Next Article in Journal
Daylighting Performance and Thermal Comfort Performance Analysis of West-Facing External Shading for School Office Buildings in Cold and Severe Cold Regions of China
Previous Article in Journal
Challenges in Implementing STEM Education: Insights from Novice STEM Teachers in Developing Countries
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/su151914456
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Management Decisions for Urban Historical Parks: A Case Study Based on Online Referential Values of Carol I Park in Bucharest, Romania

by
Titus Bazac
*,
Sorin Marin
,
Cosmin Olteanu
and
Anca Hotoi
Faculty of Geography, Bucharest University, 030018 București, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14456; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914456
Submission received: 8 August 2023 / Revised: 22 September 2023 / Accepted: 28 September 2023 / Published: 3 October 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Urban historical parks represent important cultural touristic objectives that are part of a city’s own identity. However, currently, the image of these areas in the eyes of contemporary citizens does not always meet their needs and expectations. The purpose of this study is to reveal and evaluate the citizens’ perception level of a multi-objective historical park located in Bucharest, Romania—the Carol I Park. Using software methodology, we managed to determine, online and offline, the degree of public knowledge and interest for this specific urban area and, subsequently, the probability of civic interaction with it. For this, an algorithm was created by deconstructing user searches consisting of factual terms and their semantic derivatives. The search phrases were then run on the GetKeywords and Google Ads platforms, two professional software products mainly used in online advertising, SEO (Search Engine Optimization), research and audience analysis. Various numerical data were obtained, reflecting the structure of Romanian searches performed by users of the Google search engine, which were taxonomically ranked, graphically modeled, then construed and discussed. Therefore, the obtained analysis results can become an indicative tool for the direction to follow in establishing a sustainable managerial strategy that can lead to a viable exploitation and capitalization strategy of that area.

1. Introduction

Although urban historical parks have been the subject of several studies and research works, they have focused more on their patrimonial importance, emphasizing the need for their conservation, their historical importance, their vegetal heritage as well as their urban evolution [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], and less on public perception and use [8]. Even if it is imperative that historical parks are perceived as special green spaces whose historical, urban and environmental value must be maintained for future generations in order to preserve local identity [9], these urban spaces must be adapted to meet the requirements of contemporary society. This is because they represent important relaxation areas with environmental benefits and opportunities for social and human well-being [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20].
Therefore, the administrations of urban historical parks must know the citizens’ perception of these areas in order to find the means of adapting their specifics and particularities to meet contemporary requirements. A sustainable strategy for the administrations of historical parks is taking into account their image in the eyes of citizens as well as their attitude toward historical parks [21,22,23,24]. This is because administrations can adopt the appropriate measures to maintain a balance between the multiple values of the area—“genius loci” [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]—and the functions now required by society.
The epistemological perception of the multiple valences of a place through the interaction prism between people and their environment is unanimously accepted [33,34,35,36]. At the same time, a place represents a psychological attribute of relationships between people, constituting a conjunction of physical space, meanings and human activities [34,37,38,39,40]. Also, the interaction between people and the environment leads to the establishment of an emotional link between self-identity and the identity of the place [41,42,43], but at the same time, to the aesthetic feedback of the community toward a place, representing the perception of that place [43] or a multifunctional judgment on the quality of the place, reflecting the degree of satisfaction the community has with that place [41].
Knowing the preferences, the needs and the degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction of users for a specific territory, both intra- and extra-communitarian, can be determined by the local administration based on measurable and tangible indicators such as tourism, export brand, politics, investments, business and culture [44] as well as by its reputation [45,46].
The structure of territorial marketing approaches and methods in the field of exploitation and capitalization for urban parks has been based so far on the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the data obtained post-visit, on the determination of the degree of interaction of the population with the respective area over a period of time, by monitoring visitors.
Thus, the traditional methods used for quantifying the parks visitors consists of direct observation, on-site counters and visitors’ surveys [47,48,49]. Through these methods, a representative sample of urban parks was selected, from which information was collected on the degree of their use, such as the number of visits and the characteristics, activities and behavior of park users [50]. Several researchers focused on the effects of different physical and sociocultural factors on park usage [48,51,52,53,54], emphasizing the importance of the distance to parks, the park size and the specific characteristics of parks (the presence of water, birds or the sporting facilities), which can influence the park’s usage [48].
Other studies tackled the users’ perceptions of safety [55,56], the provision of park facilities [49,57] or the number of organized activities and events [47].
The common element of these research works and studies is the investigative approach of the visitors’ interactions with the parks, therefore determining (by analyzing and assessing) the visitors’ perceptions of those areas after their visits.
Unlike the research and studies whose results were obtained based on the investigation of the behavior and attitude of the visitors toward some urban parks—thus following the effects of human interaction with an urban green space—the present research seeks to investigate the causes (reasons) that determine the population interest for visiting an urban park through software methodology, represented by the informational factors indicating the probability of visiting. The approach of this study targeted a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the data obtained pre-visit, thus focusing on the investigation of a virtual information table that forms the image of a historical urban park in the eyes of its potential visitors.
The research analyzed the virtual projection of the socio-cultural dimension for the Carol I Park, expressed by the users’ number and structure of online searches on the Google search engine platform, regarding the volume and type of information about that area, aiming to provide answers to the following questions:
  • What information about the Carol I Park and its components is searched for by users of the Google platform?
  • How can the cultural tourism potential of the Carol I Park be influenced by the results of this research?
  • What is the popularity ranking for the objectives within the composition of the Carol I Park?
  • What referential values can be calculated using the data of this study and how can they assist the managerial decision?
  • How does the conducted research contribute to the development of a sustainable territorial marketing strategy?

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Area

The Carol I Park is located in Bucharest, is pericentral-situated and is south of the Dâmbovița River that crosses the city from the northwest to southeast (Figure 1).
This urban park constituted a supporting landscaping for the organization of the first large-scale national exhibition in South-Eastern Europe, the Romanian General Exhibition 1906, which had a decisive role both in the urban development of Bucharest and in enhancing the multilateral development of the country through outlining the image of Romania’s reality at that time [58,59,60,61,62]. Also, as it represents a monument of urban modernity from the beginning of the 20th century, the Carol I Park resonates with other European representatives of environmental landscaping of urban heritage, established in the period between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, when an unprecedented urban expansion took place [63,64,65]. After the end of the 1906 Romanian General Exhibition and till 1940, the mixed status (environmental and exhibition) of the Carol I Park was maintained, and several exhibitions with specific themes were held here in 1921, 1928, 1930 and 1935 [66,67]. The establishment of communism in Romania led to a partial redevelopment of the park, which took place between 1959 and 1963, and the highest point of its area constituted the ground for the construction of a memorial–funeral complex dedicated to honoring the communist heroes [62], with some historical constructions from 1907 still being kept.
The Carol I Park is presented today in its last form of landscaping, unchanged since 1963, but after 1990, the constructions, ensembles and monuments in its composition began to be administered separately, partly by specialized institutions subordinated to the Bucharest City Hall and partly by private companies. Figure 2 reflects the statutory disparity of the areas occupied by these objectives placed on the territory of the Carol I Park, as well as of other objectives located in its conjoint area, caused by their administrative dissociation. The research analyzes the park’s surface as a public use area and three of the objectives located within its surface: “The Mausoleum”—the generic name for “The Nation’s Heroes Memorial Complex”, The Roman Arenas and The National Technical Museum “Dimitrie Leonida”.

2.2. Data Analysis

2.2.1. Establishing the Search Algorithm

The ethics of establishing the cognitive search strategy is fundamental to this study in order to obtain accurate and reliable results. The algorithm used in this search in order to identify specific keyword phrases was structured on the reflective internet search model [68]. It comprises four steps that perform a cognitive action: planning the search, conducting the search, recording the search and evaluating the search [68]. Therefore, we used it in the process of the requirement and assessment of data regarding individual searches on the Internet, which means how much Google search engine users know about a certain notion on a certain topic related to our research [69].

2.2.2. Forming the Database of Terms and Phrases

In this way, the plan to identify and assess the actual searches performed by users on the Google search engine, consisted of firstly finding the relevant basic concepts and terms regarding the analyzed objectives in the Carol I Park.
We then created a number of virtual subjective keywords that we considered relevant to these concepts and topics and combined them into phrases. Then, we ran them online in the analysis software (GetKeywords and Google Ads) in order to see if they are really used in searches by the users and what other metrics they have. These keyword phrases started from the generic term that designates the area/objective we researched in the park (the Carol I Park (its entire surface, as a public function area), the Mausoleum, the Roman Arenas and the Technical Museum). Then, we went up to the semantic derivatives and phrases that define and expand its characteristics (landscape, component objectives and facilities/services) and events/actions carried out within the park.
According to [68], the keyword search strategy of this study took the following into account:
  • The relevance of the search drive (e.g., we eliminated the keyword phrases that lead to information about real estate in the vicinity of the Carol I Park or another park in Romania bearing the same name), which are all of no interest to the article purpose;
  • The probability of identifying the actual, relevant online information, respectively the users’ searches in the Google search engine, by running the subjective/virtual keyword phrases in the analysis software we used;
  • The actual date, time frame projection and actuality of the information acquired from the Internet with the analysis software;
  • The validity of the objectives we studied in the Carol I Park and their functionalities, which we aimed to assess using this research method.
Based on Boolean Logic, the search strategy included the formation of strings of keywords and phrases, using the connecting words “and”, “or” or “not” [68].
This way, we created an initial semantic database consisting of subjective virtual keyword phrases that we believed to be relevant to start this research, with no numeric values acquired at this stage, to be further processed in the analysis software.

2.2.3. Processing the Database Consisting of Terms and Phrases

The processing of the initial (subjective/virtual) keyword phrases of this study was carried out using professional IT Programs: GetKeywords and Google Ads. We used them as investigative tools able to combine data from multiple data points on the Internet in order to unveil the relevant metrics on the users’ searches performed using the Google search engine. Among other great features, the versatility of Google put it in first place among search engines used in 2022, both worldwide and in Romania. This is the reason we have used it as a research data pool for our study (Figure 3).
The reliability of GetKeywords (available as an online analysis platform at https://www.getkeywords.io, accessed on 12 March 2021) consisted in its ability to provide accurate, structured information for searches performed exclusively in Romania over the period of four years (2018–2021) considered in our study.
The similar capacities of Google Ads (like extracting the same type of data, its metrics and time frame projection from the Internet), besides the fundamental or more subtle differences with GetKeywords, made it an excellent complementary validation tool for our research.

2.2.4. Running the Database in the GetKeywords and Google Ads Programs

As we defined them, the main search phrases of the research analysis were “carol I park”, “dimitrie leonida technical museum”, “carol I park mausoleum” and “roman arenas”, corresponding to the Carol I Park’s actual area of general use (0), as well as the National Technical Museum “Dimitrie Leonida” (1), the Mausoleum Complex (4) and the Roman Arenas (6), as seen in Figure 2, where these surfaces have been distinctly circled in red.
Running these main phrases in both analysis software (GetKeywords and Google Ads), as well as other keyword phrases, returned numerical results for some of them, representing the metrics of users’ online searches for that specific keyword phrase, for every month of the four years analyzed in this study (2018–2022) (Figure 4).
Additionally, both software we used indicated—for every main, subjective/virtual keyword phrase we initially created and ran—that other semantic derivatives of them were searched by the Google search engine users.
By distinctively running these semantic derivative phrases in the two-analysis software, we got full monthly numerical results for them as well. They represent the number of times they have been searched by users in the Google search engine, over the proposed four-year period.
At the same time, by running the main phrases, some of the derived semantic variants of each main phrase that were searched by the public were obtained in the Related Keywords window of the program. These were subjected to the same procedure: they were, in their turn, run in GetKeywords and provided numerical results, or no results, that demonstrated their access/non-access in the users’ online searches.

2.2.5. Processing the Search Results

Further on, these numerical values were added, through a custom-made Excel chart, to the monthly value calculation of that main phrase analyzed. In order to finalize the processing of the numerical results, the Excel chart we used as a complementary calculation component that allowed us to systematically add up all these values, on month and then on year. They are the numbers representing the users’ searches in Google for the main phrases (e.g., “Carol I Park”), for the virtual/subjective phrases we initially created offline to start the research from (e.g., “Carol Park Monument”) and for their semantic derivatives, dynamically indicated by the results returned from the analysis software as having actual numeric values (monthly searches by users). These values, broken down monthly and perennially, using the analysis software, served to finally calculate the total number of searches per objective (Figure 5).
The Excel spreadsheet did an elementary arithmetic data reduction by adding all the numerical values obtained in the analysis software for each month and year in the whole interval of February 2018–January 2022 and for all the variations of the main phrase that returned numerical results. These monthly results were relevant in this study for establishing the volume, structure and dynamics of the users’ searches.
Moreover, the General Medium Search Value (G.M.S.V.), which is a referential number regarding the users’ searches projected in four years, was calculated for each analyzed objective of the Carol I Park in Bucharest. Each G.M.S.V. value was calculated for each park objective, by dividing the total searches value of the four years analyzed to the number of months considered for 2018–2021 (48 months).
Similarly, we calculated another useful referential number for each studied objective. The Medium Search Value for Peak Searches (M.S.V.P.S.) was obtained firstly by establishing which months had a numerical search value above the G.M.S.V. Then, we made the sum of these peak values and divided it by their number.
Therefore, we considered these values as referential ones because they can further assist any modeling, projection, statistics and, nevertheless, managerial process.
The combination of the two software, GetKeywords/Google Ads with Excel, makes it possible to dynamically update the data obtained (e.g., to provide reports), as the monthly results generated using the keywords research software can be added to the Excel spreadsheet and be automatically graphically illustrated, exported and used in subsequent computing.
As an example, for the “Carol I Park” phrase and its variations (Figure 5A), a numerical data addition was conducted row by row in column B. In cell B3, we calculated the sum of values of the cells D3 to J3 using in the Excel formula bar (ƒx) the formula: =SUM (D3:J3). We did the same for each row from D3 to D50. As we lacked the numerical results for January 2018 (not provided by the acquiring software), we used instead, as a filler, the ones from January 2022 in order to calculate the total search values for a full year, as the purpose of this article was just to present the functionality of the used methodology.
Total Searchers → B52 ƒx = SUM(B3:B50)
Year 2018 → B53 ƒx = SUM(B3:B13)
Year 2019 → B54 ƒx = SUM(B14:B25)
Year 2020 → B55 ƒx = SUM(B26:B37)
Year 2021 → B56 ƒx = SUM(B38:B49)

2.2.6. Data Validation

GetKeywords and Google Ads were used complementary, that is, the validation of the data obtained with GetKeywords was carried out through a parallel analysis, structured on identical semantic architecture, using the Google Ads platform.
From the results provided by both software platforms, we eliminated the irrelevant terms for our research, which provides commercial data, and maintained only the metrics that illustrate search volume and keyword competition.
As seen in Figure 6, the dashboard of Google Ads shows that the properties of the program allow for running the topic in a similar way to GetKeywords, obtaining values illustrating the number of searches by platform users.

3. Results

3.1. Findings

The numerical results obtained by this research represent an indicator of the citizens’ degree of interest for a specific cultural–touristic area of Bucharest. At the same time, the values obtained for different search phrases, corresponding to each of the four analyzed objectives, indicate both the correlation between the type of public access to the respective areas of the park and their current functionality, as well as the level and dynamics of socio-cultural popularity and the degree of effective promotion of the respective areas/aspects. In this respect, the promotional effectiveness of a particular objective and its functionality is reflected in the public’s searches.
Thus, the analysis of searches carried out by users in the February 2018–January 2022 period of time led to the following total numerical results: searches for “Carol I Park” and derived semantic variants—252,860 (46%); searches for “Carol I Park Mausoleum”, including the other objectives of the Heroes of the Nation Memorial and their derived semantic variants—5050 (1%); searches for “Technical Museum—30,270 (5.5%); and searches for Roman Arenas—261,050 (47.5%).
In this way, a quantitative mirror of the users’ search interest on the Google platform was obtained for the Carol I Park and for the other three analyzed objectives, represented by the volume of online searches and their dynamics for each month of the year (Figure 7).
The numerical results obtained for each year of the four-year interval of the study, corresponding to the main phrases and their derivatives, revealed both the dynamics of their annual use and their annual differences in dynamics between 2018 and 2021 (Figure 8).
At the same time, the numerical results of the volume of searches for each of the four objectives during a year were obtained, as well as their percentage distribution from the total annual accesses, which reflects a dynamic of the hierarchy of annual searches within the discussed four-year interval (Figure 9).
Based on these monthly and annual values obtained for the entire period of 2018–2021, we calculated two referential values per objective, the General Medium Search Value and the Medium Search Value for Peak Searches. This referential data can represent key factors for managerial decisions concerning the planning of specific and/or dedicated activities (Figure 10).
As the results obtained for the last four years showed, there are peaks of search interest for several keyword phrases combinations that we run through both analysis software. These out-of-the-average values are relevant to understand and further research a deeper and more complex chain of determining factors in multidisciplinary fields, such as the advertising campaigns, organizing of events, public administration, cultural product design, economic efficiency, maintenance and repairment operations.
The example of “parcul carol I” (carol I park) is in this respect very useful and illustrative, with values getting well above the medium level of the results chart for several specific months or for entire groups of months, for each of the four years that have been taken into account in this research. In this case, inside the medium range values of all the searches for this combination of words, the yearly peaks are always in between the months of April and August. If known and if taken into account in a managerial decision, this data could make the difference between a successful event organized in the park, that is popular, and a less noticed one in the public space. The value of this research methodology lays in the fact that a park manager, an institution director, a cultural festival organizer, an advertising project director or other key players can better understand by using it, like when is the most appropriate period of the year to organize a certain public event or how to advertise for a cultural, touristic or a complex social product and benefit from the maximum flow or interest of the public.
Being a study based on data collection and modelling over several years, specific trends can be drawn out of it. They are also relevant in medium-term economic planning such as in project application for funding that aims to cover several years. This data can be submitted as a part of a larger application file in order to receive funds for specific activities, investments and social or media projects projected over more than one year.
In the same logic but the other way around, these decision makers might consider to not swim against the yearly trends when aiming to launch such a product or event in a period of the year when the public is not present so much in that particular urban space, like the Carol I Park in Bucharest.
Depending on the structure of an advertising campaign, by using the methodological tools proposed by this article, its promoters will be able to see dynamically if and when the scale of the public interest moves up and also to quantify and model a set of numerical values of the monthly searches relative to the advertising input. The efficacy of the advertising messages will then be seen in these graphics starting with the next month following that of the online searches when the web data will be made available for the analysis platforms. Such an important advantage provided by this method for assessing and targeting the advertising campaigns will greatly impact the invested time, money and professional image.
Therefore, any provider or investor in such campaigns, as it is interested in using the capital flow for advertising in the right way and in the correct directions, will look to modulate or even stop the campaign if the feedback instruments will point out that way. The methodology proposed in this article can serve exactly as such a diagnosis and referential tool.
The chart of the total number of searches performed by the users on Google platform, regarding the Carol I Park and the other three objectives located in the park, between February 2018 and January 2022, as well as the percentage breakdown on the respective objectives, is presented in Figure 11.

3.2. Validation Results

As I have previously developed at length, the research carried out consisted of the following steps being carried out in parallel:
-
A single database, built from semantic derivatives and phrases that define and expand the characteristics of the park and its components as well as events/actions carried out within the park, was created;
-
The established database was then run in both software programs GetKeywords and Google Ads, generating numerical results;
-
These results from running in both programs were processed complementary with the help of Excel in order to calculate the values consisting of the systematic summation of the values, broken down monthly and multi-yearly, with the aim of finally obtaining the total number of searches per objective;
-
Finally, the numerical data, generated by the processing in Excel of the values run in both programs, were automatically illustrated by Excel, graphically demonstrating a quasi-parallelism of the trends, showing a margin of tolerance of 15–14%.
As Figure 12 shows, the numerical results obtained in both software were constantly similar and correspondent, in terms of trends and value ranges, yet not identical, as each software has a different internal algorithm and tolerance processing.
The difference between the two programs consists of their functionalities: while Google Ads is a professional program—the online advertising platform developed by Google—GetKeywords is an online keyword research tool.
The primary purpose of Google Ads is to help users discover keywords relevant to their business and gain insight into search volume and competition for those keywords. So, Google Ads allows users to create and manage advertising campaigns. These campaigns can include text, other graphics and video. Users can select keywords relevant to their business and bid to rank for positions. Google Ads provides detailed data about campaign performance, including clicks, cost-per-click (C.P.C.), click-through rate (C.T.R.), conversions and more. Data are collected automatically and can be exported or viewed in various reports and analysis tools.
GetKeywords is an online keyword research tool. Its primary purpose is to help users discover keywords relevant to their business and gain insight into search volume and competition for those keywords. So, users enter relevant keywords or phrases into GetKeywords, and the tool provides information on monthly search volume, competition difficulty, estimated cost-per-click and other relevant data for the selected keywords.
Google Ads provides real-time performance data for ad campaigns, including data on costs, clicks and conversions. GetKeywords, on the other hand, provides data on search volume and keyword competition but does not provide performance data.
Google Ads requires an advertising budget and auctions to gain visibility, while GetKeywords is primarily used for keyword research and does not directly involve advertising spend.
In conclusion, Google Ads and GetKeywords serve different purposes and provide different types of data. Google Ads is suitable for those who want to place and manage advertising campaigns, while GetKeywords is useful for researching and identifying keywords relevant to their online marketing strategy. Using both tools can be complementary in developing an effective online advertising strategy.
Thus, in order to obtain similar data from the point of view of relevance for research, we had to eliminate, from the results obtained by running the topic in Google Ads, the terms denoting commercial information. This was conducted by accessing the Keyword Planner, a specific function of the Google Ads platform. In this way, terms such as cost-per-click or competition were eliminated.

4. Discussions

4.1. The Research Implication and Practical Application

The research carried out is focused on the evaluation of the volume and dynamics of accesses by Bucharest users of the Google platform regarding the Carol I Park.
Citizens’ perception of a historical urban park represents an indicator of the user’s degree of knowledge for the cultural and touristic role, the functionality and the multidisciplinary potential of using that specific green area, being able to constitute an essential tool in shaping a sustainable management strategy for institutional, urban, and local marketing. As has been highlighted in other studies, it is important to know that currently the virtual environment is the framework for forming, sharing and influencing user preferences toward a specific environment [70,71,72], and based on them, their probable behavioral matrix in the respective environment can be outlined [73].
The importance of evaluating online sources lies in the fact that the Internet and mobile communication technologies are transforming the process of knowledge discovery [74,75] to the extent that digital data, devices and platforms lead to a rethinking of assumptions vis à vis of social science methods regarding transactional actors, heterogeneity, visualization, continuous time, whole populations, granularity, expertise, mobile and mobilizing and non-coherence [76].
Currently, the Internet is an accelerator of changes in administration policies because it allows the involvement of stakeholders (citizens—consumers/users/beneficiaries) through a multitude of forms [77]. Online marketing is currently the widest framework for expression and exchange of opinions, being able to decisively influence the public’s image vis à vis a product, service, or territory because it is not limited to a specific geographical area; it is easily accessed and unlimited by/to the potential of actual consumers, allowing access to a large volume of information through a site, and sites are characterized by a large margin of customization [78].
Thus, the methodology used in this study represents a first step in evaluating the significance of the Carol I park for the citizens of Bucharest. Its results can establish the starting point in the development of a strategy for the sustainable management of the area because it contributes to the provision of analysis indicators for the realization of the SWOT matrix. Therefore, if the results of this pre-visit analysis can be the starting point for initiating an administration strategy, the results obtained by the other researchers carried out so far (post-visit) represent indicators for correcting the directions of action for an already implemented administration strategy.
These research works carried out have focused on the analysis of the data obtained following the monitoring of the citizens who have already accessed the parks, evaluating the impact they had on them. These investigations included both types of the residents’ monitoring: quantitative and qualitative.
Thus, the data obtained through quantitative monitoring were the result of direct observation at the measurement site with the help of different means of counting for the number and frequency of the visitors [79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89], the results are considered the most important indicator for the area’s level of use, as they are specific, objective, repeatable and manageable [80,81,82,90].
Also, a sustainable approach to the territorial marketing required a comprehensive “X-ray” for the visitors’ use of urban green spaces through the qualitative monitoring consisting in the application of opinion polls [91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103], through phenomenological investigation, consisting of conducting interviews on the structure and essence of the lived experience [104,105,106,107,108,109] or by manipulating photographs depicting characteristic and individualizing aspects of parks that render the link between stimuli and feeling [110,111,112,113,114,115].
On the other hand, the present research, focused on the investigation and evaluation of existing online information about the Carol I Park in Bucharest, revealed the social presence of specific information about this urban area that can indicate the existence of civic opinions, thus determining the future frequency level. At the same time, the performed analysis outlined the perception level of the park’s component objectives, influenced by their administrative dissociation.
The research generated the following questions:
-
Can an informed opinion be formed about the value and importance of this urban historical park under the conditions where there are exclusively external to the area (blogs, online press articles and social networks) opinion-forming data?
-
Can the image, the message to the public and the cultural offer of the managed objective be effectively promoted without dedicated information on the web?
-
Can a marketing and advertising policy be effective without evaluating the potential visitor levels and dynamics of interest expressed by the number of online searches?
The results of the research carried out on the citizens’ level of knowledge about the Carol I Park can contribute to the outline of a sustainable management strategy for this area because the park administration can form a clear picture on the visibility and popularity of the area among potential visitors, taking into consideration numerical data reflecting the following:
  • How many citizens know about the existence of the Carol I Park?
  • How many citizens have information about Carol I Park and its component objectives?
  • How many objectives of the Carol I Park are searched for/appreciated by the citizens?
  • Which is the most/least searched objective within the Carol I Park composition?
  • In which calendar period is information requested/not requested or less/more requested about Carol I Park and its objectives?
Based on these values, the park administration can find out the degree to which this urban area meets/does not meet the expectations and fulfillment of the leisure needs of the citizens, being able to evaluate the status of the park and its component objectives by identifying the strong and weak points, hence acting to establish a sustainable management policy. Thus, by examining the monthly and annual values resulting for the four-year period discussed, the park administration can observe their fluctuation, being able to identify the factors that determine an increased interest of the citizens toward a certain objective of the park, a certain component feature of the park or, on the contrary, a low interest to the point of not knowing the respective objective/component feature of the park. At the same time, the park administration can conduct an analysis to answer the reason for the differences in citizens’ interest from season to season/year to year by identifying the influencing factors. This analysis thus leads to the identification of existing resources in order to adapt to the demands and needs of the park’s potential visitors. Also, the results of the performed analysis contribute to the forecasting of change trends and to the inclusion in the decision-making process of the administration.
In this way, the processing of the data resulting from the research methodology can serve as a valuable tool in understanding the dynamics of the popularity for different cultural and touristic objectives or products designed over a certain period of time. This can prove essential to successfully design and promote various events such as annual fairs, concerts, exhibitions, festivals, workshops, etc. and to avoid losing money or falling short on the potential of these initiatives. It is one thing to invest capital in organizing such an event based on a subjective managerial decision or a limited understanding of the interest dynamics of the target group in the area where the said product is about to be launched, and another to invest capital and organize that event following the peaks of interest of the target audience, revealed by the present research methodology.
In addition to understanding what people are looking for and the dynamics of their interest over a period related to a certain cultural or touristic product, the methodological approach proposed in this study is also relevant from a legal point of view, as it involves the use of third parties. An employee presenting a report to a decision-making board of members or to his superior, or a manager presenting an investment project to a local authority or to the Government, can always use the important fact that the data are obtained from a third party, and thus, they can be legally and independently externally verified.
This method is useful to ensure a better management of historical parks and represents a real support in decision making by park administrations. Park administrations can determine the citizens degree of knowledge toward an urban territory through the lens of online resources, as a way of evaluating them because they have established themselves as the most accessible means of information, thus influencing and forming users’ opinions [116,117,118], primarily due to the time these users spend online [74].
Therefore, the importance of the obtained results is given by the contribution of this method of evaluating the perception of the main actors on the processes and phenomena in a geographical space, to increasing the relevance of the established methodologies in the analysis of the geographical space, for the foundation of public policies. Thus, the proposed methodology can have a significant contribution in research on the assessment of the economic impact of anthropogenic interventions in the ecosystem [119,120,121], risk management in emerging territorial systems [122,123], as well as in structural analyses of the profile of local economies [124,125,126], where the correct assessment of the population’s perception of the phenomena is an essential element.
An advantage of using the presented research method is the much shorter period of time for obtaining results, compared to that required by using the other monitoring methods, both quantitative (manual or automatic counting and centralization and processing the data) and qualitative (performing opinion polls, individual interviews, focus groups or manipulation of characteristic images). Also, using the methodology of this research requires both low logistics (a PC connected online) and minimal staff (one person). These translate into cost, time and personnel savings at the park administration level.

4.2. Limitations

The limitations of the conducted research consist primarily in the fact that it represents only an ante-visit analysis, focusing on the existence/non-existence of primary information that determines a potential visit of citizens. Also, the numerical results of the performed analysis represent only a quantitative monitoring method for the citizens volume of online access in relation to the Carol I Park and its component objectives.
As demonstrated in previous visitor monitoring research, a more comprehensive radiography of the visitor’s degree of use for the respective urban areas requires a combination of monitoring methods [80,84,85,127] by carrying out a qualitative evaluation of data, with a complementary role to their quantitative evaluation [128], thus offering a sustainable approach to territorial marketing. To carry out a complex analysis in order to evaluate the strategic position of the respective green area, as well as to visualize all the impact factors for influencing visiting the park, it is necessary to combine the pre-visit analysis with the post-visit analysis.
On the other hand, the numerical results obtained using the methodology of this research, represent the total volume of online accesses related to the Carol Park and its objectives, not being able to make a dissociation between the online accesses of citizens who intend to make a visit for the first time and the online accesses of those who have already made a visit to this urban area.
A limitation of the study was the fact that during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021), which partially coincided with the time period analyzed (2018–2021), public access to public spaces was prohibited. As such, the searches of users of the Google platform were directed in the direction of finding the means of entertainment and relaxation at home and less in the direction of seeking outdoor activities.
Also, the limitations of the research consist in the fact that only the accesses of the users of the Google platform were taken into account. At the same time, the impact of searches performed exclusively after the presence of the subject on social networks was omitted.

4.3. Direction for Future Research

Based on this study, a direction for future research will be able to combine pre-visit and post-visit analyses (and to compare them), highlighting the evolution of the citizens’ degree of satisfaction, requirements and expectations, mirrored through the validation/invalidation of the park administration′s management strategy. Also, another direction of future research could be an extension of the present research by counting and evaluating the online accesses related to Carol I Park from areas outside of Bucharest.
On the other hand, the obtained results open a series of new research directions on the territorial reality, which include perception analyses in the structural analyses of the local economy, in the elaboration of urban development policies, in the functional reconversion of the geographical space as well as in the new approaches to place auditing or place marketing.

5. Conclusions

The analysis of this research revealed the importance of evaluating the citizens’ level of knowledge regarding a specific urban territory. Their knowledge was deconstructed by analyzing the number and structure of their online searches, reflecting their level of interest toward the respective territory, which may or may not determine a subsequent visit. At the same time, the study highlighted a hierarchy of popularity in online searches of the generic cultural objective “Carol I Park” and its component cultural objectives.
The value of this research methodology lays in the fact that a park manager, an institution director, a cultural festival organizer, an advertising project director or other key players can better understand, by using it, when is the most appropriate period of the year to organize a certain public event or how to advertise for a cultural, touristic or a complex social product and benefit from the maximum flow or interest of the public. In the same logic but the other way around, these decision makers might consider to not swim against the yearly trends when aiming to launch such a product or event in a period of the year when the public is not present so much in that particular urban space, like the Carol I Park in Bucharest.
Depending on the structure of an advertising campaign, by using the methodological tools proposed by this article, its promoters will be able to see dynamically if and when the scale of the public interest moves up and also to quantify and model a set of numerical values of the monthly searches relative to the advertising input. The efficacy of the advertising messages will then be seen in these graphics starting with the next month following that of the online searches when the web data will be made available for the analysis platforms. Such an important advantage provided using this method for assessing and targeting the advertising campaigns will greatly impact the invested time, money and professional image. Therefore, any provider or investor in such campaigns, as it is interested in using the capital flow for advertising in the right way and in the correct directions, will look to modulate or even stop the campaign if the feedback instruments will point out that way. The methodology proposed in this article can serve exactly as such a diagnosis and referential tool.
Therefore, the evaluation of the citizens’ level of interest, expressed by the volume and type of their online searches in relation to an urban territory, can be constituted as an “image barometer” of the respective urban territory, thus being able to influence the managerial decisions, leading to a sustainable exploitation and capitalization strategy of that area.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: T.B. and S.M.; Methodology: T.B., S.M. and C.O.; Resources: A.H. and C.O.; Software: S.M. and A.H.; Validation: C.O.; Writing—original draft preparation: T.B.; Writing—review and editing: T.B. and S.M.; Supervision: C.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the producers of the GetKeywords software for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdel-Rahman, N.H. Alexandria’s cultural landscapes: Historical parks between originality and deterioration. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2017, 170, 73–83. [Google Scholar]
  2. Guillén, M.A.; Ochoa, J. The Plaza del Rey in Cartagena, Spain, 1751–2014. A case of social and spatial destruction. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1189, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Guillén, M.A.; Ochoa, J. Interventions and transformation in a historical landscaped public space: The Plaza de San Francisco in Cartagena, Spain. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1189, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kanellou, E.; Papafotiou, M. Restoration of the historic gardens of the former royal estate of Tatoi. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1189, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Marougka, E.; Paraskevopoulou, A. The design of the surroundings of Rizarios Ecclesiastical School and a proposal for its regeneration. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1189, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gullino, P.; Devecchi, M.; Larcher, F. New sustainable approach for historical garden restoration: The case study of Ludwig Winter’s Gardens in Liguria Region. Acta Hortic. 2020, 1279, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Battisti, L.; Corsini, F.; Gusmerotti, N.M.; Larcher, F. Management and Perception of Metropolitan Natura 2000 Sites: A Case Study of La Mandria Park (Turin, Italy). Sustainability 2019, 11, 6169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Paraskevopoulou, A.; Klados, A.; Chrysovalantis, M. Historical Public Parks: Investigating Contemporary Visitor Needs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Woudstra, J. Introduction: The regeneration of public parks. In The Regeneration of Public Parks; Woudstra, J., Fieldhouse, K., Eds.; E & FN Spon: London, UK, 2000; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hosagrahar, J.; Soule, J.; Fusco Girard Potts, A.; Cultural Heritage, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the New Urban Agenda. ICOMOS, 15 February 2016. Available online: http://www.usicomos.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/Final-Concept-Note.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2022).
  11. Chiesura, A. The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chang, C.Y.; Chen, P.K. Human Responses to Window Views and Indoor Plants in the Workplace. Hortic. Sci. 2005, 40, 1354–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Coley, R.; Kuo, F.; Sullivan, W. Where does Community Grow? The Social Context Created by Nature in Urban Public Housing. Environ. Behav. 1997, 29, 468–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hartig, T.; Mang, M.; Evans, G. Restorative Effects of Natural Environments Experiences. Environ. Behav. 1991, 23, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kaplan, R. The Analysis of Perception via Preference: A Strategy for Studying How the Environment is Experienced. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1983, 12, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kuo, F.E.; Bacaioca, M.; Sullivan, W.C. Transforming Inner City Landscapes: Trees, Sense of Safety, and Preferences. Environ. Behav. 1998, 1, 28–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Peters, K. Being together in Urban Parks: Connecting Public Space. Leis. Sci. 2010, 32, 418–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rosenberger, R.S.; Bergerson, T.R.; Kline, J.D. Macro-Linkages between Health and Outdoor Recreation: The Role of Parks and Recreation Providers. J. Parks Recreat. Adm. 2009, 27, 8–20. [Google Scholar]
  19. Schroeder, H.W. Preferences and Meaning of Arboretum Landscapes: Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Data. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 231–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ulrich, R.S. Natural versus Urban Sciences: Some Psycho-Sociological Effects. Environ. Behav. 1981, 13, 523–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ajzen, I. Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 27–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Larson, K. Social Acceptability of Water Resource Management: A Conceptual Approach and Empirical Findings from Portland, Oregon. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2009, 45, 879–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Owens, S.; Driffill, L. How to Change Attitudes and Behaviors in the Context of Energy. Energy Policy 2008, 38, 4412–4418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vaske, J.J.; Donnelly, M.P. A Value-Attitude- Behavior Model Predicting Wildland Preservation Voting Intensions. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1999, 12, 523–537. [Google Scholar]
  25. Verschuure-Stuip, G. Long Live the Genius Loci–Research to the Embedding of Urban and Landscape Architectural Designs to the Context for New Transformations. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism (IFoU), Amsterdam/Delft, 2009: The New Urban Question–Urbanism beyond Neo-Liberalism, Delft, The Netherlands, 26–28 November 2009. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wuisang, C.E.V. Defining Genius Loci and Qualifying Cultural Landscape. Doctoral Thesis, The University of Adelaide–Faculty of Professions, School of Architecture and Build Environment, Adelaide, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  27. Harney, M. ‘Genius Loci’ Restored: The Challenge of Adaptive Reuse in Conservation Adaptation. Keeping Alive the Spirit of the Place. Adaptive Reuse of Heritage with Symbolic Value; IEAAE Transactions on Architectural Education; European Association for Architectural Education: Hasselt, Belgium, 2017; pp. 151–162. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pittalunga, D. Capturing the Spirit of the Place. A Special Conservation for Intangible Heritage in Conservation Adaptation. Keeping Alive the Spirit of the Place. Adaptive Reuse of Heritage with Symbolic Value; EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education; European Association for Architectural Education: Hasselt, Belgium, 2017; pp. 247–253. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sorbo, E. The Project as Re-Signification between ‘Lieux de Mémoire’ and ‘Lieux d’Histoire’ in Conservation Adaptation. Keeping Alive the Spirit of the Place. Adaptive Reuse of Heritage with Symbolic Value; EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education; European Association for Architectural Education: Hasselt, Belgium, 2017; pp. 283–292. [Google Scholar]
  30. Stepanchuk, A.; Gafurova, S.; Latypova, M. «Genius Loci» as a resource for the development of historical areas of the city. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 890, 012013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vecco, M. Genius Loci as a Meta-Concept. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 41, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rudnicka-Bogusz, M. The Genius loci Issue in the Revalorization of Post-Military Complexes: Selected Case Studies in Legnica (Poland). Buildings 2022, 12, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Heft, H. Affordances in the landscape. In Proceedings of the Innovative Approaches to Research Excellence in Landscape and Health, Edinburgh, UK, 19–21 September 2007; pp. 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  34. Moilanen, T.; Rainisto, S. How to brand Nations, Cities and Destinations. A Planning Book for Place Branding; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rainisto, S.K. Success Factors of Place Marketing: A Study of Place Marketing Practices in Northern Europe and the United States. Doctoral Dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chatzidakis, A.; McEachern, M.; Warnaby, G. Consumption In and Of Space and Place: Introduction to the Special Issue. Mark. Theory 2018, 18, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Soja, E.W. Third Space: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places; Blackwell: Malden, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  38. Montgomery, J. Making a city: Urbanity, Vitality and Urban Design. J. Urban Des. 1998, 3, 93–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Smaldone, D.; Harris, C.; Sanyal, N. An exploration of place as a process: The case of Jackson Hole, WY. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 397–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ujang, N.; Zakariya, K. The Notion of Place, Place Meaning and Identity in Urban Regeneration. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 170, 709–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Steadman, R.C. Is it just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place? Soc. Nat. Resour. Int. J. 2003, 16, 671–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Savage, M. The politics of elective belonging. Hous. Theory Soc. 2010, 27, 115–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stephenson, J. People and place. Plan. Theory Pract. 2010, 11, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Anholt, S. Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2007; p. 26. [Google Scholar]
  45. Vazhenina, I.S. Image and reputation of the territory. Reg. Econ. Theory Pract. 2010, 23, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  46. Vazhenina, I.S. On the essence of the territory brand. Econ. Reg. 2011, 3, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cohen, D.A.; Marsh, T.; Williamson, S.; Derose, K.P.; Martinez, H.; Setodji, C.; McKenzie, T.L. Parks and physical activity: Why are some parks used more than others? Prev. Med. 2010, 50 (Suppl. S1), S9–S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Giles-Corti, B.; Broomhall, M.H.; Knuiman, M.; Collins, C.; Douglas, K.; Ng, K.; Lange, A.; Donovan, R.J. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28 (Suppl. S2), 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wright Wendel, H.E.; Zarger, R.K.; Mihelcic, J.R. Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, S.; Zhou, W. Recreational visits to urban parks and factors affecting park visits: Evidence from geotagged social media data. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 180, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Grow, H.M.; Saelens, B.E.; Kerr, J.; Durant, N.H.; Norman, G.J.; Sallis, J.F. Where are youth active? Roles of proximity, active transport, and built environment. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, 2071–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mowen, A.; Orsega-Smith, E.; Payne, L.; Ainsworth, B.; Godbey, G. The role of park proximity and social support in shaping park visitation, physical activity, and perceived health among older adults. J. Phys. Act. Health 2007, 4, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, H.; Chen, B.; Sun, Z.; Bao, Z. Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, W.; Yang, J.; Ma, L.; Huang, C. Factors affecting the use of urban green spaces for physical activities: Views of young urban residents in Beijing. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 851–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jansson, M.; Fors, H.; Lindgren, T.; Wiström, B. Perceived personal safety in relation to urban woodland vegetation—A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, D.; Brown, G.; Liu, Y. The physical and non-physical factors that influence perceived access to urban parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 133, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sugiyama, T.; Ward Thompson, C. Associations between characteristics of neighborhood open space and older people’s walking. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Giurescu, C.C. Istoria Bucureștilor Din Cele Mai Vechi Timpuri Până în Zilele Noastre; Enciclopedică: Bucharest, Romania, 1966; pp. 173, 323, 397. [Google Scholar]
  59. Potra, G. Din Bucureștii de Ieri; Științifică și Enciclopedică: Bucharest, Romania, 1990; pp. 338–342. [Google Scholar]
  60. Parusi, G. De la Câmpul Filaretului la Parcul Carol I. Bibl. Bucureștilor 2004, 11, 9–93. [Google Scholar]
  61. Damé, F. Bucureștiul în 1906; Paralela 45: Bucharest, Romania, 2007; pp. 609–611. [Google Scholar]
  62. Majuru, A. De la ” Grădina Filaret” la ”Parcul Regele Carol I”. Muzeul Munic. București 2017, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  63. Clark, P. The European City and Green Space: London, Stockholm, Helsinki, and St. Petersburg 1850–2000; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  64. Schenker, H.M. Melodramatic Landscapes: Urban Parks in the Nineteenth Century; University of Virginia Press: Charlottesville/London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  65. Butenschön, S.; Sāumel, I. Between cultural and ecological processes: Historical plant use in communal parks in Berlin, Germany. J. Landsc. Archit. 2011, 6, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. României, E. Enciclopedia României–1939; Imprimeria Naţională: București, Romania, 1939; Volume IV, pp. 293–296, 304. [Google Scholar]
  67. Chelcea, L. Bucureștiul Postindustrial: Memorie, Dezindustrializare și Regenerare Urbană; Polirom: Iași, Romania, 2008; p. 106. [Google Scholar]
  68. Edwards, S.L.; Bruce, C.S. Reflective Internet searching: An action research model. Learn. Organ. 2002, 9, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kurt, A.A.; Emiroglu, B.G. Analysis of Students’ Online Information Searching Strategies, Exposure to Internet Information Pollution and Cognitive Absorption Levels Based on Various Variables. Malays. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2017, 6, 18–29. [Google Scholar]
  70. Neti, S. Social media and its role in marketing. Int. J. Enterp. Comput. Bus. Syst. 2011, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mangold, W.G.; Faulds, D.J. Social Media: The New Hybrid Element of the Promotion Mix. Bus. Horiz. 2009, 52, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. McCay-Peet, L.; Quan-Haase, A. What is social media and what questions can social media research help us answer. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods; SAGE: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2017; pp. 13–26. [Google Scholar]
  73. Aspinall, P.A.; Ward-Thomson, C.; Alves, S.; Alves, T.; Sugiyama, T.; Brice, R.; Vickers, A. Prioritizing factors influencing visits to greenspace: Conjoint analysis. In Proceedings of the Innovative Approaches to Research Excellence in Landscape and Health, Edinburgh, UK, 19–21 September 2007; pp. 35–39. [Google Scholar]
  74. Cojocea, A. The Effect of Social Media on the Decision-Making Process; Paper Within Digital Marketing and Social Media; Jönköping Univrsity—School of Engineering: Jönköping, Sweden, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  75. Nielsen, J.S. Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews. Resour. Energy Econ. 2011, 1, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ruppert, E.; Law, J.; Savage, M. Reassembling social science methods: The challenge of digital devices. Theory Cult. Soc. 2013, 30, 22–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gutterman, B. (Ed.) Internet as a catalyst for change: Access, development, freedoms, and innovation. In Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, Nairobi, Kenya, 27–30 September 2011. Available online: https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/publications/176-internet-as-a-catalyst-for-change-access-development-freedoms-and-innovations/file (accessed on 30 December 2020).
  78. Javed, L. Online Marketing through consumers: A Study of the Effectiveness of various Tools and Techniques across industries. Br. J. Mark. Stud. 2013, 1, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  79. Xia, J.; Arrowsmiths, C.A.; Gimblett, R.; Skov-Petersen, H. Techniques for counting and tracking the spatial and temporal movement of visitors. In Monitoring, Simulation, and Management of Visitor Landscapes; The University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2008; pp. 85–105. [Google Scholar]
  80. Hornbach, K.E.; Eagles, P.F.J. Guidelines for Public Use Measurement and Reporting at Parks and Protected Areas; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  81. Cessford, G.; Cockburn, S.; Douglas, M. Developing new visitor counters and their application for management. In Proceedings of the Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, Vienna, Austria, 30 January–2 February 2002. [Google Scholar]
  82. Kajala, L.; Almik, A.; Dahl, R.; Dikšaitė, L.; Erkkonen, J.; Fredman, P.; Jensen, F.; Søndergaard, K.; Sievānen, T.; Skov-Petersen, H.; et al. Visitor Monitoring in Nature Areas—A Manual Based on Experiences from the Nordic and Baltic Countries; Nordic Council of Ministers; Naturvårdsverket and Metsähallitus: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  83. Skov-Petersen, H.; Meilby, H.; Jensen, F.S. Applying data from Automatic Visitor Counters to Agent-Based Models. In Monitoring, Simulation, and Management of Visitor Landscapes; The University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2008; pp. 123–142. [Google Scholar]
  84. Watson, A.E.; Cole, D.N.; Turner, D.L.; Reynolds, P.S. Wilderness Recreation Use Estimation: A Handbook of Methods and Systems; General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-56; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  85. Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Brandenburg, C.H. Methods for Visitor Monitoring in Recreational and Protected Areas: An Overview. In Proceedings of the Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, Vienna, Austria, 30 January–2 February 2002. [Google Scholar]
  86. Fredman, P. Modeling visitor expenditures at Fulefjället National Park, Sweden, Exploring the nature of management. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, Rapperswil, Switzerland, 13–17 September 2006. [Google Scholar]
  87. Gimblett, R.; Itami, R.; Cable, S. Recreation Visitation in Misty Fjords National Monument in the Tongass National Forest. Computer Simulation Modelling of Recreation Use: Current Status, Case Studies and Futures Directions; General Technical Report; USDA/FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  88. Weitowitz, D.; Chris-Panter, C.; Hoskin, R.; Liley, D. Parking provision at nature conservation sites and its implications for visitor use. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 190, 103597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Gimblett, R.; Skov-Petersen, H. (Eds.) Monitoring, Simulation, and Management of Visitor Landscapes; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2008; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  90. Manning, R.E. Parks and Carrying Capacity. Commons without Tragedy; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  91. Petrunoff, N.A.; Yi, N.X.; Dickens, B.; Sia, A.; Koo, J.; Alex, R.; Cook, A.R.; Lin, W.H.; Lu, Y.; Hsing, A.W.; et al. Associations of park access, park use and physical activity in parks with wellbeing in an Asian urban environment: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2021, 18, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Aspinall, P.A.; Casey, S.; Lanthier, C.; Le, L. Parks in South End Guelph; Final Project Report for Geography 2260: Applied Human Geography, 2017, Winter; University of Guelph: Guelph, ON, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  93. Lee, Y.-C.; Kim, K.-H. Attitudes of Citizens towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces for Urban Sustainability: The Case of Gyeongsan City, Republic of Korea. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8240–8254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Rouhi, M.; Monfared, M.R.; Forsat, M. Measuring Public Satisfaction on Urban Parks (A Case Study: Sari City). J. Hist. Cult. Art Res. 2016, 5, 457–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tucker, P.; Gilliland, J.; Irwin, J.D. Splashpads, swings, and shade: Parents’ preferences for neighborhood parks. Can. J. Public Heath/Rev. Can. Santé Publique 2007, 98, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Flowers, E.P.; Timperio, A.; Hesketh, K.D.; Veitch, J. Examining the Features of Parks That Children Visit During Three Stages of Childhood. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Alves, S.; Aspinall, P.A.; Ward-Thomson, C.; Sugiyama, T.; Brice, R.; Vickers, A. Preferences of older people for environmental attributes of local parks: The use of choice-based conjoint analysis. Facilities 2008, 26, 433–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Aspinall, P.A.; Ward-Thompson, C.; Alves, S.; Sugiyama, T.; Brice, R.; Vickers, A. Preference and Relative Importance for Environmental Attributes of Neighborhood Open Space in Older People. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2010, 37, 1022–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Costigan, S.A.; Veitch, J.; Crawford, D.; Carver, A.; Timperio, A. A Cross-Sectional Investigation of the Importance of Park Features for Promoting Regular Physical Activity in Parks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Roberts, H.; Kellar, I.; Conner, M.; Gidlow, C.; Kelly, B.; Nieuvenhuisjen, M.; McEachan, R. Associations between park features, park satisfaction and park use in a multi-ethnic deprived urban area. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 46, 126485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Peters, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jennings, V.; Bamkole, O. The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 16, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Edwards, N.; Hooper, P.; Knuiman, M.; Foster, S.; Giles-Corti, B. Associations between park features and adolescent park use for physical activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Talal, M.L.; Santelmann, M.V.; Tilt, J.H. Urban Park visitor preferences for vegetation—An on-site qualitative research study. Plants People Planet 2021, 3, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Doğrusoy, İ.T.; Zengel, R. Analysis of perceived safety in urban parks: A field study in Büyük Park and Hasanağa Park. J. Fac. Archit. 2017, 1, 63–84. [Google Scholar]
  106. Cohen, D.A.; Golinelli, D.; Williamson, S.; Sehgal, A. Effects of Park Improvements on Park Use and Physical Activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2009, 37, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Krenichyn, K. ‘The only place to go and be in the city’: Women talk about exercise, being outdoors, and the meanings of a large urban park. Health Place 2006, 12, 631–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Veitch, J.; Flowers, E.; Ball, K.; Deforche, B.; Timperio, A. Exploring Children’s Views on Important Park Features: A Qualitative Study Using Walk-Along Interviews. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Babey, S.H.; Hastert, T.A.; Yu, H.; Brown, R. Physical Activity Among Adolescents. When Do Parks Matter? Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 345–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Mertens, L.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Veitch, J.; Deforche, B.; Van Dyck, D. Differences in park characteristic preferences for visitation and physical activity among adolescents: A latent class analysis. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0212920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Parker, K.; Bangay, S.; Deforche, B.; Timperio, A. Adolescents’ ratings of features of parks that encourage park visitation and physical activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Van Hecke, L.; Gherkiere, A.; Van Cauwenberg, J.; Veitch, J.; Bourdeaudhuij, I.D.; Van Dyck, D.; Clarys, P.; Weghe, N.V. Park characteristics preferred for adolescent park visitation and physical activity: A choice-based conjoint analysis using manipulated photographs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Van Dyck, D.; Hecke, L.V.; Gherkiere, A.; Cauwenberg, J.V.; Vetch, J.; Bourdeaudhui, I.D.; Clarys, P.; Weghe, N.V.; Deforche, B. Which Park Characteristics Influence the Invitingness for Park Visitation and Park-Based Physical Activity in Adolescents? A Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Using Photographs; University of Bern: Bern, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  114. Rivera, E.; Timperio, A.; Loh, V.H.; Benedicte, D.; Veitch, J. Important Park features for encouraging park visitation, physical activity and social interaction among adolescents: A conjoint analysis. Health Place 2021, 70, 102617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Hadavi, S.; Kaplan, R.; Hunter, M.C.R. Environmental affordances: A practical approach for design of nearby outdoor settings in urban residential areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Caumont, A. 12 Trends Shaping DIGITAL News. 2013. Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/620959/12-trends-shaping-digital-news/1602185/ (accessed on 18 July 2022).
  117. Shearer, E.; Matsa, K. News Use Across Social Media Platforms. 2018. Available online: https://www.journalism.org/2018/09/10/news-use-across-social-media-platforms2018/1282018 (accessed on 18 July 2022).
  118. Burbach, L.; Halbach, P.; Ziefle, M.; Calero-Valvez, A. Influence of Personality, Network Structure, and Content on Sharing Messages Online. Front. Artif. Intell. 2020, 3, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Peptenatu, D.; Merciu, C.; Merciu, G.; Draghici, C.; Cercleux, L. Specific features of environment risk management in emerging territorial structures. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2012, 7, 135–143. [Google Scholar]
  120. Draghici, C.C.; Andronache, I.; Ahammer, H.; Peptenatu, D.; Pintilii, R.D.; Ciobotaru, A.M.; Simion, A.G.; Dobrea, R.C.; Diaconu, D.C.; Visan, M.C.; et al. Spatial evolution of forest areas in the northern Carpathian Mountains of Romania. Acta Montan. Slovaca 2017, 22, 95–106. [Google Scholar]
  121. Petrisor, A.I.; Andronache, I.; Petrisor, L.E.; Ciobotaru, A.M.; Peptenatu, D. Assessing the fragmentation of the green infrastructure in Romanian cities using fractal models and numerical taxonomy. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 32, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Peptenatu, D.; Pintilii, R.D.; Draghici, C.; Stoian, D. Environmental pollution in functionally restructured urban areas: Case study—The city of Bucharest. Iran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2010, 7, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
  123. Braghina, C.; Peptenatu, D.; Draghici, C.; Pintilii, R.D.; Schvab, A. Territorial management within the systems affected by mining. Case study the South-Western Development Region in Romania. Iran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2011, 8, 315–324. [Google Scholar]
  124. Draghici, C.C.; Pintilii, R.D.; Peptenatu, D.; Comanescu, L.G.; Sirodoev, I. The Role of SPA Tourism in the Development of Local Economies from Romania, 2ND Global Conference on Business, Economics, Management and Tourism. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 23, 1573–1577. [Google Scholar]
  125. Pintilii, R.D.; Peptenatu, D.; Draghici, C.; Saghin, I.; Stoian, D.-R. Structural Changes in The Entrepreneurial Profile of The Creative Industries in Romania, 2ND Global Conference on Business, Economics, Management and Tourism. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 23, 1147–1151. [Google Scholar]
  126. Merciu, F.-C.; Cercleux, A.L.; Peptenatu, D. Rosia Montană, Romania: Industrial heritage in situ, between preservation, controversy and cultural recognition. Ind. Archaeol. Rev. 2015, 37, 5–19. [Google Scholar]
  127. Mowen, A.J. Estimating Visitor Occasions and Recreational Visits at an Urban Park District. In Proceedings of the Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, Vienna, Austria, 30 January–2 February 2002; pp. 436–438. [Google Scholar]
  128. McCormack, G.R.; Rock, M.; Toohey, A.M.; Hignell, D. Characteristics of Urban Parks Associated with Park Use and Physical Activity: A Review of Qualitative Research. Health Place 2010, 16, 712–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 14456 g001
Figure 1. Territorial location of the Carol I Park.
Figure 1. Territorial location of the Carol I Park.
Sustainability 15 14456 g001
Sustainability 15 14456 g002
Figure 2. Statutory disparity and administrative dissociation of the Carol I Park component objectives and the conjoint areas of the park: 0—the surface of the territory with the status of green space for public use; 1—National Technical Museum “Prof. Dr. Dimitrie Leonida”; 2—Țepeș Vodă Castle; 3—the Greenhouses and the Administrative Building of the park; 4—The Mausoleum Complex and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier; 5—The Astronomical Institute of the Romanian Academy; 6—The Roman Arenas; and 7—The “Silver Knife” Church, annex buildings and cemetery. We circled the analyzed areas of this paper in red.
Figure 2. Statutory disparity and administrative dissociation of the Carol I Park component objectives and the conjoint areas of the park: 0—the surface of the territory with the status of green space for public use; 1—National Technical Museum “Prof. Dr. Dimitrie Leonida”; 2—Țepeș Vodă Castle; 3—the Greenhouses and the Administrative Building of the park; 4—The Mausoleum Complex and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier; 5—The Astronomical Institute of the Romanian Academy; 6—The Roman Arenas; and 7—The “Silver Knife” Church, annex buildings and cemetery. We circled the analyzed areas of this paper in red.
Sustainability 15 14456 g002
Sustainability 15 14456 g003
Figure 3. Top internet search engines in 2022 (https://www.reliablesoft.net/, accessed on 12 March 2021).
Figure 3. Top internet search engines in 2022 (https://www.reliablesoft.net/, accessed on 12 March 2021).
Sustainability 15 14456 g003
Sustainability 15 14456 g004
Figure 4. Dashboard of the searches carried out in GetKeywords for the main phrases: (A) “carol park”, (B) “carol park mausoleum”, (C) “technical museum” and (D) “roman arenas”. As seen, the software automatically provided additional results of other semantic derivative phrases, which we distinctively ran afterwards.
Figure 4. Dashboard of the searches carried out in GetKeywords for the main phrases: (A) “carol park”, (B) “carol park mausoleum”, (C) “technical museum” and (D) “roman arenas”. As seen, the software automatically provided additional results of other semantic derivative phrases, which we distinctively ran afterwards.
Sustainability 15 14456 g004
Sustainability 15 14456 g005
Figure 5. Excel spreadsheets with the values generated by running, in GetKeywords, the main phrases and their derivatives for the four objectives of the Carol I Park: (A) “carol I park”, (B) “carol I park mausoleum”, (C) “the roman arenas” and (D) “technical museum”.
Figure 5. Excel spreadsheets with the values generated by running, in GetKeywords, the main phrases and their derivatives for the four objectives of the Carol I Park: (A) “carol I park”, (B) “carol I park mausoleum”, (C) “the roman arenas” and (D) “technical museum”.
Sustainability 15 14456 g005
Sustainability 15 14456 g006
Figure 6. Example of Google Ads dashboard for the phrase “carol I park” in the process of validation for the data obtained with GetKeywords platform.
Figure 6. Example of Google Ads dashboard for the phrase “carol I park” in the process of validation for the data obtained with GetKeywords platform.
Sustainability 15 14456 g006
Sustainability 15 14456 g007
Figure 7. Diagrams of search interest for the phrases: (A) “carol I park”, (B) “roman arenas”, (C) “technical museum”, (D) “carol I park mausoleum” and their derivatives.
Figure 7. Diagrams of search interest for the phrases: (A) “carol I park”, (B) “roman arenas”, (C) “technical museum”, (D) “carol I park mausoleum” and their derivatives.
Sustainability 15 14456 g007
Sustainability 15 14456 g008
Figure 8. Annual numerical results of user searches for the phrases: (A) “carol park”, (B) “roman arenas”, (C) “carol park mausoleum”, and (D) “technical museum” for the four-year analyzed period (2018–2021).
Figure 8. Annual numerical results of user searches for the phrases: (A) “carol park”, (B) “roman arenas”, (C) “carol park mausoleum”, and (D) “technical museum” for the four-year analyzed period (2018–2021).
Sustainability 15 14456 g008
Sustainability 15 14456 g009
Figure 9. Numerical results of accesses and their percentage distribution for each of the four main park objectives in each of the four years of the period discussed.
Figure 9. Numerical results of accesses and their percentage distribution for each of the four main park objectives in each of the four years of the period discussed.
Sustainability 15 14456 g009
Sustainability 15 14456 g010
Figure 10. The general medium search values, the peak search values and the medium search values for peak searches for the phrases: (A) “carol park”, (B) “roman arenas”, (C) “carol park mausoleum” and (D) “technical museum” during the four-year analyzed period (2018–2021).
Figure 10. The general medium search values, the peak search values and the medium search values for peak searches for the phrases: (A) “carol park”, (B) “roman arenas”, (C) “carol park mausoleum” and (D) “technical museum” during the four-year analyzed period (2018–2021).
Sustainability 15 14456 g010
Sustainability 15 14456 g011
Figure 11. The total volume of searches related to Carol I Park and the percentage distribution of searches related to the constituent objectives of the park.
Figure 11. The total volume of searches related to Carol I Park and the percentage distribution of searches related to the constituent objectives of the park.
Sustainability 15 14456 g011
Sustainability 15 14456 g012
Figure 12. Comparison chart between search result values obtained in GetKeywords and Google Ads (Keyword Planner) for the phrase “carol park”. Reference comparison interval (12 months): July 2018–June 2019.
Figure 12. Comparison chart between search result values obtained in GetKeywords and Google Ads (Keyword Planner) for the phrase “carol park”. Reference comparison interval (12 months): July 2018–June 2019.
Sustainability 15 14456 g012
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bazac, T.; Marin, S.; Olteanu, C.; Hotoi, A. Sustainable Management Decisions for Urban Historical Parks: A Case Study Based on Online Referential Values of Carol I Park in Bucharest, Romania. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14456. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914456

AMA Style

Bazac T, Marin S, Olteanu C, Hotoi A. Sustainable Management Decisions for Urban Historical Parks: A Case Study Based on Online Referential Values of Carol I Park in Bucharest, Romania. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14456. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914456

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bazac, Titus, Sorin Marin, Cosmin Olteanu, and Anca Hotoi. 2023. "Sustainable Management Decisions for Urban Historical Parks: A Case Study Based on Online Referential Values of Carol I Park in Bucharest, Romania" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14456. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914456

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop