local products, thus generating a holistic approach to rural tourist activities by organizing local events (such as “field products day” or “from milk to pastry products”, etc.) - Creating partnerships between entrepreneurs in the field, local authorities, LAGs, and consultants in the field to improve knowledge and self-management capacity and coordination at the local level
	Improving the ability to create tourism products with a unique character, the “brand” of the place	- Through partnerships between entrepreneurs, authorities, LAGs, and consultancy, different training possibilities can be identified to obtain rural tourism products as a local “brand”, which include: - Own agro-zootechnical production and crafts (where applicable) - The traditions specific to each community, stimulating interest in preserving and passing them on - The elements that denote the local way of life and tell the “story of the place” - Creation of partnerships with entities aimed at “bringing to light” the products specific to the rural communities in the studied area at specific events
	Engaging and incorporating specific local resources into the tourist circuit to generate a “smart” positive impact on the community	- Creating a summary record of the resources specific to each community that can be engaged in this activity - Partnerships with entities interested in participating in the concrete performance of the activity, or creation of specific products (including collaboration with local entrepreneurs from related fields)
	Creating a strategy for local authorities and engaging the whole community	- Initiating a development plan/strategy at the local level, which also includes rural tourism activities, where there are specific local resources - Initiating partnerships with all possible entities that can support/coordinate the development of the local community, depending on its specifics - The involvement of local entrepreneurs in the creation of local strategies and subsequently, in the implementation of specific tourism actions

Source: specific proposals based on the conclusion of the research.

References

1. Perfecto, I.; Vandermeer, J. Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems a new conservation paradigm. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.; 2008; 1134, pp. 173-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.011]

2. Adamowicz, M.; Zwoli´nska-Ligaj, M. New concept for rural development in the strategies and policies of the European Union. Econ. Reg. Stud.; 2018; 11, pp. 7-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ers-2018-0022]

3. Iancu, T.; Petre, I.L.; Tudor, V.C.; Micu, M.M.; Ursu, A.; Teodorescu, F.-R.; Dumitru, E.A. A Difficult Pattern to Change in Romania, the Perspective of Socio-Economic Development. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 2350. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14042350]

4. Plana-Farran, M.; Gallizo, J.L. The Survival of Family Farms: Socioemotional Wealth (SEW) and Factors Affecting Intention to Continue the Business. Agriculture; 2021; 11, 520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11060520]

5. Euromontana. Către dezvoltarea integrată a zonelor montane și recunoașterea acestora în cadrul politicii agricole comune. Modelarea noului spațiu european. Proceedings of the Euromontana Conference; Piatra Neamț, Romania, 4–5 October 2007.

6. Masot, A.N.; Gascón, J.L.G. Sustainable Rural Development: Strategies, Good Practices and Opportunities. Land; 2021; 10, 366. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10040366]

7. Blanco-Gregory, R.; López-Canto, L.E.; Sanagustín-Fons, M.V.; Martínez-Quintana, V. Agroecological Entrepreneurship, Public Support, and Sustainable Development: The Case of Rural Yucatan (Mexico). Land; 2020; 9, 401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land9110401]

8. He, Y.; Gao, X.; Wu, R.; Wang, Y.; Choi, B.-R. How Does Sustainable Rural Tourism Cause Rural Community Development?. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 13516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132413516]

9. Khan, A.; Bibi, S.; Lorenzo, A.; Lyu, J.; Babar, Z.U. Tourism and development in developing economies: A policy implication perspective. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 1618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12041618]

10. Wilson, S.; Fesenmaier, D.R.; Fesenmaier, J.; Van Es, J.C. Factors for success in rural tourism development. J. Travel Res.; 2001; 40, pp. 132-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728750104000203]

11. Muresan, I.C.; Oroian, C.F.; Harun, R.; Arion, F.H.; Porutiu, A.; Chiciudean, G.O.; Todea, A.; Lile, R. Local residents’ attitude toward sustainable rural tourism development. Sustainability; 2016; 8, 100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su8010100]

12. Brezuleanu, S. Management Agroturistic, Material de Studiu ID; Facultatea de Zootehnie: Iaşi, Romania, 2006.

13. Ciolac, R.; Adamov, T.; Iancu, T.; Popescu, G.; Lile, R.; Rujescu, C.; Marin, D. Agritourism-a sustainable development factor for improving the ‘health’ of rural settlements. Case study Apuseni Mountains area. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 1467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11051467]

14. Leki´c, O.Z.; Gadži´c, N.; Milovanovi´c, A. Sustainability of Rural Areas—Exploring Values, Challenges and Socio-Cultural Role. Sustainability and Resilience—Socio-Spatial Perspective; Fikfak, A.; Kosanovi´c, S.; Konjar, M.; Anguillari, E. TU Delft Open: Delft, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 171-184.

15. Kulish, I. Social entrepreneurship in tourism: A chance for rural communities. Socio-Econ. Probl. Mod. Period Ukr.; 2022; 155, pp. 10-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36818/2071-4653-2022-3-2]

16. An, W.; Alarcón, S. How Can Rural Tourism Be Sustainable? A Systematic Review. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 7758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12187758]

17. Lorek, P. Sustainable innovation as an important factor of firm development. Ekon. I Srodowisko; 2018; 1, pp. 32-40.

18. Garrod, B.; Wornell, R.; Youell, R. Reconceptualising rural resources as countryside capital: The case of rural tourism. J. Rural Stud.; 2006; 22, pp. 117-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.08.001]

19. Orbàn, A. Building Smart Communities in the Hungarian Social Economy. Community Dev. J.; 2017; 52, pp. 668-684. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsv053]

20. Dudek, M. Opportunities and barriers for smart rural development in the light of field studies. Econ. Reg. Stud.; 2018; 11, pp. 57-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ers-2018-0035]

21. Adamowicz, M.; Zwolińska-Ligaj, M. The “Smart Village” as a Way to Achieve Sustainable Development in Rural Areas of Poland. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 6503. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12166503]

22. Ciolac, R.; Iancu, T.; Popescu, G.; Adamov, T.; Feher, A.; Stanciu, S. Smart Tourist Village—An Entrepreneurial Necessity for Maramures Rural Area. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 8914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14148914]

23. Adamov, T.; Ciolac, R.; Iancu, T.; Brad, I.; Peț, E.; Popescu, G.; Șmuleac, L. Sustainability of Agritourism Activity. Initiatives and Challenges in Romanian Mountain Rural Regions. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2502. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12062502]

24. European Commission. O Selecție a Celor Mai Bune Practici Leader+; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.

25. Popescu, G.; Popescu, C.A.; Iancu, T.; Brad, I.; Peț, E.; Adamov, T.; Ciolac, R. Sustainability through Rural Tourism in Moieciu Area-Development Analysis and Future Proposals. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 4221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14074221]

26. Popescu, C.A.; Iancu, T.; Popescu, G.; Adamov, T.; Ciolac, R. The Impact of Agritourism Activity on the Rural Environment: Findings from an Authentic Agritourist Area—Bukovina, Romania. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 10294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151310294]

27. RNDR. Bune Practici. Departamentul Publicaţii MADR, 2014, No. 4 Anul II. Available online: http://madr.ro (accessed on 16 February 2023).

28. Anniken, F. Integrated tourism development? When places of the ordinary are transformed to destinations. Tourism Destination Development: Turns and Tactics; Ashgate Publishing: London, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4724-1658-2

29. Available online:https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/presse/pr_info/2008/RO/03A-DV-PRESSE_IPR(2008)09-22(37792)_RO.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2023).

30. Mountain Areas in Europe-Nordregio, Report 2004: 1, ISBN 91-89332-35-0. Available online: https://archive.nordregio.se/en/Publications/Publications-2004/Mountain-areas-in-Europe/index.html (accessed on 5 October 2023).

31. Marchant, R.A.; Cuni-Sanchez, A. Special Issue Editorial: Mountains under Pressure. Land; 2022; 11, 1283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11081283]

32. Dax, T.; Schroll, K.; Machold, I.; Derszniak-Noirjean, M.; Schuh, B.; Gaupp-Berghausen, M. Land Abandonment in Mountain Areas of the EU: An Inevitable Side Effect of Farming Modernization and Neglected Threat to Sustainable Land Use. Land; 2021; 10, 591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10060591]

33. Thorn, J.P.R.; Klein, J.A.; Hopping, K.A.; Capitani, C.; Tucker, C.M.; Reid, R.S.; Marchant, R. Scenario archetypes reveal risks and opportunities for global mountain futures. Glob. Environ. Chang.; 2021; 69, 102291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102291]

34. Available online: www.europmontana.org (accessed on 27 October 2023).

35. Available online: www.alpsknowhow.cipra.org (accessed on 27 October 2023).

36. Ehrlich, D.; Melchiorri, M.; Capitani, C. Population trends and urbanisation in mountain ranges of the world. Land; 2021; 10, 255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10030255]

37. Pagliacci, F.; Cei, L.; Defrancesco, E.; Gatto, P. The EU Mountain Product Voluntary Quality Term as a Valorization Tool for Livestock Farms: Challenges and Opportunities in an Alpine Context. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 3292. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14063292]

38. Panyik, E.; Costa, C.; Rátz, T. Implementing integrated rural tourism: An event-based approach. Tour. Manag.; 2011; 32, pp. 1352-1363. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.009]

39. Di Turo, F.; Medeghini, L. How green possibilities can help in a future sustainable conservation of cultural heritage in Europe. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 3609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13073609]

40. López-Sanz, J.M.; Penelas-Leguía, A.; Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, P.; Cuesta-Valiño, P. Sustainable development and rural tourism in depopulated areas. Land; 2021; 10, 985. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land10090985]

41. Ma, X.; Wang, R.; Dai, M.; Ou, Y. The influence of culture on the sustainable livelihoods of households in rural tourism destinations. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2021; 29, pp. 235-1252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1826497]

42. Dabphet, S.; Scott, N.; Ruhanen, L. Applying diffusion theory to destination stakeholder understanding of sustainable tourism development: A case of Taiwan. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2012; 20, pp. 1107-1124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2012.673618]

43. World Tourism Organization. UNWTO Recommendations on Tourism and Rural Development—A Guide to Making Tourism an Effective Tool for Rural Development; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2020.

44. Rocca, L.H.D.; Zielinski, S. Community-based tourism, social capital, and governance of post-conflict rural tourism destinations: The case of Minca, Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. Tour. Manag. Perspect.; 2022; 43, 100985. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2022.100985]

45. Sharpley, R. Tourism, sustainable development and the theoretical divide: 20 years on. J. Sustain. Tour.; 2020; 28, pp. 1932-1946. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1779732]

46. Kelfaoui, A.; Rezzaz, M.A.; Kherrour, L. Revitalization of mountain rural tourism as a tool for sustainable local development in kabylie (Algeria). The case of yakouren municipality. Geoj. Tour. Geosites; 2021; 34, pp. 112-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30892/gtg.34115-626]

47. Yang, J.; Yang, R.X.; Chen, M.H.; Su, C.H.; Zhi, Y.; Xi, J.C. Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. J. Hosp. Tour Manag.; 2021; 47, pp. 35-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008]

48. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches; 4th ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.

49. Stake, R.E. Multiple Case Study Analysis; Guildford: New York, NY, USA, 2006.

50. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Decision Making in Complex Environments. Quantitative Assessment in Arms Control; Avenhaus, R.; Huber, R.K. Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1984; ISBN 978-1-4612-9727-7

51. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014.

52. Simons, H. Case Study Research in Practice; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009.

53. Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995.

54. Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale, Agenția Națională a Zonei Montane, Anexa din Legea Muntelui-Grupa Munților Apuseni. Available online:https://azm.gov.ro/harta-muntii-apuseni/ (accessed on 3 October 2023).

55. Revista Lumea Satului. Available online: https://www.lumeasatului.ro/articole-revista/turism/4253-judetul-bihor-potential-turistic-extraordinar-infrastructura-si-servicii-insuficient-dezvoltate.html (accessed on 3 October 2023).

56. Gavril, M.A. O Vatră Folclorică-Aștileu; Centrul Județean pentru Conservarea și Promovarea Culturii Tradiționale Bihor: Oradea, Romania, 2006.

57. Primăria Comunei Aușeu. Available online: https://www.auseu.ro/public/ (accessed on 3 October 2023).

58. Bratca, G.I. Arheologia Unei Civilizatii Rurale; Editura Imprimeriei de Vest: Oradea, Romania, 2009.

59. Ioan, D. Comuna Buntești: Monografie; Editura Abaddab: Oradea, Romania, 2004; Volume 1, ISBN 973-8102-28-6

60. Petruse-Goina, A. Budureasa: Elemente de Monografie Locală; Buna Vestire: Beiuș, Romania, 2021; ISBN 978-606-8046-66-2

61. Manciulea, Ș. Așezările Românești din Ungaria și Transilvania în Secolele XIV–XV; Editura Sarmis: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2002.

62. Primăria comunei Cristioru de Jos. Available online: https://primariacristiorudejos.ro/obiective-turistice/ (accessed on 5 October 2023).

63. Dan, G. Enciclopedia Geografică a României; Editura Enciclopedică: Bucharest, Romania, 2000.

64. Butişcă, C. Monografia Comunei Drăgăneşti; Editura Brevis: Oradea, Romania, 2002.

65. Primăria Comunei Dobrești. Available online: https://comunadobresti.ro/comuna-dobresti/obiective-turistice/ (accessed on 8 October 2023).

66. Cornelia-Livia, H. Monografia Comunei Finiș; Editura Buna Vestire: Beiuș, Romania, 2011.

67. Available online: https://www.bihorinimagini.ro/de-vizitat/obiective-istorice/cetatea-medievala-de-la-finis/ (accessed on 5 October 2023).

68. Crețiu, F. Lazuri de Beiuș Date, Oameni și Fapte Monografia Comunei; Editura Didactica Militans—Casa Corpului Didactic Oradea: Oradea, Romania, 2011.

69. Primăria Comunei Lunca. Available online: https://www.comunaluncabh.ro/ (accessed on 8 October 2023).

70. Primăria Comunei Pietroasa. Available online: https://primariapietroasabh.ro/comuna-pietroasa/obiective-turistice/ (accessed on 8 October 2023).

71. Available online: https://ghidulprimariilor.ro/ro/businesses/view/city_hall/PRIM%C4%82RIA-REMETEA/17405 (accessed on 5 October 2023).

72. Mircea, G.-A. Efectul Roșia, Locul de unde Dumnezeu a Uitat să Plece; Primus: Delhi, India, 2015; ISBN 978-606-707-037-8

73. Primăria Comunei Șoimi. Available online: https://www.comunasoimi.ro/ (accessed on 8 October 2023).

74. Aurel, C. Monografia Comunei Vadu Crișului: Geografie, Istorie, Etnografie, Tradiții Populare, Monumente; Editura Muzeului Țării Crișurilor: Oradea, Romania, 2005.

75. NIS. Available online: https://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed on 10 October 2023).

76. European Commission. Sustainable Development Indicators to Monitor the Implementation of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.

77. Liu, Q.; Liu, Z.; An, Z.; Zhao, P.; Zhao, D. A modal shift due to a free within-destination tourist bus scheme: Multimodality and transport equity implications. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag.; 2023; 48, 100863. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100863]