1. Introduction
In the era of globalization and growing competition between cities, many of them use tourism as an economic development strategy, their succeeds in preserving the identity and values of a nation [1]. Urban tourism is gaining new dimensions as the leisure opportunities for tourists have become increasingly diverse [2]. Tourists now seek to access spaces traditionally reserved for residents, leading to the adoption of consumption behaviours similar to those of locals [3,4].
As a result, urban markets within chosen tourist destinations are increasingly being sought after by tourists eager for diverse experiences and also sustainable practices. Recent research has identified complex and dynamic relationships between local food markets and urban sustainability, positioning these spaces as critical nodes in the intersection of culture, economy, and environmental resilience [5]. These markets offer tourists the opportunity to purchase locally produced goods [6] and enjoy authentic experiences related to novelty, socializing with locals, and appreciating cultural differences compared to their home country [7,8,9]. Additionally, markets often feature products at bargain prices [10,11,12], alongside enhancing the image of the tourist destination [12,13,14] and improving competitiveness by distinguishing one location from others [15]. In other words, markets can be more than just an auxiliary tourist feature of a destination; they can serve as a major attraction offering key tourist experiences [16].
1.1. Urban Food Markets Across the Globe
Urban food markets can be considered enduring and sustainable tourist attractions in cities across the globe, shaped by diverse factors such as climate, demographics, and socio-cultural dynamics. Beyond their touristic appeal, these markets play a vital role in promoting cultural sustainability by preserving gastronomic traditions, local customs, and community practices passed down through generations. As living expressions of cultural heritage, urban food markets not only foster social cohesion and identity but also support sustainable urban development through local food systems, reduced supply chains, and the revitalization of public space [17].
Urban food markets in Asia, North America, Latin America and Africa constitute a socio-cultural and economic phenomenon with strong tourism implications especially in Asia.
Thus, in South-East Asia, night markets are part of everyday urban culture, located in working class or tourist areas and offering affordable food in an authentic setting [18]. Notable examples are night markets in Thailand or floating markets in Thailand and Vietnam, where trade is traditionally conducted from boats [18,19,20,21,22]. Other distinctive forms are the railway markets (e.g., Thailand), which cater to both locals and tourists [23].
In North America, night markets reflect multiculturalism and the Asian diaspora [24]. In the USA, they are found in large cities and are valued for their culinary diversity [25,26]. Latin America brings an ethnic and artisanal dimension through traditional markets in Mexico and Brazil and the gastronomic courts of Argentina’s capital, where indigenous, European and regional traditions are blended [27,28,29,30].
In Africa, souks—traditional Islamic bazaars—combining commercial activity with local sensory experiences are complemented by night markets in Kenya or Tanzania [31,32,33,34].
Thus, it can be confirmed that urban food markets have always been not just a place for exchanging and consuming food products but also a place for socializing among consumers and the local community, a central point of the city and a lively community hub, which is now also developing from a tourism perspective [35]. More examples of such markets can be found in Table 1.
1.2. European Union Urban Food Market
Current European urban food markets represent a recent manifestation of ancient models from Mediterranean areas, such as Greek agoras and Roman forums [36,37]. Since the end of the 20th century, in Europe, these markets, once vibrant and essential for supplying residents with fresh fruits and vegetables, along with other local products, had fallen into decline, losing their previous relevance [38]. The decline in importance for a period of time was due to the dominance of hypermarkets, supermarkets, and discount stores. However, over time, these markets regained new life with the addition of public food service units within the markets, coexisting with stalls selling local products [39,40,41].
Urban food markets in European cities can be divided into several categories: tourist markets (designed, remodelled, and restructured specifically to cater to tourist demand), sustainable local markets (traditional food markets that are attractive to tourists while maintaining their traditional local clientele, allowing for a balance between attractiveness and sustainability), and traditional markets (undergoing a transformation with an uncertain or unclear future) [42]. However, the future of urban food markets will involve the disappearance of the duality between tourist/resident, with a broader range of “urban users,” where tourism will be truly integrated into the city [43].
Currently, the revival, reinvention, and reaffirmation of the place of urban markets in the community has occurred as a result of a new approach, driven by increasing attention given to these markets by researchers, urban planners, and tourism entrepreneurs [44,45]. These stakeholders have sought to adapt various local attractions for tourist visits, providing new spaces for social interaction, recreation, and entertainment. By consuming traditional products from local sources, tourists adopt values associated with local identity codes and sustainable practices. This experience allows visitors to enjoy the city more as if they were local citizens. In this sense, one method of behaving like a local is by visiting a food market, which, when examined more deeply, represents a true identity and tourist icon [43,44,45].
Thus, tourist markets, specifically designed for tourists, are mainly found in developed countries in Europe with a high influx of tourists (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, etc.). Sustainable local markets, considered more authentic, are primarily known to locals but are also visited by tourists. These markets are seen as more special because they generate real experiences for the tourists exploring them.
In European cities such as Barcelona, Lisbon, Funchal, Palermo, Rome, Paris, etc., many local markets have become increasingly known and promoted tourist attractions, allowing visitors to discover an area through its culinary traditions (Table 2) [43,44,45,46,47]. However, the tourist development of certain markets often also attracts an anti-tourist attitude from residents. They witness the reconfiguration and adaptation of markets with ready-to-eat products that satisfy the large number of tourists visiting them [48].
In Romania, in major cities (e.g., Bucharest, Cluj, Iași, Timișoara, Constanța, Suceava), markets from the category of sustainable local markets dominate, offering a unique shopping experience and the opportunity to choose from a wide variety of local and seasonal products (fresh vegetables and fruits, dairy products, meat, and other traditional dishes). These markets preserve elements of local culture, reference urban identity, rejuvenate local production, and revitalize social life in the area. They have an economic and social impact and can become models for sustainable development [35,49]. The transition to tourist urban markets is still at the beginning and is applicable only in the country’s capital, Bucharest.
1.3. Urban Food Markets as a Sustainable Tourism Component
While much of the literature highlights the economic and cultural roles of urban markets for local communities, their appeal as experiential spaces for tourists is increasingly being recognized. Among the reasons why urban markets are attractive to tourists include authentic local experiences, culinary diversity, purchasing local food, interaction with producers and local people, and access to traditional products, aligning with the trend of slow, immersive, and sustainable tourism [9,50,51]. Another motivation among tourists is that there is a gradual shift in the choice of tourist destinations from various famous places to local food markets [43]. However, the role of urban food markets as nodes in sustainable tourism, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, remains underexplored. Our study addresses this gap through a case study of Obor Market, analysing tourist perceptions, satisfaction, and behaviour with geospatial analysis and fieldwork. Urban markets attract tourists by offering accessible, affordable, and culturally rich spaces where food, place, and identity intersect. Their appeal often lies in the authenticity and sensory richness of the experience.
Urban food markets have become increasingly important in the context of sustainable urban tourism due to their ability to integrate economic, cultural, social, and environmental functions [52]. They support local economies by connecting urban consumers and tourists with regional producers through short supply chains, contributing to both urban and rural sustainability [37,53]. Culturally, these markets preserve and showcase local identity through traditional foods and everyday interactions, offering tourists authentic, immersive experiences [53]. Environmentally, they promote seasonal, local consumption and often reduce waste and reliance on transport-intensive supply systems [54]. Centrally located and easily accessible, food markets also contribute to sustainable mobility and the revitalization of public spaces [55].
Another thing leaning on the sustainability aspect is authenticity. In the case of an urban market, authenticity has several interconnected dimensions. It is sensory, seen in the colours, aromas, and everyday activity that anchor the experience in real life rather than in something staged for tourists [56]. It is reflected in the preservation of traditional foods, preparation methods, and spaces reserved for local producers and emerges from genuine interactions with locals, allowing tourists to experience the market as an active part of the city’s daily life [57]. It is reinforced by direct relationships between buyers and local producers, which strengthen the sense of a community-based place [58].
1.4. Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Experience
The experience of visiting urban food markets in host destinations depends on a variety of factors such as the image of the place (the market), accessibility, the quality and taste of the food, the discovery of new dishes (food neophilia), the involvement of vendors (communication with tourists/socialization, their stories about food), and the price of food [42,44].
Customer satisfaction is another important factor in tourism, and meeting or even exceeding tourists’ expectations regarding a tourist attraction is considered fundamental to the success of destinations [59,60]. In other words, tourist satisfaction refers to the sense of fulfilment experienced by visitors as a result of their travel experience, characterized by the accomplishment of their desires and expectations [61]. Additionally, the alignment between tourists’ expectations before, during, and after their trip must be considered [45,62,63].
Measuring satisfaction levels among visitors to urban food markets is essential because the higher the satisfaction levels related to the gastronomic experience, the higher the likelihood of their intention to return or recommend the destination to others [64,65]. However, other studies argue that although the cultural aspects of a place are important, satisfaction with the experience is the factor that most influences a tourist’s intention to revisit and recommend the destination to others [66]. Moreover, tourists progressively revise their satisfaction levels regarding the destination by evaluating their gastronomic experience [67].
Consequently, the overall experience of tourists and their satisfaction with local food are closely related, with traditional local dishes becoming an essential element in the motivation for choosing the destination and the overall tourist experience [67,68,69]. This relationship is observed in various studies examining satisfaction with local food relative to the overall experience of a tourist [63].
The effective management of tourist attractions can increase tourist satisfaction, thus improving the quality of the experience and generating the desire to revisit or recommend the destination to others [46].
In this context, the purpose of the study was to analyse the role of food markets as new tourist attractions in urban tourism, considering the growing number of tourists visiting such places. The research question was as follows: “What is the role of urban food markets in sustainable urban tourism, and what factors contribute to their increasing popularity among tourists?”
The objectives of the study were (i) to identify the main urban food markets in Bucharest with a focus on culinary tourism and (ii) to analyse the tourist experience from the perspective of foreign tourists visiting the Obor Market in Bucharest.
Given the above, the originality of the study lies in addressing this research topic, which is still underexplored in Romania. As far as we know, no study exists on this topic/subject in this context. This paper aims to fill the research gap regarding understanding why food markets are becoming new tourist attractions within Romanian urban tourism, specifically the satisfaction of tourists with the tourist experience in the largest food market in the country’s capital.
Furthermore, this research may have significant management implications regarding tourists’ culinary experience satisfaction, which can be used by stakeholders involved in the process of urban tourism development in Bucharest, as these spaces have become an essential part of it.
2. Materials and Methods
To address the research question—“What is the role of urban food markets in sustainable urban tourism, and what factors contribute to their increasing popularity among tourists?”—a mixed-methods approach was employed. First, GIS mapping was used to visualize the distribution of 59 urban markets in Bucharest. The resulting map offered a clear overview of market locations, helping identify areas of concentration. The map was also used in the field and during the interviews we conducted with the market administrators in order to determine which markets are the most visited. Second, fieldwork involving observations and semi-structured interviews with market administrators provided qualitative data on market characteristics, modernization, and tourist presence. Third, a case study of Obor Market included 264 tourist surveys, analysed using statistical methods (e.g., chi-squared tests, Pearson correlation). These revealed key factors influencing market popularity—such as authenticity, product variety, and cultural value—supporting the view that food markets are important components of sustainable urban tourism.
2.1. GIS Mapping and Analysis
In the first stage of our research, we employed Geographic Information Systems (GISs) to create a clear visual representation of the locations of urban markets in Bucharest. This mapping process facilitated a comprehensive understanding of the markets’ geographical distribution and their proximity to major tourist attractions. The GIS was used not only to identify the distribution of markets in Bucharest but also as a straightforward mean of presenting basic information on their number and location. The resulting distribution map provides a clear and accessible overview of the urban market landscape, contributing to a general understanding of market presence across the city. This visual tool can also support planning efforts aimed at enhancing market coverage and promoting sustainable urban practices, such as improving proximity to fresh food sources and reducing travel-related emissions.
We specifically mapped 59 urban markets in Bucharest using imagery provided by the National Agency for Cadastre and Real Estate Publicity (ANCPI) by accessing the National Electronic Register of Street Nomenclatures [70]. The cartographic data were processed using ArcGIS Pro 2.8 [71]. By focusing on markets frequented by tourists, we gained valuable insights into tourist behaviour and preferences, which can inform local businesses and policymakers on how to better meet visitors’ needs.
The results obtained from the geospatial analysis were validated through field observations and semi-structured interviews with representatives from urban market administrations across Bucharest’s six sectors.
2.2. Field Campaigns
The second methodological stage involved conducting field campaigns in the urban markets of Bucharest to validate the previously collected data and gather new information essential for the study. This phase was executed in two periods: from 5 to 15 July 2024 and from 10 August to 14 September 2024.
During the first field campaign (from 5 to 15 July 2024), we utilized field observation forms to document the characteristics of urban markets, including location, site image, product diversity (food, non-food, household items, and souvenirs), accessibility to public transport, product pricing, and the presence of foreign tourists. Additional insights were gathered through semi-structured interviews with representatives from the administrations of each market, focusing on aspects such as market modernization, product offerings (local vs. imported), branding, promotional strategies, and event organization.
The second field campaign, conducted during the peak tourist season (10 August to 14 September 2024), involved administering 264 face-to-face questionnaires to foreign tourists visiting the Obor Market. We narrowed the research to focus on the Obor Market as a representative case study of a new tourist attraction within Bucharest’s urban tourism landscape and a potentially significant precursor to a phenomenon whose signs of manifestation are already emerging. The introductory section of the questionnaire outlined the study’s purpose and adhered to ethical standards of academic research, ensuring respondents understood that their participation was voluntary and their data would remain confidential (the Ethics Committee of the University of Bucharest, document no. 94/3 July 2024).
The questionnaire comprised 17 questions, primarily open-ended, with some closed and Likert scale items. It explored various aspects, including the purpose of the visit to Bucharest, sources of information about the city, duration of stay, intended attractions, expectations regarding the Obor Market, overall satisfaction, and demographic variables (age, gender, education, and the country of origin). We believe our sample was statistically representative, capturing diverse opinions related to the tourist experience in urban markets from the perspective of foreign visitors. The coding process enabled us to adjust the sample size to an optimal level, ensuring a reliable analysis [72,73,74,75].
Additionally, we analysed official statistical data, revealing that 1,998,000 foreign tourists visited Bucharest in 2024, with origins including Germany, Italy, Israel, the USA, the UK, Spain, Hungary, France, Ukraine, and Poland [76]. However, it is important to note that there is no official statistic tracking the number of tourists visiting the Obor Market specifically, and the average duration of stay in Bucharest is 2.1 days [76].
2.3. Statistical Analysis
Previous studies have emphasized the value of integrating qualitative and quantitative methodologies to achieve robust results [77,78,79].
The survey was a qualitative semi-structured survey, and the 264 responses were coded and translated categorical data into numerical values using Microsoft Office Excel. We applied a standardized coding framework to all responses to the qualitative (open-ended) questions. The coding was conducted manually using a uniform set of categories developed based on recurring themes identified during an initial review of the data. Key terms included concepts such as “authenticity”, “local products”, “market location”, “tourist experience”, and “market atmosphere.” To ensure consistency and minimize variability, the entire coding process was carried out by a single researcher. This approach was chosen specifically to avoid potential intercoder reliability issues and to ensure a uniform interpretation and application of the coding scheme across the dataset.
Statistical data analyses were conducted to summarize key features such as satisfaction levels and demographics, examine relationships between categorical variables (e.g., nationality and food preferences), and identify significant associations. We compared mean satisfaction levels across different demographic groups to uncover statistically significant differences in experiences and assessed how factors like product variety and service quality influenced overall tourist satisfaction. Additionally, we identified correlations among survey items to reveal underlying themes and segmented tourists based on similar behaviours or preferences, aiding in the development of targeted marketing strategies. The statistical tests used for processing the data were frequencies, crosstabs, Chi-squared test and Pearson’s correlation coefficient, performed in SPSS v 20 (IBM). Last, we used Canva to make graphs look better.
The sample consisted of 52.3% male respondents, with 31.8% aged between 18 and 29 years, 84.8% holding higher education degrees, and 15.9% originating from Germany (Table 3). Through this comprehensive methodological approach, we aimed to provide a nuanced understanding of the tourist experience in Bucharest’s urban markets.
2.4. Study Area
The Obor Market is situated in Sector 2 of Bucharest, specifically on Ziduri Moși Street in the central–eastern part of the city. It is located at the intersection of Ștefan cel Mare Road and Calea Moșilor, approximately 1.5 km from the city centre (Figure 1) [80]. The term ‘obor,’ as defined by the explanatory dictionary of the Romanian language, refers to an enclosed area where livestock fairs were historically held on the outskirts of the city. As Bucharest expanded, these livestock fairs relocated, eventually establishing the current site of the Obor Market [81].
This market has been selected as a case study due to its status as the largest food market in Romania, located in the country’s capital, which is the most frequented destination for foreign tourists. Tourists often seek to experience more than just the traditional attractions of Bucharest, such as the Palace of the Parliament, the Old Town, Calea Victoriei, the Primăverii Palace, and the Village Museum. They are interested in immersing themselves in local culture and daily life and in engaging with residents.
Research indicates that markets that endure and thrive over time are typically situated in central locations or their immediate surroundings, which enhances their potential for attracting tourists [43]. Thus, the Obor Market serves not only as a vital commercial hub but also as a significant cultural and social space for both locals and visitors.
3. Results
3.1. Main Urban Food Markets in Bucharest with a Focus on Sustainable Tourism
The markets in Bucharest serve as a vital link between urban and rural communities. They attract local residents seeking essential goods and farmers from surrounding rural areas, including Ilfov County and neighbouring counties such as Giurgiu, Dâmbovița, Prahova, Ialomița, and Călărași, as well as more distant regions like Argeș, Alba, Dolj, Buzău, and Vrancea. These markets typically offer a diverse range of products, including fresh fruits and vegetables, meat, dairy, flowers, household items, handmade crafts, and souvenirs.
Bucharest is home to 59 markets (Figure 2), with the most prominent being Obor Market, Amzei Market, Matache Market, Crângași Market, Domenii Market, 1 Mai Market, Colentina Market, Aurel Vlaicu Market, Delfinului Market, Rahova Market, Progresului Market, and Berceni Market. Among these, only Obor and Amzei Markets have emerged as notable tourist attractions, based on data collected from observation sheets and interviews with market administration representatives across Bucharest’s six sectors.
Tourist appeal varies among these urban markets, influenced by factors such as the market’s image, authenticity, product quality and diversity, pricing, location in the city, and promotional efforts. This highlights the importance of understanding how these elements contribute to the markets’ roles as cultural and commercial hubs in Bucharest.
Obor Market is recognized as the largest and most accessible food market in Romania, with historical roots dating back to 1865. Originally, it emerged from a bi-weekly fair known as Podul Târgului, located outside the city, where live animals were sold alongside agricultural products. Peasants travelled to Obor to sell their livestock and produce, while local residents frequented the fair for their weekly shopping needs.
Over time, the area surrounding Obor underwent significant development, particularly with the construction of communist-era apartment blocks. In the 1970s, the original market structure was demolished as part of Bucharest’s urban regeneration initiative. This redevelopment resulted in the establishment of two market halls, a public housing complex, and a small park.
Since the modernization of its commercial infrastructure between 2005 and 2011, Obor Market has experienced considerable transformation while retaining its status as an iconic location in Bucharest, cherished by locals and frequented by tourists.
The market is organized into distinct sections: the large hall features a farmers’ market on the ground floor, where fresh fruits and vegetables are sold. The next level offers a variety of meat, cheeses, and canned goods, while the upper level houses butcher shops, bakeries, candy stores, wine shops, and spice shops (Figure 3). This layout enhances the shopping experience, catering to diverse consumer needs and preferences.
In front of the hall, there is a variety of kiosks offering traditional street food—pretzels, donuts, grilled meat, and sausages, alongside the ubiquitous mititei (grilled sausages) with mustard, a local brand of Obor Market as well as of Bucharest, which attracts both locals and tourists (Figure 4).
“Obor is a place for everyone (producers, merchants, locals, immigrants, foreign tourists), where social relationships are reaffirmed and strengthened. When it comes to hospitality, most people associate it with the mititei with mustard from Obor, which have become emblematic in Bucharest. Regardless of the day or hour, there is a line in front of the Obor Terrace. The only unknown in this equation is the length of the line. The Obor Terrace serves as a vector for the image of Obor Market.” (Excerpt from an interview with a representative of the Obor Market administration).
Both the market and the events held there (harvest festivals and OctObor Fest) are promoted on Facebook and Instagram pages, according to information gathered from an interview with a market representative. However, it benefits from the most significant promotion both online and physically from the entrepreneurs within the market (the mititei sellers), who try to attract customers through various naive marketing forms, such as motivational quotes (“Veni, vidi, mici!”; “It will be fine! #sure”; “Strong essences are kept in small bottles,” etc.) inserted into a decor abundant with objects and colours (Figure 5).
Obor Market represents a cosmopolitan space that manages to satisfy the needs and curiosities of people from all walks of life, regardless of generation, social status, or preferences.
Amzei Market is located in the city centre and caters to all types of shoppers, offering stalls with fruits and vegetables, meat and fish, and Romanian and international delicacies, alongside flowers and souvenirs. Bakeries, pastry shops, and cafes are also prevalent in the area. A distinctive element within it is the presence of Amzei pastry shop, known for its products made from traditional recipes (merdenele/pies with cheese) (Figure 6). On weekends, the market becomes livelier as additional stalls are set up selling antiques, old books, handmade jewellery, etc. Due to its central location, it has always been more expensive, leading locals and tourists to often redirect their attention to other more accessible markets in Bucharest, according to statements from the interviewed market administration representative.
In conclusion, it can be said that Obor Market is the most visited urban food market in Bucharest, as it is the largest and most authentic. It is well-known for a local brand (Obor’s mustard mititei) and offers the most affordable prices for the products sold here, most of which come from local sources (with a designated section exclusively for local producers, marked with the slogan: “Direct from the producer!”). The market is modern and has a good location, while not central (e.g., near metro, buses, trolleybuses, trams stations). In contrast, Amzei Market, although it is a modern market located in the central area of the city, is not as attractive as Obor Market due to the significantly higher prices of the products sold there, as well as the predominance of imported goods.
3.2. The Tourist Experience from the Perspective of a Foreign Visitor to Obor Market
Although most foreign tourists arriving in Bucharest choose to visit well-known tourist attractions (e.g., the Palace of the Parliament, the Old Town, Calea Victoriei, the Athenaeum, the Primăverii Palace, the Village Museum, the Arch of Triumph, etc.), some of them wish to experience local life and cuisine to see how Romanians live and thus choose to spend some of their time in Obor Market. The market itself is perceived by visitors as an authentic representation of local culture.
The main sources of information for foreign tourists regarding Obor Market were as follows: the internet (51.5%) (travel vlogs and blogs, YouTube, and Tripadvisor), social media (22%) (Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok), local guides (24.2%) who accompanied them on the market tour, family and friends (0.8%), or directly from locals (1.5%).
Regarding the length of stay in Bucharest, the majority of respondents spend three days (79.5%) or just one day (10.6%) in the city, while very few tourists stay for five days (7.6%) or seven days (2.3%). This suggests that many visitors are in transit or follow a well-structured itinerary designed to cover Bucharest’s main tourist attractions within a limited timeframe.
The analysis of satisfaction by gender reveals remarkably similar patterns between male and female visitors. Female respondents reported being “very satisfied” at a rate of 28.57% compared to 28.99% for male respondents. Similarly, the “satisfied” category showed minimal variation (63.49% for females vs. 65.22% for males). The chi-square test confirms no statistically significant association between gender and satisfaction levels (χ2 = 0.48, p = 0.788), suggesting that the market experience transcends gender-specific preferences or expectations. This gender neutrality in satisfaction indicates that Obor Market offers an equally appealing experience regardless of gender, which is a valuable insight for tourism management and marketing strategies that need not be gender-targeted for this particular attraction.
The satisfaction levels stratified by nationality reveals significant heterogeneity in tourist experiences at Obor Market. Statistical analysis indicates a strong association between nationality and satisfaction levels (χ2 = 102.87, p < 0.001), suggesting that cultural background substantially influences market perception. Austrian visitors demonstrated the highest satisfaction rates with 100% reporting being “very satisfied”, followed by American (57.14%) and German (52.38%) tourists. This pattern may reflect varying cultural expectations regarding traditional markets, with Western tourists potentially experiencing greater novelty value compared to visitors from regions with similar market traditions. The significant chi-square test result confirms that these differences are unlikely to be due to chance, indicating that nationality is a meaningful predictor of market satisfaction (Figure 7).
Age demographics exhibit distinct patterns in market satisfaction, with statistical significance (χ2 = 56.42, p < 0.001) confirming the relationship between age and satisfaction levels. The highest proportion of “very satisfied” responses was observed among seniors over 70 years (45.45%) and young adults aged 18–29 (42.86%), while middle-aged visitors (30–39 years) reported the lowest proportion of high satisfaction (14.81%) (Figure 8). This U-shaped satisfaction distribution suggests that Obor Market appeals differently across generational cohorts. Older visitors may appreciate the market’s traditional aspects and authenticity, while younger tourists might value the experiential and social media-worthy aspects. The middle-aged demographic’s lower satisfaction could reflect different expectations or priorities during travel, potentially related to convenience or efficiency factors that may be less optimized in traditional market settings.
A chi-square test of independence was conducted on 264 participants, with the analysis contrasting two education levels (higher education versus secondary education). The results indicated a statistically significant relationship (χ2(2) = 6.26, p = 0.0437) between the educational background of the tourists and their satisfaction levels with their visit to Obor Market. However, the effect size measured by Cramer’s V (0.1272) suggests that the strength of this association is small.
The majority (84.8%) of respondents reported having higher education, with 80.0% of this group being satisfied with their visit. In contrast, although the secondary education group had a 100% positive satisfaction rate (when combining satisfied and very satisfied), the proportion who reported being “very satisfied” was lower at 20.0% compared to 30.4% for those with higher education (Figure 9).
The data indicate that tourists who described their experience as “authentic” or “beautiful” were more likely to report being “very satisfied” with their visit, while those who valued seeing how ordinary Romanians live also showed high satisfaction levels (Figure 10).
The following heatmap displays the crosstab of the responses for expectations (rows) versus actual experiences (columns). This gives an overview of how different expectation levels relate to the experiences reported by the visitors. Expectations were grouped into five main categories: market atmosphere (fresh produce expectations), food expectations (quality street food and mititei sausages), sensory experience (colours, smells, and sounds), social interaction (contact with locals), and discovery (the joy of experiencing something new). Statistical inference was carried out using a chi-square test of independence. The resulting chi-square statistic and the low p-value (p < 0.001) indicate that the observed cell counts significantly differ from the frequencies expected under statistical independence. This suggests a strong association between the pre-visit expectations and the subsequent experience evaluations (Figure 11).
The next analysis demonstrates cross-cultural variations in tourist experiences at Obor Market, with implications for targeted tourism management and marketing strategies. The heatmap illustrates the proportional distribution of experience categories across various countries.
Notably, Hungary emerges with the highest score (0.62) in the “authentic” category. However, it is important to consider that the relatively low number of respondents may be impacting the reliability of this result. France shows a strong preference for “authentic” experiences (0.29) and “food” (0.21). Germany has balanced preferences across “authentic” and “food” categories (both 0.23). Israel displays the most even distribution across multiple categories. Poland and Italy show stronger preferences for “cultural” experiences (0.24 and 0.22, respectively). The “prices” category receives minimal attention across most countries, with several countries showing 0.00 (Figure 12). This phenomenon can be attributed to the generally low-price levels of food products available in the markets, making them appealing to both locals and tourists.
The analysis of the relationship between satisfaction and the intention to revisit indicates a clear trend: higher levels of satisfaction are associated with a greater likelihood of tourists planning to return. Specifically, the data reveal a positive correlation of 0.5155 (p < 0.001) between tourist satisfaction and the intention to revisit Obor Market. Remarkably, 100% of tourists who reported being “very satisfied” expressed their intention to return, whereas only 33.3% of those categorized as “satisfied” and 50% of “dissatisfied” tourists indicated plans to revisit (Figure 13). This underscores the significant impact of visitor satisfaction on their future travel decisions.
To verify whether Obor Market remains a top choice for foreign tourists visiting Bucharest in terms of the quality of experiences offered at local food markets, respondents were asked if they had visited other similar markets. The majority of those interviewed responded affirmatively (80.3%) but noted that no other market in Bucharest compares to the authentic atmosphere of Obor Market. Many of the respondents had visited Amzei Market, which is much more centrally located, but they found it less attractive due to its atmosphere, the products sold, and their prices. The sole exception within Amzei Market was an iconic communist-era pastry shop (Patiseria Amzei), which received praise for its traditional products (such as merdenele and cheese pies).
Regarding the promotion of Obor Market among new urban tourist attractions by local tourism authorities, the vast majority of responses were unfortunately negative (98%). The market is primarily promoted online (through Facebook and Instagram pages, as well as YouTube), but there is a lack of physical promotional materials (such as brochures, leaflets, and printed maps).
Among foreign tourists, especially seniors, there was disappointment due to the absence of a tourist information point at the market entrance, and the other identified information centres in the city were either closed or abandoned, with the exception of the one located in the University Square passage.
4. Discussion
According to the findings of this research, among all the markets in Bucharest, Obor Market stands out as a new local tourist attraction. It fulfils several key attributes that contribute to its appeal, including historical significance, tradition, image, product diversity, pricing, and accessibility. Similar analyses of urban food markets, such as La Boqueria in Barcelona, Time Out Market in Lisbon, and Mercado dos Lavradores in Funchal, have been conducted in other studies, yielding comparable results [43,44,46]. Consequently, Obor Market has been examined not only in terms of food quality but also through various aspects that enhance the tourist experience.
It is well-documented that visitors are primarily attracted to food markets by the local culinary offerings, particularly street food, such as the popular mititei served with mustard, as well as the freshness of fruits and vegetables. These factors contribute to the market’s perception as an authentic and sustainable representation of local culture, a notion supported by other studies [44,82].
Regarding the high level of visitor satisfaction at Obor Market, the discovery of mititei at the market stalls significantly contributes to this contentment. The literature indicates that the identification of new flavours, particularly those appealing to visitors, greatly enhances their satisfaction [42,44]. Moreover, the high satisfaction levels may also be linked to positive reviews of Obor Market found on platforms like TripAdvisor, as well as in travel vlogs created by various international influencers [83,84,85]. This information correlates with the sources of information utilized by foreign tourists regarding Obor Market. While cultural background and age significantly influence tourist satisfaction at Obor Market, gender does not appear to be a differentiating factor.
The results also offer insights into how education might influence visitor satisfaction. Stakeholders and market administrators in Bucharest could leverage this understanding to better cater to their diverse audience. Given the significant yet small effect, further research could dive deeper into other drivers of satisfaction and explore additional facets of the market experience that resonate differently with each educational group. The results provide empirical evidence for tourism stakeholders to develop targeted approaches based on visitors’ nationalities and age groups, while maintaining gender-inclusive marketing and service provision strategies.
The percentage of visitors dissatisfied with their experience at the market was low, and this aspect may be influenced by the cultural background of the foreign tourists (e.g., lifestyle, customs, values, ethical frameworks). The cultural environment of origin can significantly affect the level of satisfaction with the tourist experience, a fact noted in other studies [46,86].
Regarding the positive results related to the intention to revisit or recommend Obor Market to others, other studies have reached similar conclusions. Specifically, higher visitor satisfaction with local gastronomic offerings correlates with a greater likelihood of revisiting or recommending the market. Memorable experiences are the primary motivators for tourists to return to a destination [65].
However, the largely negative outcome concerning the promotion of Obor Market by local tourism authorities presents a challenge, particularly in terms of physical representation. Currently, there is no tourist information point within the market. Consequently, on-site tourist promotion is primarily associated with private initiatives, particularly those undertaken by stall owners selling mititei, rather than by local authorities. On a positive note, online promotion is active, facilitated by bloggers, vloggers, and social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. This online presence particularly benefits tourists who arrive in organized groups or younger individuals with more developed digital skills, as opposed to older visitors who often prefer precise information, including printed maps and brochures.
The findings of this study can also be summarized and interpreted through Schmitt’s experiential marketing framework, highlighting how Obor Market engages tourists across sensory, emotional, cognitive, behavioural, and relational dimensions [87]. Visitors described the market as vibrant and authentic, attracted by its rich sensory environment in terms of colours, aromas, and traditional foods, which aligns with the Sense module. Food as a defining component of sensory experience was looked upon in a number of contexts [88,89]. Emotionally, the market evoked feelings of nostalgia and belonging, particularly among older tourists, while younger visitors valued its novelty and shareability, illustrating the Feel dimension. Emotions are particularly important when considering food choices [90,91]. Cognitively, tourists reflected on cultural authenticity and local traditions, corresponding to the Think component. As information is nowadays easily available, consumers are often well informed and make conscious choices about what they buy and eat [92,93]. The market also encouraged active participation, such as tasting mititei, photographing, and sharing experiences online, providing the Act dimension. Urban markets are particularly stimulating the interaction between sellers and buyers [94,95]. Finally, interactions with vendors and other visitors fostered a sense of connection and inclusion, reflecting the Relate module. It is proven that markets are places who foster inclusive tendencies [96,97]. Together, these experiential elements help explain why Obor Market stood out as more authentic and satisfying than other urban markets, reinforcing its role as a important cultural and sustainable tourism asset.
Limitations of the study: The study may have been limited by a relatively small or homogenous sample size, which could affect the generalizability of the findings. As the respondents primarily represent a specific demographic (developed countries with a relatively high income), the results may not accurately reflect the experiences and opinions of all visitors to Obor Market. Visitor satisfaction is inherently subjective and can vary widely based on individual preferences and cultural backgrounds. This subjectivity can introduce biases in the data collected, potentially skewing the results and making it challenging to draw definitive conclusions about overall satisfaction. The focus on culinary offerings and visitor satisfaction may overlook other important factors that influence the tourist experience, such as the ambiance of the market, the behaviour of vendors, or the accessibility of facilities. This study does not account for changes over time in visitor perceptions or market conditions. Without longitudinal data, it is difficult to assess trends or the impact of external factors (e.g., economic conditions, changes in tourism patterns) on visitor satisfaction and market popularity. While this study acknowledges that cultural background can influence satisfaction, it may not have adequately explored how specific cultural factors (e.g., food preferences, dining etiquette) impact visitors’ experiences. This limitation could hinder the understanding of how marketing influences visitor perceptions and behaviours.
5. Conclusions
With the transformation of urban tourism, food markets have become new tourist attractions, which will lead to their expansion and functional changes in the future. In the past, food markets served as places for commercial exchange, consumption, and socialization among locals. However, with the evolution of urban tourism, they have now become essential spaces for both residents and tourists.
Obor Market is the largest and most well-known food market in Bucharest, being included in the list of new urban tourist attractions.
An analysis of the tourist experience from the perspective of foreign visitors to Obor Market in Bucharest revealed that the majority of foreign tourists were satisfied with their visit. Most respondents perceived Obor Market as an authentic place where they had the opportunity to try local street food (the famous mititei with mustard), enjoy the vibrant colours of fresh fruits and vegetables, and interact with locals, gaining insight into the daily life of the community. Furthermore, discovering traditional local dishes contributed to creating a memorable experience for foreign tourists, reinforcing the connection between culinary experiences and the identity of the host destination.
A pleasant experience at Obor Market, as stated by the interviewed foreign tourists, also led to expressed intentions to revisit or recommend the market to others.
Regarding the perception of foreign tourists on the promotion of Obor Market by local authorities, it was found that there are shortcomings in physical promotion, particularly due to the lack of a tourist information centre at the market. However, this is somewhat compensated by strong online promotion, which serves as a primary source of information for many visitors, especially younger ones.
The analysis of foreign tourists’ experiences at Obor Market, focused on their perceptions and satisfaction levels, aimed to provide valuable insights to support the efficient management of the food market in line with new sustainable urban tourism development trends.
The combination of different methods, such as GIS, qualitative, and quantitative analyses, aimed to produce robust results. The GIS method allowed us to spatially represent and locate the study area. Statistical analyses of the data were conducted to summarize key characteristics, such as levels of satisfaction and demographic information, to examine relationships between categorical variables (nationality, food preferences, etc.) and to identify significant associations.
Future Research Directions: Several promising avenues exist for future research on the role of food markets in tourism. Expanding the study beyond Bucharest to other Romanian cities or international urban settings could provide a comparative perspective on how food markets contribute to cultural tourism in diverse socio-economic and historical contexts. A longitudinal study examining tourist perceptions of Bucharest’s food markets over time could reveal evolving trends and preferences. These insights would be valuable for policymakers and market administrators in adapting to changing tourist expectations. Given the increasing influence of digital platforms, future research could investigate the impact of online promotion, through social media, travel blogs, and review websites, on tourist interest and visitation patterns. Understanding the effectiveness of different digital marketing strategies could help stakeholders optimize promotional efforts. Sustainability is another crucial area for exploration. Investigating how food markets can balance tourism growth with sustainable practices and increased local community engagement could provide guidelines for responsible tourism development. Exploring the relationship between food authenticity, market ambiance, and cultural immersion would offer valuable insights into enhancing the tourist experience. Additionally, a quantitative study assessing the economic impact of food markets on urban tourism, including revenue generation, job creation, and business development, could highlight their significance within the broader tourism ecosystem.
By pursuing these research directions, scholars and stakeholders can develop a more comprehensive understanding of the evolving role of food markets in tourism. These insights will contribute to effective strategies for promoting cultural tourism, enhancing visitor experiences, and ensuring the sustainable development of urban food markets in Bucharest and beyond.
Conceptualization, I.V., M.P. and A.M.T.; methodology, G.V. and A.M.T.; software, G.V.; validation, G.V., I.V. and A.M.T.; formal analysis, I.V. and M.P.; investigation, A.M.T.; resources, I.V., M.P. and G.V.; data curation, M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, I.V. and M.P.; writing—review and editing, I.V., G.V., M.P. and A.M.T.; visualization, A.M.T. and M.P.; supervision, I.V. and G.V.; project administration, I.V.; funding acquisition, I.V. All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Bucharest University (document no. 94/3 July 2024).
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
The authors would like to thank Roxana Cuculici (the Department of Regional Geography and Environment, the University of Bucharest, Romania) for her valuable input and recommendations in constructing the cartographic material of this article. The authors would also like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and helpful suggestions.
The authors declare no conflicts 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.
Figure 1 The location of Obor Market within Bucharest municipality (based on data provided by [
Figure 2 Distribution of food markets in Bucharest (based on data provided by [
Figure 3 (A,B) Local producers’ section for vegetables (A) and fruits (B). (C,D) Upper floor section with meat (C) and cheeses (D). (Source: personal archive).
Figure 4 Images from Obor Market—street food sector. Lines for mititei where locals and tourists are waiting (A,B); Obor Terrace, one of the places where mititei are served (C). Delicious mititei with mustard (D). (Source: personal archive).
Figure 5 Promotion of Obor Terrace by local entrepreneurs through motivational quotes (A,B). (Source: personal archive).
Figure 6 Images from Amzei Market (A,B). Vegetable, fruit, and flower section (A); Amzei pastry shop (B). (Source: personal archive).
Figure 7 Satisfaction levels by nationality.
Figure 8 Satisfaction levels by age.
Figure 9 Satisfaction levels by education.
Figure 10 Satisfaction vs. experience type.
Figure 11 Expectations vs. actual experiences.
Figure 12 Experiences by country.
Figure 13 Intention to revisit based on satisfaction.
Types of urban food markets around the world.
| Continent | Country | City | Market Type | Traded Products |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asia | Thailand | Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Phuket | night market | street food |
| Bangkok | floating market | vegetables, fruits, boat food | ||
| Mae Klong (near Bangkok) | railway market | fish, seafood, vegetables, fruits | ||
| Cambodia | Phnom Penh | night market | street food | |
| Malaysia | Kuala Lumpur | night market | street food | |
| Indonesia | Jakarta | night market | street food | |
| Banjarmasin | floating market | vegetables, fruits | ||
| Vietnam | Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh | night market | street food | |
| Can Tho | floating market | vegetables, fruits | ||
| Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore | Taipei, Hong Kong, Singapore | night market | street food | |
| North America | Canada | Richmond | night market | international street food |
| USA | Seattle, Portland, Las Vegas, Chicago | night market | international street food | |
| Mexico | Mexico City | day market | vegetables, fruits, street food | |
| South America | Brazil | Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro | day and night market | fruits, spices, coffee, street food |
| Argentina | Buenos Aires | day market | vegetables, fruits, tea, street food | |
| Africa | Marocco, Egypt | Marrakech, Cairo | souk/bazaar | fruits, spices, street food |
| Kenya, Tanzania | Nairobi, Zanzibar | day and night market | fruits, street food |
Examples of urban tourist food markets in the European Union.
| Country | City | Urban Food Market | Traded Products |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spain | Barcelona | La Boqueria | street food, seafood, fish, olives, fruit |
| Portugal | Lisbon | Time Out Market | street food, vegetables, fruits, fish |
| Funchal | Mercado dos Lavradores | vegetables, fruits, fish, flowers | |
| Italy | Rome | Campo de’ Fiori | street food, flowers, fruits, vegetables |
| Palermo | Mercato Vucciria, Mercato Ballaro, Mercato del Capo | street food, seafood, fish, cheeses, olives, vegetables, fruits | |
| France | Paris | Marché des Enfants Rouges | vegetables, fruits, cheeses, international food |
Demographic characteristics (n = 264).
| Socio-Demographic Characteristics | Number of Respondents (%) |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 138 (52.3) |
| Female | 126 (47.7) |
| Age | |
| 18–29 years | 84 (31.8) |
| 30–39 years | 54 (20.5) |
| 40–49 years | 20 (7.6) |
| 50–59 years | 18 (6.8) |
| 60–69 years | 66 (25) |
| over 70 years | 22 (8.3) |
| Education | |
| Primary | 0 |
| Middle level | 40 (15.2) |
| Superior | 224 (84.8) |
| Origin country | |
| Germany | 42 (15.9) |
| Italy | 36 (13.6) |
| Israel | 28 (10.6) |
| Ukraine | 28 (10.6) |
| UK | 26 (9.8) |
| Other | 104 (39.5) |
| Length of stay in Bucharest | |
| 1 day (transit) | 28 (10.6) |
| 3 days (city break) | 210 (79.5) |
| 5 days | 20 (7.6) |
| 7 days | 6 (2.3) |
Source: authors’ analysis.
1. Mashkov, R.; Shoval, N. Merchants’ response towards urban tourism development in food markets. Int. J. Tour. Cities; 2020; 6, pp. 1089-1110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-05-2020-0115]
2. Everett, S. Production Places or Consumption Spaces? The Place-making Agency of Food Tourism in Ireland and Scotland. Tour. Geogr.; 2012; 14, pp. 535-554. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2012.647321]
3. Durán-Román, J.L.; Cárdenas-García, P.J.; Pulido-Fernández, J.I. Tourists’ willingness to pay to improve sustainability and experience at destination. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.; 2021; 19, 100540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2020.100540]
4. Liu, P.L.; Yang, L.G.; Su, X.B. Tourism, feelings, and the consumption of heritage. Tour. Geogr.; 2023; 25, pp. 1483-1503. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2023.2235573]
5. Lee, D.; Pearce, P. Shining a light on Asian night markets: Vendors’ and visitors’ views. Int. J. Tour. Cities; 2020; 6, pp. 467-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-02-2019-0027]
6. Henderson, J. Food hawkers and tourism in Singapore. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2000; 19, pp. 109-117.
7. Chang, J.; Min, J.; Lin, Y.; Chang, C.H. Profiling Japanese tourists visiting night markets in Taiwan. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour.; 2007; 8, pp. 25-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J162v08n02_02]
8. Kikuchi, A.; Ryan, C. Street markets as tourist attractions—Victoria Market, Auckland, New Zealand. Int. J. Tour. Res.; 2007; 9, pp. 297-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.606]
9. Li, X.P.; Kong, W.H.; Yang, F.X. Authentic food experiences bring us back to the past: An investigation of a local food night market. J. Travel Tour. Mark.; 2021; 38, pp. 233-246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2021.1902910]
10. Cox, A.D.; Cox, D.; Anderson, R.D. Reassessing the pleasures of store shopping. J. Bus. Res.; 2005; 58, pp. 250-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00160-7]
11. Hsieh, A.T.; Chang, J. Shopping and tourist night markets in Taiwan. Tour. Manag.; 2006; 27, pp. 138-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.06.017]
12. Chang, J.; Hsieh, A.T. Leisure motives of eating out in night markets. J. Bus. Res.; 2006; 59, pp. 1276-1278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.002]
13. Ryan, C.; Cave, J. Structuring destination image: A qualitative approach. J. Travel Res.; 2005; 44, pp. 143-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287505278991]
14. Tsang, N.K.; Tsai, H.; Leung, F. A critical investigation of the bargaining behavior of tourists: The case of Hong Kong open-air markets. J. Travel Tour. Mark.; 2011; 28, pp. 27-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2011.535442]
15. Timothy, D.J. Shopping Tourism, Retailing and Leisure; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2005.
16. Wu, M.Y.; Wall, G.; Pearce, P.L. Shopping experiences: International tourists in Beijing’s silk market. Tour. Manag.; 2014; 41, pp. 96-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.010]
17. Navapan, N.; Charoenkit, S. Local Markets: How the Ordinary Public Places Can Support Urban Sustainable Development. GMSARN Int. J.; 2022; 16, pp. 308-313.
18. Tan, K.S.Y.; Chan, S.K.L. From Train Station to Night Market: Bangkok’s Talad Rod Fai as Urban Liminoid Space. Space Cult.; 2024; 27, pp. 413-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/12063312211046801]
19. Ichikawa, T.; Denpaiboon, C. Analyzing the Floating Market System in Thailand for Sustainability. J. Archit. Plan. Res. Stud.; 2017; 14, pp. 127-142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.56261/jars.v14i2.116263]
20. Pongajarn, C.; van der Duim, R.; Peters, K. Floating markets in Thailand: Same, same, but different. J. Tour. Cult. Chang.; 2018; 16, pp. 109-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2016.1253704]
21. Batra, A. Floating market: Balancing the needs of visitors as a tourist attraction and locals’ way of life. A case study of Talingchan floating market, Bangkok, Thailand. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Syst.; 2014; 7, pp. 1-8.
22. Indochina Odyssey Tours. 5 of the Most Charming Markets in Southeast Asia. 2023; Available online: https://www.indochinaodysseytours.com/knows/five-charming-markets-in-southeast-asia.html (accessed on 17 February 2025).
23. EXPLORESHAW. Markets of Bangkok: Maeklong Railway Market. 2025; Available online: https://www.exploreshaw.com/markets-of-bangkok-maeklong-railway-market/ (accessed on 17 February 2025).
24. Pottie-Sherman, Y.; Hiebert, D. Authenticity with a bang: Exploring suburban culture and migration through the new phenomenon of the Richmond Night Market. Urban Stud.; 2015; 52, pp. 538-554. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098013510954]
25. Hou, J. ‘Night market’ in Seattle: Community event scape and the reconstruction of public space. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities; Hou, J. Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 111-122.
26. Daily Meal. 14 Best Night Markets In The U.S. For Foodies.; 2025; Available online: https://www.thedailymeal.com/1256055/best-night-markets-us-for-foodies/ (accessed on 14 February 2025).
27. Bastista Da Costa, E.; Rodríguez-Ventura, D.; Alvarado-Sizzo, I. Urban economy circuits and Latin American territorial-heritage. Xochimilco Market, Mexico City. Rev. Urbano; 2022; 46, pp. 90-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22320/07183607.2022.25.46.08] Available online: https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/urbano/v25n46/en_0718-3607-urbano-25-46-90.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2025).
28. Aventura do Brasil. Culinary Journeys Through Brazil’s Markets: A Discovery of Brazil’s Colorful and Diverse Markets. 2024; Available online: https://www.aventuradobrasil.com/blog/culinary-journeys-through-brazils-markets-a-discovery-of-brazils-colorful-and-diverse-markets/ (accessed on 17 February 2025).
29. Colman, J. 5 Markets in Buenos Aires. 2019; Available online: https://www.tangol.com/blog/eng/5-markets-in-buenos-aires_post_517 (accessed on 17 February 2025).
30. Turismocity. 7 Mercados Gastronómicos de Buenos Aires para Conocer. 2022; Available online: https://www.turismocity.com.ar/promociones_aereas/p7_mercados_gastronomicos_de_Buenos_Aires_para_conocer-5438.html (accessed on 17 February 2025).
31. Kania, K.; Maciej, K. Functional and spatial changes of souks in Morocco’s imperial cities in the context of tourism development. Misc. Geogr.; 2019; 23, pp. 92-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2019-0002]
32. Nachouane, N.E.; Knidiri, A. The Souk in the Islamic City between Power and Organization of Space. Hesperis-Tamuda; 2021; 56, pp. 221-236.
33. Join My Trip. 10 Amazing Night Markets in the World to Visit. 2025; Available online: https://www.joinmytrip.com/blog/en/7-incredible-night-markets-in-the-world/#marrakech (accessed on 12 February 2025).
34. O’Brien, S. Exploring Kenya’s Night Markets. 2025; Available online: https://www.gonomad.com/232836-exploring-kenyas-night-markets (accessed on 14 February 2025).
35. Chasovschi, C.; Albu, A.; Nastase, C.; Mohr, C. The Quality of Public Services—Management of Urban Markets in Romania. Eur. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. EpSBS; 2016; 15, pp. 168-180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.09.22] Available online: https://www.europeanproceedings.com/article/10.15405/epsbs.2016.09.22 (accessed on 23 January 2025).
36. Casares, J.; Rebollo, A. Mercados minoristas tradicionales. Distrib. Consumo; 1997; 32, pp. 75-112.
37. Guzmán-Pérez, B.; Pérez-Monteverde, M.; Mendoza-Jiménez, J.; Román-Cervantes, C. Social value and urban sustainability in food markets. Front. Psychol.; 2021; 12, 689390. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689390]
38. Guimarães, P. The transformation of retail markets in Lisbon: An analysis through the lens of retail gentrification. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2018; 26, pp. 1450-1470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1474177]
39. Knox, P. Creating ordinary places: Slow cities in a fast world. J. Urban Des.; 2005; 10, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574800500062221]
40. Parham, S. Market Place: Food Quarters, Design and Urban Renewal in London; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2012.
41. Kowalczyk, A. Dimensions of gastronomy in contemporary cities. Gastronomy and Urban Space; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 91-118.
42. Crespi-Vallbona, M.C.; Domínguez Pérez, M. Los mercados de abastos y las ciudades turisticas. PASOS Rev. Tur. Patrim. Cult.; 2016; 14, pp. 401-416. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25145/j.pasos.2016.14.026]
43. Dimitrovski, D.; Crespi Vallbona, M. Urban food markets in the context of a tourist attraction—La Boqueria market in Barcelona, Spain. Tour. Geogr.; 2017; 20, pp. 397-417. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1399438]
44. Madeira, A.; Rodrigues, R.; Palrão, T.; Mendes, A.S. Tourists’ Fascination with Urban Food Markets: The Successful Case of Time Out Market Lisbon. Foods; 2023; 12, 1795. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12091795] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37174333]
45. Fusté-Forné, F. The tourist experience at urban food markets: A qualitative study in Palermo (Sicily). Int. J. Tour. Cities; 2023; 9, pp. 447-461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-09-2022-0212]
46. Rodrigues, P.; Santos, P.; Omran, W. From Virtual to Real—Analysis of the Mercado dos Lavradores (Farmer’s Market). Eur. Rev. Bus. Econ.; 2024; 4, pp. 1-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26619/ERBE-2024.4.1.1]
47. Sgroi, P.; Modica, F.; Fusté-Forné, F. Street food in Palermo: Traditions and market perspectives. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci.; 2022; 27, 100482. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100482]
48. Dimitrovski, D.; Crespi-Vallbona, M.; Ioannides, D. How do locals perceive the touristification of their food market? The case of Barcelona’s La Boqueria. Int. J. Tour. Res.; 2022; 24, pp. 93-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2486]
49. Manole, V.; Stoian, M.; Ion, R.A. Agromarketing; ASE Publishing House: Bucharest, Romania, 2003.
50. Lin, S.; Zhu, H.; Liu, J.; Li, F.; Zheng, C. Why Do Tourists Visit the Food Market? A Host–Guest Sharing Model Based on the Theory of Self-Regulation. Land; 2025; 14, 407. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land14020407]
51. Karatas, L. Conservation status of intangible cultural heritage after restoration: Case study of Mardin Spice Bazaar. Cult. Herit. Sci.; 2022; 3, pp. 30-36.
52. Crespi-Vallbonaa, M.; Domínguez Pérezb, M.; Miróc, O.M. Urban food markets and their sustainability: The compatibility of traditional and tourist uses. Curr. Issues Tour.; 2017; 22, pp. 1723-1743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1401983]
53. Vaivadaitė, S.; Navickienė, E. The Potential of Food Markets in the Contemporary City: A Systematic Literature Review. Archit. Urban Plan.; 2024; 20, pp. 112-123. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/aup-2024-0010]
54. Caramaschi, S. Public markets: Rediscovering the centrality of markets in cities and their relevance to urban sustainable development. The Sustainable City IX; Marchettini, N.; Brebbia, C.A.; Pulselli, R.; Bastianoni, S. WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2014; pp. 1187-1198.
55. Dimitrovski, D.; Crespi-Vallbona, M. Role of food neophilia in food market tourists’ motivational construct: The case of La Boqueria in Barcelona, Spain. J. Travel. Tour. Mark.; 2017; 34, pp. 475-487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1193100]
56. Fox, R. Reinventing the gastronomic identity of Croatian tourist destinations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2007; 26, pp. 546-559. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.03.001]
57. O’Riordan, L.; Ward, A. An Exploration of the Role of Food Tourism in Sustaining Cultural Authenticity in Ireland. Ir. Bus. J.; 2014; 9, pp. 42-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.61862/1649-7120.1034]
58. World Tourism Organization (WTO). Global Report on Food Tourism. 2012; Available online: https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284414819 (accessed on 30 June 2025).
59. Sánchez-Rebull, M.V.; Rudchenko, V.; Martín, J.C. The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction in tourism: A systematic literature review. Tour. Hosp. Manag.; 2018; 24, pp. 151-183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20867/thm.24.1.3]
60. Scaglione, A.; Mendola, D. Measuring the perceived value of rural tourism: A field survey in the western Sicilian agritourism sector. Qual. Quant.; 2017; 51, pp. 745-763. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0437-8]
61. Chen, C.F.; Tsai, D. How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions?. Tour. Manag.; 2007; 28, pp. 1115-1122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007]
62. Truong, Y.; Simmons, G.; McColl, R.; Kitchen, P.J. Status and conspicuousness–are they related? Strategic marketing implications for luxury brands. J. Strateg. Mark.; 2008; 16, pp. 189-203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09652540802117124]
63. Carpio, N.M.; Napod, W.; Do, H.W. Gastronomy as a factor of tourists’ overall experience: A study of Jeonju, South Korea. Int. Hosp. Rev.; 2021; 35, pp. 70-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IHR-08-2020-0031]
64. Huamanchumo, R.M.E.; Hernandez-Rojas, R.D.; Longa-Lopez, R.A.; Cardenas-Jarama, M. Gastronomy as an effect of visitor loyalty: The Peruvian (Lima) case. Int. J. Tour. Cities; 2023; 9, pp. 362-376. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-03-2022-0071]
65. Chi, H.; Huang, K.; Nguyen, B. A Perception into Food Image and Revisit Intention for Local Cuisine from Foreign Tourist Perspective: The Case of Ho Chi Minh City—Vietnam. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. Res.; 2019; 4, pp. 1-8.
66. Viet, B.; Dang, H.; Nguyen, H. Revisit intention and satisfaction: The role of destination image, perceived risk, and cultural contact. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2020; 7, 1796249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1796249]
67. Cordova-Buiza, F.; Gabriel-Campos, E.; Castaño-Prieto, L.; García-García, L. The Gastronomic Experience: Motivation and Satisfaction of the Gastronomic Tourist—The Case of Puno City (Peru). Sustainability; 2021; 13, 9170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13169170]
68. Hendijani, R.B. Effect of food experience on tourist satisfaction: The case of Indonesia. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res.; 2016; 10, pp. 272-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2015-0030]
69. López-Guzmán, T.; Uribe-Lotero, C.P.; Pérez-Gálvez, J.C.; Ríos-Rivera, I. Gastronomic festivals: Attitude, motivation and satisfaction of the tourist. Br. Food J.; 2017; 119, pp. 267-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2016-0246]
70. Agenția Națională de Cadastru și Publicitate Imobiliară (ANCPI). Registrul Electronic Național al Nomenclaturilor Stradale. 2025; Available online: https://renns.ancpi.ro/renns-public/ (accessed on 28 February 2025).
71. ESRI Romania. ArcGIS Pro 2.8 Software. Available online: https://www.esri.ro/ro-ro/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview (accessed on 7 February 2025).
72. Sandelowski, M. Sample size in qualitative research. Res. Nurs. Health; 1995; 18, pp. 179-183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211]
73. Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998.
74. Boddy, C.R. Sample size for qualitative research. Qual. Mark. Res.; 2016; 19, pp. 426-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053]
75. Bengtsson, M. How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study Using Content Analysis. NursingPlus Open; 2016; 2, pp. 8-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001]
76. NIS, 2025. Comunicat de Presă. Turismul în Luna Decembrie 2024. Turiști Străini După Țara de Rezidență. Available online: https://insse.ro/cms/sites/default/files/com_presa/com_pdf/turism12r24.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2025).
77. Jansen, H. The Logic of Qualitative Survey Research and its Position in the Field of Social Research Methods. Forum Qual. Soc. Res.; 2010; 11, 1450.
78. Alasuutari, P.; Bickman, L.; Brannen, J. Social Research in Changing Social Conditions. The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods; Alasuutari, P.; Bickman, L.; Brannen, J. Sage: London, UK, 2008; pp. 1-8.
79. Fetters, M.D. Six equations to help conceptualize the field of mixed methods. J. Mix. Methods Res.; 2018; 12, pp. 262-267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689818779433]
80. Visit Bucharest. Bucharest Obor Market. 2025; Available online: https://visitbucharest.today/bucharest-obor-market/ (accessed on 23 January 2025).
81. Giurescu, C.C. Istoria Bucureştilor; Editura Vremea: Bucharest, Romania, 2009.
82. Fusté-Forné, F.; Ginés-Ariza, P.; Noguer-Juncà, E. Food in slow tourism: The creation of experiences based on the origin of products sold at Mercat Del Lleó (Girona). Heritage; 2021; 4, pp. 1995-2008. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030113]
83. TripAdvisor. Piata Obor Bucuresti. 2025; Available online: https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g294458-d4115316-Reviews-Piata_Obor_Bucuresti-Bucharest.html (accessed on 22 February 2025).
84. Jurnalul.ro. Celebru Vlogger American în ROMÂNIA. S-a Plimbat Prin Ferentari și a Mâncat Mici la Piața Obor. 2024; Available online: https://jurnalul.ro/timp-liber/monden/celebru-vlogger-american-romania-plimbat-ferentari-mancat-mici-piata-obor-970184.html (accessed on 22 February 2025).
85. B1Tv.ro. Experiența Unui Influencer Străin în Piața Obor. Ce Cumpărături a Făcut (VIDEO). 2024; Available online: https://www.b1tv.ro/eveniment/experienta-unui-influencer-strain-din-piata-obor-ce-cumparaturi-a-facut-video-1504004.html (accessed on 22 February 2025).
86. Coves-Martínez, Á.L.; Sabiote-Ortiz, C.M.; Frías-Jamilena, D.M. Cultural intelligence as an antecedent of satisfaction with the travel app and with the tourism experience. Comput. Hum. Behav.; 2022; 127, 107049. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107049]
87. Schmitt, B.H. Experiential Marketing. J. Mark. Manag.; 1999; 15, pp. 53-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870496]
88. Edwards, F.; Gerritsen, R.; Wesser, G. The ‘Food, Senses, and the City’ Nexus. Food, Senses and the City; Edwards, F.; Gerritsen, R.; Wesser, G. Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 1-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003025580]
89. Zhang, M.; Wang, L.; Zhou, J.; Law, R. Urban Culture and City Brand: A Study on Food Experience. J. Serv. Sci. Manag.; 2022; 15, pp. 108-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2022.152008]
90. Khoshghadam, L.; Rajabi, R. The role of emotions in food consumption choice: Systematic review and directions for future studies. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2024; 48, e13006. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.13006]
91. Rita, P.; Arriaga, P.; Moura, A.; Guerreiro, J. Locals versus foreigners’ emotion-motivational responses towards traditional and non-traditional food. Span. J. Mark.-ESIC; 2023; 27, pp. 79-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SJME-11-2021-0213]
92. Beekman, T.L.; Crandall, P.G.; Seo, H.S. You Eat How You Think: A Review on the Impact of Cognitive Styles on Food Perception and Behavior. Foods; 2022; 11, 1886. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods11131886]
93. Chen, P.J.; Antonelli, M. Conceptual Models of Food Choice: Influential Factors Related to Foods, Individual Differences, and Society. Foods; 2020; 9, 1898. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9121898]
94. Jiang, Z.; Jiang, X.; Jin, Y.; Tan, L. A study on participatory experiences in cultural and tourism commercial spaces. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e24632. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24632]
95. Correia, A.; Kozak, M. Tourists’ shopping experiences at street markets: Cross-country research. Tour. Manag.; 2016; 56, pp. 85-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.03.026]
96. Gonda, T.; Angler, K.; Csóka, L. The Role of Local Products in Tourism. Eur. Countrys.; 2021; 13, pp. 91-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/euco-2021-0006]
97. Brown, D.; McGranahan, G. The urban informal economy, local inclusion and achieving a global green transformation. Habitat Int.; 2016; 53, pp. 97-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.11.002]
© 2025 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
; Vânău Gabriel
; Preda Mihaela
; Taloș, Ana Maria