1. Introduction
Regional identity is a valuable resource in the context of globalization and regional brands are increasingly becoming essential tools for development around the world [1,2]. Geographic analyses based on assessing elements defining territorial identity and highlighting their role in the functionality of territorial systems are essential aspects in establishing and promoting regional identity [3,4,5]. By adopting a comprehensive approach and involving local communities, regions can develop strong brand identities [6,7], thus contributing to development based on strategic regional plans for internal cohesion [8,9,10].
Brand identities are not just rooted in history that is interesting to know; rather, the past is a key feature of a brand’s identity and positioning [11]. The regional identity is challenging to quantify and is best analysed through the methodology and perspectives of the social sciences [12]. In this context, defining regional identity involves understanding the types of regions [13]. The territorial identity is constructed from an ideology that embraces diversity and unity, recognizing different elements such as the origin of regional communities, language, religion, living standards, activities, ethnographic possibilities and citizens’ aspirations.
The Land of Maramureș in Romania is notable for its historical depth and multiculturalism. This paper investigates the key elements that constitute the regional identity of Maramureș, ranking them by their perceived importance among local residents. By identifying and understanding these elements, the research aims to enhance their recognition and utility as drivers of regional development.
The concept of regional identity and the value of brands in regional development are key themes in the process of defining and promoting a region’s uniqueness. Numerous specialist studies record a series of conceptual particularities that are more or less congruent with the issues under analysis.
In this respect, we can consider studies that address the concept of regional identity and analyse the challenges of systemic and functional problems of regional development that have emerged as a result of multiple processes of socio-economic transformation [14,15,16,17]. Regional analysis allows for a detailed understanding of all the factors (natural, socio-cultural, economic, historical, ethnic and political) that define the systemic territorial particularities; however, the dynamics of regional identity depend on an attractive image of the territory and its uniqueness [18,19]. Studying the identity of a regional system, such as the Land of Maramureș, is not just a matter of academic curiosity, but it has a number of socio-administrative, cultural-historical and economic implications. A deep understanding of the Maramureș identity and its associated perceptions can offer valuable solutions for sustainable development, tourism promotion and the sustainable preservation of traditions and cultural values, in the face of growing challenges brought about by the socio-economic changes triggered by new modern world development paradigms.
Moreover, in an increasingly globalised and ever-changing world, where regional identities are facing ever-growing pressure, the process of redefining identity values and promoting local authenticity becomes more pertinent than ever [20,21].
The present research continues and completes the series of studies that address regional “land”-type entities in Romania, such as The Land of Moților [22], Land of Năsăudului [23], Land of Hațegului [4] and Land of Oașului [5], through the lens of identifying territorial-identity values and the possibilities of transforming them into regional brands. The relevance of this research lies, first and foremost, in providing an opportunity to bring to the forefront the voice of the local community (Maramureș), and to present their perspectives and concerns regarding regional identity. Secondly, it provides useful information for local and regional decision-makers to promote and develop the region. Finally, it contributes to a deeper understanding of identity construction and representation in the context of contemporary social and cultural changes. Therefore, this research has the potential to have a significant impact on the development and promotion of the Land of Maramureș, as well as on the wider understanding of the phenomenon of identity in a regional and global context. Beyond the beauty of its landscapes and traditional architecture, the Maramureș identity is made up of a series of intangible elements, such as traditions, folklore, customs and specific language [24]. These local identity components not only define the Maramureș community, but also play a crucial role in the promotion and development of the region.
The novelty of this research lies in its focus on a niche analysis that has been under-explored until now. It uses various parameters for territorial definition and synthesis, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Among the most important ones are those related to regional authenticity and relevance, the correlation of theory with practical experience, community engagement in resilience building, along with a more contextualised understanding of identity through establishing a “sense of place” [25] and the reinforcement of values through the application of sustainability principles [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. More recently, research focusing on regional systems resilience has expanded its thematic scope, as both the magnitude of impact phenomena and the dynamics of local and global changes have greatly intensified. The degree of vulnerability shows an increase directly proportional with the effects of globalisation, socio-demographic transformations, economic restructuring and the decline of traditional activities such as crafts, agriculture and mining [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42].
The perspectives and theories drawn from scientific research and documented observations in specialized literature form the basis for a comparative analysis, offering valuable contrasts aligned with residents’ perceptions. This helps validate or challenge existing theories and identify areas that require further research. Additionally, comparative analysis provides valuable information and guidance for the development of policies and practical interventions related to the preservation and promotion of territorial identity.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 1 and Section 2 present the detailed findings from our literature review and content analysis, highlighting the key elements defining the territorial identity of Maramureș. Section 3 presents the chosen case area, Section 4 focuses on the survey results, providing an in-depth analysis of how local residents perceive and rank these identity elements. This is followed by Section 5, which discusses the implications of our findings and proposes strategic considerations for leveraging the identified identity elements, concluding the paper with a summary of the main findings and suggestions for future research.
2. Aim, Objectives and Methodology
The present research is aimed primarily at gaining a deeper understanding of the identity of the Land of Maramureș and how it is perceived, promoted and capitalised on. Analysing the perception of the region’s identity facilitated the identification of discrepancies or convergences between how Maramureș residents define their own identity and the way they are perceived by those living outside the region. Furthermore, by exploring promotional strategies and opportunities to enhance the identity of Maramureș, we can identify the most effective ways to strengthen and promote it, benefiting the local community.
The main objective of this research is to investigate and analyse the identity values of the Land of Maramureș, focusing on the existing perceptions, promotion strategies and opportunities to utilise them. More specifically, the present research is grounded in an interdisciplinary approach across the following tiers: (1) finding the identity elements of the Land of Maramureș as defined by the most relevant scientific literature in the field; (2) evaluation of the community’s perceptions of its own identity and how these influence the local region awareness; (3) ranking the elements with which the local Maramureș community identifies itself and conducting a comparative analysis on their authenticity based on multidisciplinary research carried out by consulting 15 representative scientific works; (4) identification of the best opportunities for capitalizing on the region’s tourism potential in order to stimulate sustainable development and more effective preservation of local identity.
To achieve these objectives, a mixed methodology of a holistic regional approach was employed in the research, which allowed for the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches throughout the whole research process. Consequently, techniques and procedures based on transdisciplinary analysis of scientific documentation, questionnaire surveys and participatory observation were used. Qualitative methods such as content analysis and individual interviews were employed to explore participants’ perceptions and perspectives in depth. At the same time, quantitative methods, such as questionnaire surveys and statistical analysis provided a range of data and useful information on current identity perceptions and specific behaviour of the Maramureș community. Conducting such applied research has allowed a comprehensive understanding of multiple identity aspects in the area under analysis and how they are currently perceived, promoted and capitalised upon.
The sampling criteria used to ensure the representativeness of the research by surveying the resident population of the Land of Maramureș facilitated the collection of relevant and valid data that accurately reflect the varied perceptions and opinions of the local community. Adhering strictly to criteria of rigorous sampling, we surveyed 800 people from across Maramureș. The respondents were randomly selected from different public places (town halls, schools, streets, parks, shops, companies’ offices, etc.) or at the respondents’ homes. The key sampling criteria applied throughout the preparatory phase and during data collection considered the following aspects: selection of target group, demographic diversity, proportional geographical coverage, sample size, urban–rural balance, representation of ethnic and cultural groups and quality control of responses. Thus, the target population was represented by the residents of the Land of Maramureș, including both people born and raised in the region and those who have lived in this geographical area for a significant period of time (more than 20 years) and consider the Land of Maramureș as their place of origin or current residence. From the original 800 surveys, we discarded 80 (10%) due to inconsistencies in their responses. Additionally, as in all surveys, using repetitive questions, we identified respondents who did not take the survey seriously. Additionally, we found some responses where all answers were the same so the respondents where straightlining, indicating a lack of serious engagement with the survey.
In order to obtain a representative sample, we have selected an appropriate proportion of the target population to participate in the questionnaire survey, ensuring a most accurate representation of the population. We followed the structuring of the respondents according to the following variables: gender structure (an equal number of questionnaires—360 women and 360 men); age group structure (250 questionnaires applied to the age group 0–19 years, 240 questionnaires applied to the age group 20–59 years and 230 questionnaires applied to the age group 60 years and above), educational level (242 questionnaires applied to respondents with a maximum of eight classes completed, 260 questionnaires applied to respondents with high school studies and 218 questionnaires applied to respondents with higher education) and residence (an equal number of questionnaires—urban and rural). The selection was made using random sampling methods (simple and stratified) according to different demographic criteria (age, gender, education, place of residence, etc.), so that each inhabitant of the region had equal chances of being included in the sample. In terms of ensuring proportionality in the geographical coverage of the population, the sample size was calculated taking into account the distribution of an equal number of completed questionnaires (20th) at the level of each administrative-territorial unit (LAU2 level), out of the 36 units making up the analysed region. Given that the territory of the Land of Maramureș includes five cities and 31 municipalities, the stratification of the sample was conducted taking into account the diversity and complexity of this region. Each existing ethnic and cultural group was also appropriately represented in the sample and reflected the population characteristics; to ensure data validity, the questionnaire had to be structured in such a way as to minimize ambiguity and provide clearly defined response options. By adhering to the sampling criteria, the data collection methodology and the processing and interpretation of the information in line with the research objectives, a comprehensive and representative picture of the locals’ perception on the importance of identity elements in defining the regional personality of the Land of Maramureș resulted. This information can serve as a basis for developing an integrated strategy for sustainable development, as well as for tourism promotion and sustainable capitalization of the whole identity heritage of the region.
To ensure ethical compliance, we obtained informed consent from all participants and protected the confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents by securely storing and anonymizing personal data.
3. Case Area
The Maramureș region is probably the best known and most famous settled “land” region in Romania, while also being the largest of all in terms of territorial expanse. Its identity structure is a complex one, with a wide range of elements contributing decisively to its configuration, such as its long history, the fact that it is a region that has always enjoyed a relative degree of autonomy when compared with other Romanian regions today (e.g., the existence of ‘free Dacians’ in this area, the lack of collectivisation etc.), the role of certain historical personalities from Maramureș as ‘pioneers’ and founders of the “land” (e.g., Voivode Bogdan, Voivode Dragoș), the cultural personalities, the Maramureș gates, the famous wooden monasteries and churches, the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance, the “Merry Cemetery” in Săpânța, the “Mocănița” on the Vaser Valley, the pottery, folk costumes, songs and dances from Maramureș or legendary local outlaws.
The regional system of the Land of Maramureș stands out as a distinct presence in the northern part of the Eastern Carpathians of Romania. It is delimited by the line of the highest peaks of the Gutâi–Țibleș–Rodnei–Maramureșului mountain range (with a few exceptions), to which the course of the Tisza River from the Vișeu Valley to Teceu is added [43]. The morphological element with a central and polarizing function of the mass, energy and information conveyed in this complex geographical system is the Maramureș Depression (Figure 1).
From an administrative-territorial perspective, the Maramureș region comprises of 36 local authorities, including a municipality (Sighetu Marmației), four towns (Borșa, Dragomirești, Săliștea de Sus, Vișeu de Sus) and 31 communes (Bârsana, Bistra, Bocicoiu Mare, Bogdan Voda, Botiza, Budești, Călinești, Câmpulung la Tisa, Desești, Giulești, Ieud, Leordina, Moisei, Ocna Șugatag, Oncești, Petrova, Poienile de sub Munte, Poienile Izei, Remeți, Repedea, Rona de Jos, Rona de Sus, Rozavlea, Ruscova, Sarasău, Săcel, Săpânța, Strâmtura, Șieu, Vadu Izei and Vișeu de Jos).
4. Results
In order to identify the main elements defining the territorial personality of the Land of Maramureș and argue their importance in this regard, we have analysed a reasonable number of scholarly works belonging to various scientific fields. The analysed publications belong to well-regarded researchers in their fields, focusing on various interpretation angles and analysing the territorial personality of the region in question, namely [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57].
Based on the content they convey, the aforementioned works can be classified into two distinct categories: (1) works from the field of regional geography, with a general and synthetic character, which address a diverse range of aspects relevant to the Land of Maramureș (e.g., [43,48,52]) and (2) works focused on specific elements (e.g., the Maramureș gate; wooden sculptures; wooden churches; mountain morphology; regional tourism; the narrow-gauge railway and its specific carriages and steam locomotives; folk costumes; pottery; communism and the destruction of cultural and political elites; or the uniqueness of a famous cemetery), in which the level of analysis and detail are substantial (e.g., [49,55,56,57]). All these works were instrumental to our endeavour, as they provided us with relevant information about the identity load of the Land of Maramureș and the importance of each element at local, regional, national and international levels.
Therefore, the existence of a large number of scientific studies that have focused on various elements within the analysed area (some highly detailed) facilitated our approach to identifying the main vectors defining the personality of the Land of Maramureș. While several elements contribute to the construction of the region’s identity, we consider the ones listed and argued in this study to play a decisive role in this regard, namely (Table 1): the Maramureș Gate; the Rodna Mountains; the Wooden Churches; the “Mocănița” railway in the Vaser Valley; the Maramureș Mountains; the Merry Cemetery in Săpânța; Bârsana Monastery; the Memorial to the Victims of Communism Resistance; the Maramureș folk costume; Outstanding Historical and Cultural Individuals; and the unique Pottery from Săcel.
The analysis of the mentioned works aims to quantify the importance each element has in shaping the territorial identity of the Land of Maramureș, as perceived by each of the authors of the cited works, in no particular ranking order. In any similar study, a certain amount of subjectivism can be noticed in the argumentation of the importance of regional identity elements, depending on the research nature and the objectives set forth [5]. Consequently, the main elements of territorial identity for the Land of Maramureș, derived from analysing the mentioned scientific works and presented in Table 1, are ranked (from the perspective of their perceived importance and relevance in shaping territorial personality) exclusively by the inhabitants in the region, through the responses of the 720 subjects surveyed.
A complex territorial entity, the Land of Maramureș is defined by a set of elements (Figure 2) which belong to different fields such as tectonics and morphology (Maramureș and Rodna Mountains), religion (wooden churches, Bârsana Monastery, Săpânța Merry Cemetery), traditional folk architecture, folklore and ethnography (the Maramureș Gate and traditional folk costumes), history and culture (outstanding historical and cultural individuals and the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance), tourism and industry (“Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley).
The elements mentioned here are by no means the only ones that make up the territorial identity of the Land of Maramureș, but, based on our research findings, we consider them the most representative ones. With a complementary role in this regard, other elements could also be considered, such as protected natural areas, tourist resorts, the Maramureș people mindset, their hospitality, shepherding, etc.
We ranked the Land of Maramureș regional identity elements (detected after analysing the scientific papers presented above) in the second part of the present paper. This ranking was based on 720 survey responses given by Maramureș residents to a questionnaire designed to assess the locals’ perception regarding the importance of particular elements in defining the identity of their native land.
The answers provided confirm the fact that the Land of Maramureș identity is decisively shaped by the eleven elements previously mentioned, thus highlighting the existence of a real correlation between the conclusions drawn by the academia and the perceptions of local respondents.
One aspect certainly worth mentioning here is that the identity elements of the region were presented in the questionnaire randomly, the respondents having to rank them according to how important they felt they were and also to argue their hierarchical position. The distribution of the questionnaires strictly followed the rigors that we assumed in the methodological part of the paper. We note that all respondents acknowledge that the eleven elements clearly construct the identity of the Land of Maramureș, some of them adding a few more, but entirely by chance (e.g., shepherding, logging, Maramureș mindset, locals’ hospitality, tourist resorts of local interest, etc.).
As such, the respondents confirmed that the eleven identity elements of the region clearly define its personality; the analysis of the received answers resulted in the following ranking as per their importance (see data in Table 2, Figure 3).
The above ranking reflects the importance of the eleven elements making up the identity of the Land of Maramureș. Out of these eleven elements, the first four stand out as the most representative for the brand, namely wooden churches, outstanding historical and cultural individuals, the Maramureș gates and the traditional folk costumes. These four elements each received a significant number of responses which place them on the first three places in the hierarchy (see data in Table 2). Of these four regarded as most important, the first one, the wooden churches, emerges clearly as the main brand identity, acknowledged by the inhabitants of the Land of Maramureș and promoted at a national and international level.
The last four elements in this hierarchy (“Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley, Maramureș Mountains, Săcel Pottery and Rodnei Mountains), despite their complex and clear identity value, are considered of lesser importance in shaping the region’s identity. Therefore, in their case, emphasis should be placed on more efficient tourist promotion, as they can enhance the regional identity brand and contribute to the local community development by attracting a higher number of potential tourists.
We, the authors of this material, appreciate the fact that at the top of the hierarchy, there are four identity elements belonging to the religious, ethnographic and cultural domains, because these are the main values through which the Land of Maramureș has established itself at a national and international level during its long existence. The wooden churches (Figure 4.), unique in the world, along with the architecture [64] and distinctive features of the Maramureș gates as well as the unparalleled beauty of the traditional folk costumes are recognized worldwide, valued as such in the literature and cared for accordingly in the restoration and preservation process. These elements are significantly complemented by the memory of outstanding historical and cultural individuals native to this land who made famous the region itself and Transylvania as a whole.
The wooden churches of Maramureș are not surprisingly considered to be the main element of regional identity because of their inestimable value. This value is a result of their special architectonics, building technique, longevity, global appreciation [64] (seven of them are included on the UNESCO World Heritage List [58]) and the special connection they mediate with the Divine, as the locals see themselves and are considered by others extremely religious.
Thus, the fact that 199 of the 720 respondents place this identity element first in the present hierarchy comes as no surprise (Figure 5). Another 97 award the wooden churches the second place, while a further 107 respondents consider them third most important. So, all in all, we have a number of 403 participants in the survey who credit the wooden churches as extremely important/the most important element in shaping the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș. At the other end of the scale, there are only 10 respondents who consider these worship places of lesser importance or the least important ones. The fact that those who place the wooden churches on the first place in the hierarchy come from all walks of life, age and gender groups is in itself not surprising: the Land of Maramureș community has a deeply rooted connection with the church, most of the locals being fully aware of the special international status their wooden churches hold. Among those who view the wooden churches as less or the least important, we have either representatives of other religions than the Orthodox (which predominates in Maramureș) or younger people who tend to be less religious. No matter how differently various local community representatives perceive them, the wooden churches in Maramureș remain indisputably of worldwide value and are recognized as such. Therefore, these places of worship must be permanently promoted and preserved intact as they are beyond any doubt major tourist attractions bringing significant benefits to the local community. Last but not least, the wooden churches in the Land of Maramureș are a primary brand identity representative for the whole national ethos and an invaluable asset for Romania.
Outstanding historical and cultural individuals originating from the Land of Maramureș constitute another strong brand identity for the region. Their impact on building the region’s personality is a major one and it is recognized as such by the inhabitants of the land. Whether we are discussing country founders (Bogdan Voivode, Dragoș Voivode), advocates for the rights of Maramureș and Transylvanian Romanians (Vasile Lucaciu, George Pop de Băsești, Ioan Mihaly de Apșa, Ilie Lazăr), renowned outlaws (Pintea the Brave), Nobel Prize recipients (Elie Wiesel), well-known folk music artists (The Petreuș Brothers, Gheorghe Turda), or arts innovators (Stan Ioan Pătraș), each of these individuals has consistently contributed to the recognition of this region, both nationally and internationally.
For all this, the inhabitants of the Land of Maramureș are deeply grateful to them and regard them as second most important regional brand identity. Thus, 129 respondents place them as first place in the hierarchy of regional identity elements with 113 more attributing them second place (Figure 6). Only 11 respondents believe these personalities should come last, with none of these 11 being able to justify their rating. The territorial distribution of respondents shows a generalized uniformity like the first identity element, the wooden churches. This is considered normal by us, as these personalities are well-known throughout the region.
In addition, respondents’ gender and educational level do not seem to have a significant impact, as responses have a rather uniform spread. It is worth noting though that a large proportion of respondents who rank these outstanding historical and cultural individuals in the last two places belong to ethnic minority groups; this may explain the lower importance they attribute to this identity element. However, regardless of these prominent personalities’ position in the hierarchy, it is the duty of the region’s inhabitants and administrative authorities to ensure that their memory is not forgotten and that the elements associated with them (memorial houses, heritage items, folk costumes, folk songs, etc.) are preserved and promoted as such. We propose their inclusion in a thematic tourist circuit, which we consider of paramount importance for the Land of Maramureș.
This region is also highly reputed for the age, special architecture, symbolism and considerable value of the carved wooden gates. Beside the practical value (household safety and protection), the Maramureș Gate (Figure 7) has always represented an element of local pride, its size and carving complexity indicative of a certain social status a family would hold within the community. The value locals place on this regional identity element is obvious, with 127 respondents ranking it third in the hierarchy, 110 placing it second and a further 110 even listing it as their first preference (Figure 8). An altogether different perception is displayed by 15 respondents for whom the Maramureș Gate only holds a minimal role in shaping the local identity, coming therefore at the bottom of the hierarchical order. With this element, a clear division of responses can be noticed: those respondents considering the Maramureș Gate of top importance in shaping regional identity overwhelmingly come either from rural areas (gates are better cared for there as they perform an important role in households) or from older respondents. Additionally, a good segment of well-educated people (high school and/or college graduates) share the same view. Among the respondents who attribute a low identity value to the Maramureș Gate, those belonging to the younger population group and living in urban areas stand out in particular. They are joined by a similar age group from rural zones. In other words, even though the inhabitants of the region have for a long time recognised (and to a certain extent still do) the special value of this architectural element, the case might be that in the near future, the current group of young people might no longer perceive it as particularly valuable, as the referentials will be different for a social class that considers itself more emancipated.
In order to preserve the invaluable value and symbolism of wooden gates for future generations, we propose the establishment of a Maramureș Gate museum, where the most valuable examples from the entire region will be kept in best conditions. We would also like to see as many workshops as possible where young people can learn how to build these gates.
The Maramureș folk costume is considered by experts in the field as one of the most valuable, beautiful and authentic folk costumes in our national area, with certain elements such as the hat and the vest being unique. The vast majority of people living in the Land of Maramureș (be them children, adults or old, men or women) wear it with pride on Sundays, religious holidays or all other important events (e.g., weddings, baptisms, funerals, cultural and artistic events), displaying distinctive elements for each of these occasions. There is also an everyday Maramureș folk costume, worn mainly by elderly people living in rural areas. However, it only ranks fourth in this hierarchy, as it is deeply engrained into Maramureș people’s daily routine. It is so closely linked to the very core of their being that they consider it indispensable.
As such, the traditional folk costume is largely perceived as a banal element with which they coexist in their daily life or special occasions. This invaluable element of identity ranks fourth (Figure 9) in the opinion of 118 respondents, while another 86, considering it to be the main identity and image vector, give it the first place; in stark contrast, 15 respondents see it as insignificant, consequently rating it last in the hierarchy. Those respondents attributing a higher value to the traditional folk costume and therefore placing it in the top three places come from all areas of the region and from all categories of respondents, which confirms the intrinsic connection between the inhabitants of the Land of Maramureș and their folk costumes. At the other end of the scale, young respondents from urban areas are not aware of the particular value of folk costume, considering it of lesser importance. We deem it necessary to implement multiple actions that promote the uniqueness of the Maramureș folk costume, both nationally and internationally, on various specialized fairs and symposiums.
The fifth place in the hierarchy is given to the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance from Sighetu Marmației (Figure 10). This is an element of high emotional intensity and significant impact on the whole of Maramureș as well as the entire country. The severe communism censorship led to the imprisonment and killing of a large number of religious, scientific, political and cultural personalities from Romania. It is therefore our sacred duty to make sure that their memory will never be forgotten. In our view, ranking this element only fifth in the hierarchy is certainly unjust, given the supreme sacrifice these personalities and their families made for our country. This ranking is the result of 116 respondents seeing it in the fifth place. It is regarded as the main identity element for the Land of Maramureș by only 26 respondents, while another 19 see it as the least important and therefore rank it last in the hierarchy. Unfortunately, most respondents viewing the Memorial as a vital element in shaping the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș, are representatives of a highly educated group of adults and senior citizens. The younger respondents, regardless of their place of residence and territorial distribution, attribute too little importance to this element, which is a worrying fact for the future, as the memory of all those who were incarcerated in Sighetu Marmatiei Penitentiary or were buried in the nearby cemetery must not be forgotten. At the very least, it would be necessary to establish an optional course in Romanian high schools to educate about the atrocities that occurred during the communist period and the locations where they occurred. This education is vital to ensure that such events are known and to prevent their recurrence due to ignorance in the future.
The sixth place in the present hierarchy is occupied by Bârsana Monastery (Figure 11). Due to its architectural originality and the scale and diversity of the events hosted here, the monastery is the main monastic religious compound in the Land of Maramureș. All places of worship in the region, whether parish churches or monasteries, are perceived as highly important by the locals. The importance of some of them is recognized worldwide, through their inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List [54], but in addition to that, Bârsana Monastery has also become the main pilgrimage site in the area. Consequently, 106 respondents rank the monastery sixth in terms of importance and representativity, 20 of them regard it as the most important brand identity for the Land of Maramureș, while 39 people give it last place. (Figure 12). There are two distinct groups of respondents who attribute more importance to this identity element, as follows: (1) Orthodox elderly population aged 65 and above as well as a sizeable segment of the adult population; (2) residents of Bârsana and neighbouring villages on Iza Valley (e.g., Strâmtura, Rozavlea, Vadu Izei). Most of the first category respondents are motivated in their choices by the importance they bestow on the institution of church and, for them, Bârsana Monastery is a beacon of Orthodoxy in the area. Moreover, Bârsana residents as well as locals from Iza Valley benefited directly from the increased reputation of the monastery as they were able to start some small local businesses such as B&Bs, restaurants, souvenir shops, flower shops, etc. At the other end of the scale, those considering the monastery of lesser importance or not important at all have motivations such as they belong to different religions than Orthodoxy; the majority are young and religion does not come at the top of their priority list; they reside farther away from the monastery; out of local patriotism, prefer to avail of the services of the closer religious sites, or simply they are not interested in religion at all. The management of the monastery is very efficient, with the site constantly hosting events as diverse as religious conferences, charity actions, religious services as well as events promoting religious tourism.
Few places exist in the world to mock death and treat it in such an amusing manner as the Merry Cemetery of Săpânța (Figure 13), in the Land of Maramureș (perhaps only one other place in Mexico can come close to it). The whole credit for establishing this place goes to craftsman Stan Ioan Pătraș, the creator of funeral crosses inscribed with mocking texts that depict the most important moments in the life of the deceased and the impact their behaviour had on local community. The amusing epitaphs quite often contain advice for the visitors to heed. This ‘Merry Cemetery’ represents one of the region’s most important brands, perceived and valued as such especially by people from other regions of the country and foreigners who have heard of it and frequently visit it. At a local and regional level, this element of identity ranks seventh in the hierarchy. A total of 126 respondents give it this place, while 42 rank it first and 39 attribute it the last position (Figure 14). The Merry Cemetery is the most important element for all the inhabitants of Săpânța, regardless of their respondent category (age, religion, gender, etc.). They view it this way either because of a local pride sentiment (no other region in Romania has anything like it) or for economic reasons. The cemetery brings certain economic benefits to the locals, as some of them own accommodation businesses in the area and some others benefit indirectly from tourism (e.g., public catering, souvenirs or other products). To these should be added a good proportion of respondents with higher education who are aware that an element of such importance is an opportunity for local and regional development. Respondents from more remote parts of the region do not give the Merry Cemetery of Săpânța a higher place in the hierarchy, saying that for them it is not an important element (there seems to be a certain envy factor noticed in their answers). Regardless of the respondents’ perceptions, the Merry Cemetery is an important element for the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș. Its intensive promotion (on social networks and in the media) as well as its maintenance in optimal visiting conditions should be constant actions, as it brings additional income for the community. We propose to create a virtual tour of this tourist attraction and upload it on a special website to increase its attractiveness among domestic and international tourists.
“Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley (Figure 15) has recently become one of the main tourist attractions for the region under our consideration. Narrow-gauge railways and their specific carriages and locomotives appear to be regaining popularity at a national level, given their diverse potential for economic capitalization particularly in rural communities. Arguably, the most famous of these steam trains is the “Mocănița” from the Land of Maramureș which operates on a narrow-gauge railway track starting from the town of Viseu de Sus and following the Vaser Valley. According to 162 survey respondents, this economic–tourist identity element comes eighth in the given hierarchy (Figure 16); 28 respondents see it as the primary regional identity element ranking it first, whereas some other 60 take exactly the opposite view placing it last. Those considering the “Mocanita” as representative/the most representative for the Land of Maramureș are generally young and come from all over the region, which is understandable given this group’s „appetite” for adventure and for an unusual tourist transport vehicle. Many of these youngsters say that a “Mocănița” trip can be a good opportunity to spend time outdoors while also taking pictures to share on various social platforms. They are joined in their ranking preferences by residents of Viseu de Sus and Viseu de Jos who, living in the “Mocănița” proximity, benefit directly or indirectly from it. People who do not attach any importance to this identity element mostly belong to the group of elderly respondents from all areas of the region, with less mobility, desire and opportunities for leisure tourism. However, the “Mocănița” is an important resource for the tourism in the region as it attracts a large number of visitors from other parts of the country and from abroad, and therefore investment is needed in improving the quality of transportation and services and in providing Belleview points, tourist dining facilities, souvenir shops, promotional elements and a specialised website.
Respondents attribute the last three places in the hierarchy of elements shaping the Land of Maramureș regional identity to two mountain ranges (Maramureș Mountains, ninth place, and Rodna Mountains, eleventh place) and a well-known craft, namely the Săcel pottery, tenth place. While the respondents’ answers suggest that the two mountain ranges play a certain role in shaping the regional identity, their precise relevance to it remains rather difficult to be expressed in concrete terms. A total of 169 respondents place the Maramureș Mountains in ninth position (Figure 17), while another 116 consider they should be ranked last. Regarding the Rodna Mountains, 160 responses rate them eleventh (Figure 18) while 134 consider they should come last. In total, 184 respondents position the Săcel pottery (Figure 19) in tenth place in the hierarchy (Figure 20), whereas 105 respondents rank it last. On the other hand, the number of those viewing these three identity elements as utterly important is really insignificant when compared to the total number of responses. In the case of the two mountain ranges, it is relatively straightforward to analyse, understand and explain the respondents’ perception regarding their significance (less common elements are less readily accessible; regarding the Rodna Mountains, they only partially belong to the analysed region; some peaks of the Maramureș Mountains face towards the neighbouring country, Ukraine, which is currently in conflict, etc.). However, when it comes to the Săcel pottery, a similar undertaking proves rather challenging as this pottery holds a unique status both nationally and across Europe, owing to its production technique, the antiquity of the phenomenon, the uniqueness of the kilns and the fact that very few producers remain.
Consequently, it is imperative for both Săcel and county authorities to implement a program aimed at the preservation, promotion and continuity of this unique pottery-producing technique. For instance, they could allocate funds for various pottery exhibitions and demonstrative workshops, provide support for participation in national and international pottery fairs, establish a Săcel pottery museum and integrate pottery classes into the vocational school curriculum, allowing younger generations interested in this craft to study and learn these techniques.
As for the two mountain ranges, it is essential to establish new tourist routes and promote these mountains on as many tourist platforms as possible, as these can potentially bring a significant number of visitors and help with developing local businesses.
Regardless of the identity element considered, the Land of Maramureș necessitates local or county-level legislation designed to enhance its visibility, both nationally and internationally. While brand identities may already exist within the public consciousness, their regional profitability requires revitalization. These brand identities are undoubtedly invaluable and have the potential to significantly contribute to the promotion of local and regional development.
5. Conclusions and Discussions
Based on the present research study, we can safely conclude that the Land of Maramureș is a regional entity with a complex personality defined by identity elements coming from fields as diverse as historical, cultural, ethnographical, tourist, geographical and architectural.
The eleven main elements of territorial identity are recognized as such by both the academic community (represented by the authors of the 15 analysed papers addressing various aspects of the area) and the local population (through the voices of the 720 respondents) who have embraced the territory in question as their physical and mental habitat. This dual acknowledgment of the identity elements enables us to assert that the Land of Maramureș is firmly embedded in the collective consciousness, with its regional identity elements being concrete and unequivocal.
While our study provides valuable insights into the identity elements of the Land of Maramureș, it has some limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, although our sample size is representative, it might not fully capture the diversity of opinions across different demographic groups within the region. Secondly, by focusing on specific identity elements, we may have overlooked some other factors that contribute to the region’s identity.
We believe that identifying, analysing and ranking the main identity elements of the Land of Maramureș is a crucial step for both scientific understanding and practical guidance for local and regional authorities. Understanding these key identity markers can significantly benefit regional development. Brands, regardless of their nature, drive development due to their public recognition and ability to mobilize resources and energies. With targeted and sustainable promotion and development projects, these identity elements can become better known, better preserved and more attractive to domestic and international tourists, as well as potential investors.
Equipped with this tool for identifying and ranking the main elements of regional identity, confirmed by the region’s inhabitants and scholarly works, public authorities have a moral obligation to preserve them and propose concrete development projects. We aim to empower local and county authorities to this end and promote this study to raise awareness among the regional public and authorities about the immense value of these identity elements for the Land of Maramureș. Our goal is to capitalize on these elements for the future.
To address this, we propose several strategies, including the creation of a tourist circuit that encompasses key landmarks and cultural zones, specifically highlighting significant cultural personalities. This circuit would provide a cohesive and immersive experience for visitors while creating synergistic benefits by placing these landmarks in proximity to each other. Additionally, we recommend promoting the Memorial of the Victims of Communism and of the Resistance in educational institutions to raise awareness about the atrocities that occurred during the communist era in this region. These strategies aim to enhance both the cultural and educational value of Maramureș, making it more attractive to a diverse range of visitors.
While our study provides a comprehensive analysis of the identity elements of Țara Maramureșului and their potential for branding and tourism development, several areas warrant further exploration. For example, exploring the historical forces and local evolution that continue to shape the identity of Țara Maramureșului can provide a richer context for branding efforts. Additionally, research on sustainable tourism practices, interactive and educational programs, and their effectiveness in promoting cultural awareness and conservation will be essential.
Ultimately, we consider that our proposed analytical model is comprehensive and complex, and can be applied as such to any other region. Attempts to identify and rank the identity elements of a region without comparing the scholarly perception of the region with the perception of its inhabitants may be incomplete and highly subjective.
In summary, the Land of Maramureș has a vast potential to strengthen its identity and benefit from a strong brand identity, both locally and regionally. Through sustainable resource management, consistent self-promotion and integration into a global context, this region can become a model for best practices in preserving, sustainably developing and capitalizing on its unique identity.
Conceptualization, C.-N.B. and V.G.; methodology, C.-N.B.; software, S.-F.F.; validation, S.-F.F., V.G., C.-N.B., I.-H.P. and C.H.; formal analysis, C.-N.B. and V.G.; investigation, C.-N.B.; resources, C.H.; data curation, S.-F.F.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-N.B.; writing—review and editing, C.-N.B. and V.G.; visualization, I.-H.P.; supervision, C.H.; project administration, C.-N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
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.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Hierarchy of the Elements which Define the Regional Identity of the Land of Maramureș. (in the local people’s assessment).
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the wooden churches identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the outstanding historical and cultural individuals identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Maramureș Gate identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 9. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding Maramureș traditional folk costumes identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 10. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 12. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Bârsana Monastery identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 14. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Merry Cemetery in Săpânța identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 15. Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley (https://flic.kr/p/adW7Qp—accessed on 1 Iune 2024).
Enlarge this image.Figure 16. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the “Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 17. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Maramureș Mountains identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 18. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Rodna Mountains identity element.
Enlarge this image.Figure 19. Săcel Pottery (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Ceramica_Sacel.JPG—accessed on 22 June 2024).
Enlarge this image.Figure 20. Hierarchical distributions of the answers regarding the Săcel Pottery identity element.
A hierarchy of the elements that define the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș. (according to scholarly works).
| The Land of Maramureș Identity Elements | Main Identity Subcomponents | Contributions to the Construction of Regional Identity |
|---|---|---|
| The Maramureș |
|
|
| Rodna Mountains |
|
|
| The Wooden Churches |
|
|
| “Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley |
|
|
| Maramureș Mountains |
|
|
| Merry Cemetery in Săpânța |
|
|
| Bârsana Monastery |
|
|
| The Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance |
|
|
| Traditional Maramureș Folk Costume |
|
|
| Outstanding Historical and Cultural Individuals |
|
|
| Săcel Pottery |
|
|
Number of answers and hierarchy of the elements which define the regional identity of the Land of Maramureș.
| Land of | Wooden Churches | Outstanding Cultural and Historical Individuals | Maramureș Gates | Maramureș Traditional Folk Costumes | The Memorial to the Victims of Communism and Resistance | Bârsana Monastery | Merry Cemetery in Sapanta | “Mocănița” from the Vaser Valley | Maramureș Mountains | Săcel Pottery | Rodna Mountains | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hierarchy | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 199 | 129 | 123 | 86 | 26 | 20 | 42 | 28 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| 2 | 97 | 133 | 110 | 83 | 42 | 56 | 56 | 32 | 6 | 17 | 4 | |
| 3 | 107 | 99 | 127 | 86 | 54 | 72 | 59 | 31 | 8 | 9 | 8 | |
| 4 | 69 | 61 | 68 | 118 | 56 | 89 | 68 | 40 | 14 | 11 | 20 | |
| 5 | 57 | 37 | 76 | 60 | 116 | 94 | 98 | 42 | 26 | 13 | 23 | |
| 6 | 49 | 55 | 80 | 56 | 80 | 106 | 100 | 56 | 49 | 18 | 73 | |
| 7 | 39 | 47 | 38 | 58 | 84 | 82 | 126 | 82 | 80 | 54 | 85 | |
| 8 | 35 | 57 | 28 | 75 | 108 | 48 | 86 | 162 | 118 | 132 | 100 | |
| 9 | 37 | 67 | 36 | 67 | 111 | 56 | 10 | 101 | 160 | 175 | 112 | |
| 10 | 21 | 24 | 20 | 16 | 24 | 58 | 36 | 86 | 142 | 184 | 134 | |
| 11 | 10 | 11 | 14 | 15 | 19 | 39 | 39 | 60 | 116 | 105 | 160 | |
| Total | 720 | 720 | 720 | 720 | 720 | 720 | 720 | 720 | 720 | 720 | 720 | |
(The order of the elements is based on the hierarchy determined by the respondents’ answers—the first identity element is the most important according to the respondents, while the last one is the least important).
References
1. Messely, L.; Dessein, J.; Lauwers, L. Regional Identity in Rural Development: Three Case Studies of Regional Branding. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer.; 2010; 4, pp. 19-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19041/APSTRACT/2010/3-4/3]
2. Ilieș, G.; Ilieș, M. Identity Based Geo- and Tourism Branding Strategies Derived from Rural Maramureș Land (Romania). Geoj. Tour. Geosites; 2015; 16, pp. 179-186.
3. Ilieș, M.; Boar, N.; Hotea, M. Maramureș Touristic Development in a Crossborder Perspective. Geogr. Timisiensis; 2004; 13, pp. 127-133.
4. Boțan, C.N.; Gligor, V.; Horváth, C.; Fonogea, S.F. Land of Hațeg Identity and Regional Brands. Transylv. Rev.; 2019; 28, pp. 183-198.
5. Boțan, C.N.; Gligor, V.; Fonogea, S.F.; Pavel, I.H. Perceptions Regarding the Identity Elements of Oaș Land. Transylv. Rev.; 2020; 29, (Suppl. S2), pp. 183-204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33993/TR.2020.suppl.2.11]
6. Alexandra, D.M.; Alexandru, C.; Adina, D.G. Exploratory Research Regarding Romanians’ Perception About The Regional Brand “Maramureș”. Ann. Univ. Oradea Econ. Sci.; 2013; 22, pp. 776-785.
7. de Almeida, G.G.F.; Cardoso, L. Discussions between Place Branding and Territorial Brand in Regional Development—A Classification Model Proposal for a Territorial Brand. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 6669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14116669]
8. Messely, L.; Dessein, J.; Lauwers, L.H. Branding regional identity as a driver for rural development. Proceedings of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) > 113th Seminar; Belgrade, Serbia, 9–11 December 2009; pp. 267–277; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.57406]
9. Paasi, A. Regional Planning and the Mobilization of ‘Regional Identity’: From Bounded Spaces to Relational Complexity. Reg. Stud.; 2013; 47, pp. 1206-1219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.661410]
10. Donner, M.I.M. Understanding Place Brands as Collective and Territorial Development Processes; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Nederlands, 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18174/379598]
11. Brunninge, O. Invented Corporate Heritage Brands. J. Brand Manag.; 2023; 30, pp. 157-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41262-022-00304-7]
12. Brigitta, B.; Krisztina, B.; István, B.; Adrian, H. Identitate Europeană, Națională Și Regională. Teorie Și Practică; Partium: Oradea, Romania, 2011.
13. Šifta, M.; Chromý, P. The Importance of Symbols in the Region Formation Process. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr.; 2017; 71, pp. 98-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1317285]
14. Cocean, P. Regional Geography (Geografie Regională—Romanian Language); Presa Universitară Clujeană: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2010.
15. Leukhova, M.; Gritskevich, T. Regional Identity in Strategy. Strateg. Theory Pract.; 2022; 2/4, pp. 500-516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21603/2782-2435-2022-2-4-500-516]
16. Tokarev, G. Symbolary of Regional Identity: Research Issues. Vestnik. Volgogr. Gos. Universiteta. Ser. 2. Jazyk.; 2022; 21/6, pp. 173-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2022.6.14]
17. de Almeida, G.G.F. Territorial Brand in Regional Development: Interdisciplinary Discussions. Encyclopedia; 2023; 3, pp. 870-886. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3030062]
18. Tsvetkova, I.; Zhelnina, E.; Ivanova, T.; Gorbacheva, N. Factors of Regional Identity as a Dynamic Structure. “Conflict-Free” Socio-Economic Systems; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2019; pp. 251-258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78769-993-920191029]
19. Mitina, E.; Kalkova, N.; Yarosh, O. Brand Identifiers as a Tool of Territorial Development. Reg. Ekonomika. Yug Ross.; 2020; 8/1, pp. 134-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15688/re.volsu.2020.1.12]
20. Volkov, Y.Y.; Guskov, I.; Gurba, V.N. Regional Identity in the Space of Social and Managerial Activity. Humanit. S. Russ.; 2022; 11, pp. 40-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18522/2227-8656.2022.4.2]
21. Camacho Posada, M.F. Constructing Collective Identities within European and Latin American Integration Frameworks. Acad. Appl. Res. Mil. Public Manag. Sci.; 2023; 22, pp. 39-53. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32565/aarms.2023.2.3]
22. Boțan, C.N.; Gligor, V.; Pavel, I.H.; Fonogea, S.F. Regional Identities within the European Union. Case Study: Țara Moților (Romania). Transylv. Rev.; 2015; 24, pp. 285-306.
23. Boțan, C.N.; Horváth, C.; Pavel, I.H.; Fonogea, S.F.; Gligor, V. Perceptions Regarding the Land of Năsăud Regional Identity. Transylv. Rev.; 2016; 25, pp. 235-248.
24. Simion, S.-A.; Hotea, M.; Moisuc, D. Cultural heritage, identity and tourism development in Maramureș land. Geogr. Napoc.; 2018; 12, pp. 59-65.
25. Relph, E. Place in Geography. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 11448-11451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02474-8]
26. Kutty, N.K. Cultural Authenticity and Regional Development. SSRN Electron. J.; 2008; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1117279]
27. Jones, D.S. Community Resilience, Climate Change, Sustainability & Engagement: Adventures in Creative Project-Based Education on the Eyre Peninsula. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Education; Sydney, Australia, 9–12 July 2010; pp. 1-7.
28. Flint, R.W. Seeking Resiliency in the Development of Sustainable Communities. Hum. Ecol. Rev.; 2010; 17/1, pp. 44-57.
29. Butler, R. The Tourist Experience: Can Destinations Maintain Authenticity?. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes; 2017; 9, pp. 617-626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-09-2017-0044]
30. Irwin, E.G.; Jaquet, T.; Faggian, A. Regional Sustainability and Resilience: Recent Progress and Future Directions. Regional Research Frontiers; Jackson, R.; Schaeffer, P. Advances in Spatial Science Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 277-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50547-3_17]
31. Bec, A.; Moyle, B.; Moyle, C. Resilient and Sustainable Communities. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 4810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10124810]
32. Glass, J.; McMorran, R.; Currie, M.; McKee, A.; Pinker, A.; Reed, M.; Meador, E.; Markantoni, M. Translating Community Resilience Theory into Practice: A Deliberative Delphi Approach. Sociol. Rural.; 2022; 62, pp. 675-698. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/soru.12397]
33. Kotradyová, V.; Ontkóc, M. Regional Identity and Its Contemporary Forms as Important Part of Social Sustainability. AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing: Long Island, NY, USA, 2022; Volume 2574, pp. 100001-1-100001-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0111543]
34. Larionova, T.V. Social and Philosophic Aspects of Regional Sustainability in the Global World. J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Humanit. Soc. Sci.; 2015; 8, pp. 1206-1214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-2015-8-6-1206-1214]
35. Joseph, M. Cheer. Resilience in the Visitor Economy: Cultural Economy, Human Social Networks, and Slow Change in the Regional Periphery. Tourism, Resilience and Sustainability Adapting to Social, Political and Economic Change; Cheer, J.M.; Lew, A.A. Routledge: London, UK, 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315464053]
36. Lundegård, I. Personal Authenticity and Political Subjectivity in Student Deliberation in Environmental and Sustainability Education. Env. Educ. Res.; 2018; 24, pp. 581-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1321736]
37. Fröhlich, K.; Hassink, R. Regional Resilience: A Stretched Concept?. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2018; 26, pp. 1763-1778. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1494137]
38. Rizzi, P.; Graziano, P.; Dallara, A. A Capacity Approach to Territorial Resilience: The Case of European Regions. Ann. Reg. Sci.; 2018; 60, pp. 285-328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00168-017-0854-1]
39. Zanotti, L.; Ma, Z.; Johnson, J.L.; Johnson, D.R.; Yu, D.J.; Burnham, M.; Carothers, C. Sustainability, Resilience, Adaptation, and Transformation: Tensions and Plural Approaches. Ecol. Soc.; 2020; 25, art4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-11642-250304]
40. van Aswegen, M.; Drewes, J.E.; van der Linde, E. Regional Resilience: An Urban Systems Approach; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 121-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17308-1_12]
41. Oliva, S.; Lazzeretti, L. Unravelling the Sustainable Resilient Region: Exploring Regional Resilience in Sustainable Transition; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 3-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61923-7_1]
42. Parusheva, T. Cultural Identity and Sustainable Cultural Tourism in the Context of Local and Global. Sci. Work.; 2022; LXIV, pp. 23-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22620/sciworks.2022.02.002]
43. Ilieș, G. Țara Maramureșului. Studiu de Geografie Regională; Cluj University Press: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2007.
44. Coteț, P. Geomorfologia României; Editura Tehnică: Bucharest, Romania, 1973.
45. Dăncuș, M. Zona Etnografică Maramureș; Editura Sport–Turism: Bucharest, Romania, 1986.
46. Dăncuș, M. Evreii Din Maramureș. Muzeul Culturii Evreiești Din Maramureș. Casa Memorială Elie Wiesel; Muzeul Maramureșului: Sighetul Marmației, Romania, 2006.
47. Dăncuș, M.; Cristea, G. Maramureșul Un Muzeu Viu În Centrul Europei; Editura Fundației Culturale Române: Bucharest, Romania, 2000.
48. Hotea, M. Munții Maramureșului. Studiu de Geografie Umană; Cluj University Press: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2019.
49. Ilieş, A.; Baias, I.C.; Deac, A.L.; Andreica, D. Crișana–Maramureș. Atlas Geografic al Patrimoniului Turistic. Geographical Atlas of Tourism Heritage; Alexandru, I. Editura Universității din Oradea: Oradea, Romania, 2021.
50. Vasile, M. Valea Vaserului. Vișeu de Sus. “Elveție” a Maramureșului; Editura Societății Culturale Pro Maramureș “Dragoș Vodă“: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2005.
51. Moldovan, C. Baza de Date Privind Fundamentarea Înființării Rezervației Biosferei; Ichim: Sighetul Marmației, Romania, 2000.
52. Morariu, T. Viața Pastorală În Munții Rodnei; Societatea Regala Romana de Geografie: Bucharest, Romania, 1937; Volume 2.
53. Popa, R. Țara Maramureșului În Veacul al XIV-Lea; Editura Enciclopedică: Bucharest, Romania, 1997.
54. Simion, S.A. Turismul Rural În Maramureș. Ph.D. Thesis; Babes-Bolyai University: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2011.
55. Sîrcu, I. Munții Rodnei. Studiu Morfogeografic; Academiei Republicii Socialiste România: Bucharest, Romania, 1978.
56. Vana, V.M. Turismul Religios Și de Pelerinaj În Maramureș. Ph.D. Thesis; Babes-Bolyai University: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2021.
57. Porumb, M. Bisericile de Lemn Din Maramureș; Editura Academiei Române: Bucharest, Romania, 2005.
58. UNESCO. The General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; World Heritage List UNESCO: Paris, France, 1972; Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/ (accessed on 29 July 2024).
59. Memorialul Victimelor Comunismului şi al Rezistenţei; Fundaţia “Academia Civică” Available online: https://www.memorialsighet.ro/memorialul/ (accessed on 5 May 2024).
60. Bogdan, I. Wikipedia. Available online: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdan_I (accessed on 20 December 2023).
61. Dragoș, I. Wikipedia. Available online: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drago%C8%99_I (accessed on 4 May 2024).
62. Personalități Maramureșene; Consiliul Judeţean Maramureş Available online: https://www.1decembrie.maramures.ro/1-decembrie/personalitati (accessed on 5 May 2024).
63. Gheorghe Turda. Wikipedia. Available online: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Turda (accessed on 4 May 2024).
64. Babos, A. Tracing a Sacred Building Tradition. Wooden Churches, Carpenters and Founders in Maramureș Until the Turn of the 18th Century; History of Architecture, Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2004; Available online: https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/21535 (accessed on 29 July 2024).
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Silviu-Florin Fonogea; Ion-Horațiu Pavel; Horvath, Csaba